p.3 #1 · Rumored Sony cameras for late 2024 and 2025 - A6900
I guess I have always doubted the idea that a FF sensor is dramatically more expensive than an APS-C sensor. Or that a stacked sensor is dramatically more expensive than a normal BSI sensor.
Just some WAG as I have no actual knowledge. The a6700 is $1260 EDU at B&H, my guess is the parts cost couldn't be more than 50% (need development costs, Sony profit, and B&H profit in the other 50%). Of the parts I'm guessing the sensor isn't more than 50% (25% of total price) and I would think even that is high. So that would put a 26MP APS-C sensor at $315. The FF sensor has 2x the area so that would be 2x FAB costs, so $630 for the 60MP FF sensor. I'm thinking most of the other parts are fairly common between an a6700 and an a7CR. Yet the price of the later is $2700 ($1440 more).
So either the FF has dramatically more profit or the sensor is nearly the entire cost and Sony makes very little on camera sales, with the a6700 almost a loss leader to get people in.
To me it seems like the product segmentation has a lot more profit on the high end and the low end is crippled to force enthusiast into FF. I'm not at all a marketing person, so maybe there is some profit driven business reason not to do stacked APS-C, just like they didn't do BSI APS-C. Mark Galer put out a recommendation to Sony to get into high end APS-C. I don't know if they actually listened to him, but the a6700 seemed to be what he was requesting.
So should APS-C exist in E-Mount? I think it makes sense from a lens perspective even if it doesn't from a sensor perspective. From a business perspective it provides market segmentation, you get the cheap entry into Sony even if the camera isn't dramatically cheaper for Sony to make.
If any of this thinking is garbage I'm happy to hear why. Like I said, just a wild ass guess.
p.3 #2 · Rumored Sony cameras for late 2024 and 2025 - A6900
a6700 almost a loss leader to get people in
That's basically it. We all need to realize that it needs glass and other money making items . Plus once someone has one and uses it than th prospect of full frame comes into play than more money for Sony as people upgrade. More important these APSC systems get people in the door and that's really the key. We as a forum are already broken in as generally we are more experienced than the guy having a baby needs a camera now if you catch my drift
p.3 #3 · Rumored Sony cameras for late 2024 and 2025 - A6900
tschopp wrote:
I guess I have always doubted the idea that a FF sensor is dramatically more expensive than an APS-C sensor. Or that a stacked sensor is dramatically more expensive than a normal BSI sensor.
Just some WAG as I have no actual knowledge. The a6700 is $1260 EDU at B&H, my guess is the parts cost couldn't be more than 50% (need development costs, Sony profit, and B&H profit in the other 50%). Of the parts I'm guessing the sensor isn't more than 50% (25% of total price) and I would think even that is high. So that would put a 26MP APS-C sensor at $315. The FF sensor has 2x the area so that would be 2x FAB costs, so $630 for the 60MP FF sensor. I'm thinking most of the other parts are fairly common between an a6700 and an a7CR. Yet the price of the later is $2700 ($1440 more).
So either the FF has dramatically more profit or the sensor is nearly the entire cost and Sony makes very little on camera sales, with the a6700 almost a loss leader to get people in.
To me it seems like the product segmentation has a lot more profit on the high end and the low end is crippled to force enthusiast into FF. I'm not at all a marketing person, so maybe there is some profit driven business reason not to do stacked APS-C, just like they didn't do BSI APS-C. Mark Galer put out a recommendation to Sony to get into high end APS-C. I don't know if they actually listened to him, but the a6700 seemed to be what he was requesting.
So should APS-C exist in E-Mount? I think it makes sense from a lens perspective even if it doesn't from a sensor perspective. From a business perspective it provides market segmentation, you get the cheap entry into Sony even if the camera isn't dramatically cheaper for Sony to make.
If any of this thinking is garbage I'm happy to hear why. Like I said, just a wild ass guess....Show more →
You have neglected two critical elements in sensor/processor/memory costs. First while the FF is twice the area semiconductor defect free yield I think is probably half for a FF than it is for a APS-C so the sensor maybe as much as four times the cost or maybe only three times for a FF assuming it is not a stacked sensor. Also, processor and memory speeds for a FF 10 FPS unit is probably 25-35% more than an APS-C pipeline from a supplier of those key elements. I know my numbers are not exact and just estimates but as an electrical engineer working in the semiconductor design and manufacturing space for 40 years and a former CCD sensor designer that’s my back of the envelope estimate. I’m sure the other market segmentation have an effect but I’m not sure how to access those.
