Steve Spencer
Offline
Upload & Sell: On
|
 Re: Sony A7RVI | |
evanhanded wrote:
duncangr wrote:
evanhanded wrote:
duncangr wrote:
evanhanded wrote:
snapsy wrote:
evanhanded wrote:
snapsy wrote:
evanhanded wrote:
snapsy wrote:
jwpstl wrote:
Alan Parker wrote:
Steve Spencer wrote:
This looks like a great camera, but I don't think it will be an A1 II killer.
Sony created a fairly strange situation for themselves and this camera by making it a stacked sensor, when it maybe didn't need to be.
I don't know what problem they solved by making it stacked but then still too slow for most sports or BIF.
They solved a marketing problem of not having a Sony "stacked sensor" that their competitors have  Stacked is a pretty liberal term, which can mean adding an any additional layer to the sensor, in this case an amorphous "processing layer" that I've yet to see a compelling reason adds any utility or value to the camera. But I'll reserve final judgement until more details are hopefully released.
It seems kind of obvious to me that Sony wanted to crow about something more than a 6mp increase in the sensor. So, they did something to speed up the readout to about the level of the partially stacked sensors out there including their A7V, but not so much that it would be real competition for the A1 or the A9. Rolling shutter greatly reduced but certainly not eliminated when using the e-shutter.
But here's an observation/question. All the "shill-tubers" who were testing this camera are using the terminology no doubt supplied by Sony..."fully stacked sensor". Anyone care to define that? If the A1 uses dram in their stacked sensor and the A7RVI does not, then how is it "fully" stacked? If the rumors site is told by their informants that the new camera has a fully stacked sensor, then I'm not surprised they assumed it would have dram and be in the same ballpark as the A1 with regard to readout speed. I'm holding Sony responsible for the confusion, not the rumors site or anyone taken in by Sony marketing.
According to Richard Butler at Dpreview, "fully-stacked" vs "partially-stacked" is based on the size of the second semiconductor wafer that's bonded to the the image sensor, with fully-stack representing a wafer that's near-equal size of the sensor's wafer and partially-stack being a wafer smaller than the sensor's wafer, independent of what's on the second wafer (DRAM, additional logic, etc...)
Okay, but a full stacked layer for "...an amorphous "processing layer"... "? So, we don't know what's going on with that stacked layer, but we do know that it's not holding dram. I'll still contend that since other "fully stacked" sensors have dram in the stacked layer, this new one is different to the point of confusion from Sony not identifying that this stacked sensor was not typical of the genre.
I agree, it seems dubious but I'm reserving judgement until more details come out about what they put in that "processing layer". Dpreview hinted the logic on that layer is what achieves the DR improvement, which is plausible (but I'm very skeptical) because perhaps the extra parallel row readouts required to increase the readout speed (even without embedded DRAM) to support DGO may require more logic for a higher-density sensor like the A7RVI than it did for the partially-stack variants in their other sensors.
Okay...I'm not arguing that Sony stuck an additional layer to the sensor just so they could call it fully stacked. It must have some purpose. My argument/complaint is that Sony is crowing about the sensor being fully stacked without explaining what the advantage is in this case...and it doesn't take a rocket scientist to conclude that most photographers hearing that the sensor was fully stacked would assume that means super-fast readout speed because that is what we associate with stacked sensors.
If the purpose of the stacking is to support DGO....then Sony should have emphasized that in their press release and presentations.
Which part of "5x faster readout than its predecessor" are you struggling to understand ? It's hardly Sony's fault that you and a few others got a bit over excited thinking it would be as fast as or faster than an A1.
And as for it must have a purpose - to quote Jan Wegener:
“If you are after breathtaking resolution, extraordinary cropping capability, and the added bonus of a genuine action camera all in one body then the A7r6 delivers like nothing else on the market”
The A7V has a partially stacked sensor, but a faster readout speed for images. Yeah, it has less pixels. Fully stacked sensors have all been under 10ms readout. So....yes...it is Sony's fault that a lot of people were wondering whether the A7RVI would be close to the A1 in readout speed when they heard "fully stacked sensor". And I wasn't questioning the purpose of the camera; I was asking about the purpose of the stacked layer.
I won't ask what part of that YOU don't understand because it's obviously all of it.
So it's your contention then that it is Sony's fault that a) partial information was leaked by someone, and b) someone else jumped to the wrong conclusion based on this partial information.
You're right, I don't understand that.
The information that was "leaked" was "fully stacked sensor". That information was correct. My contention is that Sony used that terminology without explaining that it meant something out of the ordinary in this case. All the Youtubers "promoting" the camera used that terminology supplied by Sony...but again, with no explanation of what was different this time. Maybe if the leaker had seen a better explanation of the sensor stack from Sony, they could have leaked better. All that said, I highly doubt that you want to understand as YOU keep attempting to mischaracterize everything I write.
There was also a leak that the sensor scan speed was 16ms (it turns out to be just a