Note: 61 Mpixel sensors yield less tha 24 or 33 or 45 Mpixel sensors so some cost differences are also drive differences in the A7C vs. the A7CII vs the A7CR pricing to some extent.
p.3 #4 · Rumored Sony cameras for late 2024 and 2025 - A6900
swldstn wrote:
You have neglected two critical elements in sensor/processor/memory costs. First while the FF is twice the area semiconductor defect free yield I think is probably half for a FF than it is for a APS-C so the sensor maybe as much as four times the cost or maybe only three times for a FF assuming it is not a stacked sensor. Also, processor and memory speeds for a FF 10 FPS unit is probably 25-35% more than an APS-C pipeline from a supplier of those key elements. I know my numbers are not exact and just estimates but as an electrical engineer working in the semiconductor design and manufacturing space for 40 years and a former CCD sensor designer that’s my back of the envelope estimate. I’m sure the other market segmentation have an effect but I’m not sure how to access those.
Note: 61 Mpixel sensors yield less tha 24 or 33 or 45 Mpixel sensors so some cost differences are also drive differences in the A7C vs. the A7CII vs the A7CR pricing to some extent....Show more →
I did ask to be called out where appropriate, so I'm not dismissing your thoughts. I did think about yield impacts. I guess I assumed this is all on a fairly easy high yield process. If the pixels are 3800nm and current cutting edge fabs are 10nm, seems like there is a lot of leway to scale back the feature size to reduce defects. I didn't try to work out the dicing impact, but I think that might be the most significant in terms of going from APS-C to FF. They are bigger rectangles and just won't fit as efficiently on a circle as smaller rectangles. Did you see significant yield issues with the CCDs you were involved with?
We know the price of the various A7C are different, but we don't know this is caused by yield or just a business guy decided that's what it needs to be for segmentation reasons. I was out at Intel one time and they mentioned yield numbers are one of the most tightly guarded secrets. I'm not a semiconductor person, so I don't really know. I doubt Sony will tell us.
The CPU demands are certainly lower, but does that mean they actually use different chips or maybe just clock them slower for power efficiency? Also the pixel read speed does not seem to be much different as the rolling shutter times on the a6700 are better (due to fewer pixels), so some of the memory is probably at a similar clock speed. The read is about the same rate, but the duration is shorter.
p.3 #5 · Rumored Sony cameras for late 2024 and 2025 - A6900
Let’s start with processors and memory. Typically if they can be run at slower speeds in the application so they are speed bin to get higher yield. So they will get better yields for slower speed applications than for higher speed applications but I’m not sure what technology they are using these days for those cameras.
Larger FF sensors will have more significant dicing impacts so you won’t get as many. I used an online die calculator and got ~352 APS-C die and a ~148 FF size die on a 450mm diameter wafer. So that’s about 42% instead of 50% fewer die for FF. If the APS-C sensor cost $300 and the full frame one at $714 and margin was set at 50% the APS-C one would be targeted at $600 and the full frame one at $1428. That’s with no yield loss difference included. So what’s the margin you think they are targeting?
CCD are older technology and those days yields were lower. Not sure what the are aiming their yields at to me it’s an unknown without further study.
p.3 #6 · Rumored Sony cameras for late 2024 and 2025 - A6900
I'm waiting in the wings for either a A7RV with a tweaked EVF along with a stacked sensor to have it ALL with high rez AND no rolling shutter for electronic shutter use. OR (and most likely) a A1MkII with the same or better LCD of the A7RV (no question that is going to happen) a tweaked high speed EVF and next gen stacked sensor 50+mp (doesn't have to be a global shutter for me) and I'm IN.
p.3 #8 · Rumored Sony cameras for late 2024 and 2025 - A6900
First thought when reading the rumoured A7V...What is the point with releasing an 42MP, 10fps, slow readoutspeed and cropped 4k60 thats about every A7 up to this day not moving forward?
Seems like this rumour is the A7RV at most points except 42 instead of 61
I by one if specs are like below.
* 33 MP
* 15 fps
* AI chip
* Same IBIS as A7RV
* atleast 1/70s readoutspeed
* 4k60 no crop,
* 4k120 in 1.5x crop
p.3 #9 · Rumored Sony cameras for late 2024 and 2025 - A6900
The older i get, the harder it is to carry a FF camera system to shoot wildlife, or for travel photography. It’s the size and weight of the lenses and not just the camera. I currently shoot with a Sony A7R4 and increasingly with an older A6500. And when I go out to shoot casually, I am increasingly using the A6500. I am hoping to see a high definition sensor like 40mgpxl on a small APS-C Sony camera in the near future, like now. If one is available in early 2025, I will swap out my FF gear for it, that is, assuming Sony has a quality zoom for the APS-C camera that is close to the 100-400 Sony, but much lighter in weight.
In short, folks like me need lighter weight cameras and lenses if we are going to shoot wildlife and travel photography with reasonable priced quality glass.
p.3 #10 · Rumored Sony cameras for late 2024 and 2025 - A6900
berimbolo wrote:
I'd like a 24-33mp stacked sensor (or non-stacked with high readout speed) and the modern AF modes. Basically, an A9/A9ii but with bird eye AF, better back screen and ergonomics. I guess I want an R1 without having to switch systems or pay over $8000 CAD.
Find the A9iii on discount
Nov 19, 2024 at 12:20 AM
berimbolo Offline • • • [X]
p.3 #11 · Rumored Sony cameras for late 2024 and 2025 - A6900
p.3 #12 · Rumored Sony cameras for late 2024 and 2025 - A6900
I think i am actually content with my crop of bodies. I can see adding an 85F1.4 to my kit, but that's about it. My A7sIII and FX30 can keep bringing in money.
p.3 #15 · Rumored Sony cameras for late 2024 and 2025 - A6900
berimbolo wrote:
Not for people who care about dynamic range.
DXO says DR is on par with the A9ii at iso 125.
The A9iii does lose under 125, because you cant set the iso lower than 125.
Nov 19, 2024 at 10:37 AM
Steve Spencer Offline • • • • • • • Upload & Sell: On
p.3 #16 · Rumored Sony cameras for late 2024 and 2025 - A6900
aCuria wrote:
DXO says DR is on par with the A9ii at iso 125.
The A9iii does lose under 125, because you cant set the iso lower than 125.
Yes, but the lowest real ISO is ISO 250 on the A9 III and according to Photons to Photos, the best you can get is 10 stops of what they call PDR, whereas the A1 at ISO 100 (its lowest real ISO) gets 11.3 stops. I think that is the most relevant comparison. Going with a global shutter vs. a similarly priced stacked sensor camera loses about a stop and a third of DR at it base ISO. At ISO 800 and above the two cameras are basically identical. That advantage in base ISO DR may or may not matter to the individual shooter. Here is the graph from Photons to Photos comparing the A1 to the A9 III (A1 II should be very close to A1 as it is using the same sensor):
p.3 #17 · Rumored Sony cameras for late 2024 and 2025 - A6900
Steve Spencer wrote:
Yes, but the lowest real ISO is ISO 250 on the A9 III and according to Photons to Photos, the best you can get is 10 stops of what they call PDR, whereas the A1 at ISO 100 (its lowest real ISO) gets 11.3 stops. I think that is the most relevant comparison. Going with a global shutter vs. a similarly priced stacked sensor camera loses about a stop and a third of DR at it base ISO. At ISO 800 and above the two cameras are basically identical. That advantage in base ISO DR may or may not matter to the individual shooter. Here is the graph from Photons to Photos comparing the A1 to the A9 III (A1 II should be very close to A1 as it is using the same sensor):
DxO claims that DR is higher at 125 than 250, I don’t understand why this is the case when 250 is the base iso.
Certainly if you compare iso 100 on another camera to 250 on the A9iii, then iso 100 would win at DR.
I suppose it comes down to how often you shoot at iso 100.
On one hand, for moving subjects it is very rare for me to be at iso 100. On the other hand if the subject isn’t moving then paying for high readout speeds isn’t necessary.
The other factor would be how often your subject has more than 10 stops of DR.
Nov 20, 2024 at 03:08 AM
Steve Spencer Offline • • • • • • • Upload & Sell: On
p.3 #18 · Rumored Sony cameras for late 2024 and 2025 - A6900
aCuria wrote:
DxO claims that DR is higher at 125 than 250, I don’t understand why this is the case when 250 is the base iso.
Certainly if you compare iso 100 on another camera to 250 on the A9iii, then iso 100 would win at DR.
I suppose it comes down to how often you shoot at iso 100.
On one hand, for moving subjects it is very rare for me to be at iso 100. On the other hand if the subject isn’t moving then paying for high readout speeds isn’t necessary.
The other factor would be how often your subject has more than 10 stops of DR. ...Show more →
DXO in their usual kind of spotty and sloppy testing didn't actually test the A9 III for dynamic range at what Sony lists as ISO 250 (i.e., base ISO). If you look at the chart:
They tested at what Sony lists as ISO 125, then they tested at 200 and 400. If they would have tested at 250, then they likely would have gotten what photons to photos got and found the same or slightly better performance at the listed ISO 250 than 125. Despite that somewhat spotty testing, you get basically the same conclusion whether you use DXO's numbers or Photons to Photos. Photons to photos gets 1.3 stops better performance for the A1 at its best ISO and DXO gets 1.46 stops better performance for the A1 at its best ISO. That performance at the best ISO is what you give up with the A9 III. Again that might matter to the individual photographer or it might not.
p.3 #19 · Rumored Sony cameras for late 2024 and 2025 - A6900
Steve Spencer wrote:
DXO in their usual kind of spotty and sloppy testing didn't actually test the A9 III for dynamic range at what Sony lists as ISO 250 (i.e., base ISO). If you look at the chart:
They tested at what Sony lists as ISO 125, then they tested at 200 and 400. If they would have tested at 250, then they likely would have gotten what photons to photos got and found the same or slightly better performance at the listed ISO 250 than 125. Despite that somewhat spotty testing, you get basically the same conclusion whether you use DXO's numbers or Photons to Photos. Photons to photos gets 1.3 stops better performance for the A1 at its best ISO and DXO gets 1.46 stops better performance for the A1 at its best ISO. That performance at the best ISO is what you give up with the A9 III. Again that might matter to the individual photographer or it might not....Show more →
Is has nothing to do with the photographer. More to do with the subject
If iso >= 250:
DR is about the same. Pretty much all action photography falls here
if scene DR < 10 stops
You get the same results regardless of iso
if scene DR > 10 stops and iso == 100:
A9iii has 1.3 stops less DR in the shot
Nov 20, 2024 at 07:22 AM
Steve Spencer Offline • • • • • • • Upload & Sell: On
p.3 #20 · Rumored Sony cameras for late 2024 and 2025 - A6900
aCuria wrote:
Is has nothing to do with the photographer. More to do with the subject
If iso >= 250:
DR is about the same. Pretty much all action photography falls here
if scene DR > 10 stops and iso == 100:
A9iii has 1.3 stops less DR in the shot
if scene DR < 10 stops
You get the same results regardless of iso
Actually it is a little more complicated. At ISO 500 and ISO 640, the A1 has about a stop better DR as well. That has to do with when the dual gain ISO (see this thread for more details: https://www.fredmiranda.com/forum/topic/1864937/) kicks in for the A1 vs. the A9 III. For the A1 it kicks in at ISO 500 and for the A9 III at ISO 800, so at 500 and 640 the A1 does notably better. It is only from ISO 800 on that they are basically equivalent.
Also saying a scene has over 10 stops of DR is pretty simplistic. It depends what you are shooting in the scene. Are you shooting only in the shadows under a tree or are you shooting out in bright sunlight in that scene. There is a huge difference in DR between those shots even though it is the same scene. And it simply isn't true that pretty much all action photography is at higher ISOs. It depends a lot on what action is being shot. When I shot my son's soccer games at midday on a small field and I used a 200 or 300 mm lens, I regularly shot at ISO 100. Bright day time light allows fast shutter speed and ISO 100.
And when I said it depends on the photographer all I meant by that is it depends on what the photographer shoots and their approach. Personally, I shoot at least 75% of what I shoot at ISO 100, but then again I mostly shoot stuff that doesn't move or moves slowly and I often am on a tripod. For me ISO 100 is really important. Somebody else might shoot primarily birds in flight at dawn and dusk and handhold all their shots. For them, ISO 100 might be nearly totally irrelevant. That is all I meant by it depends on the photographer.
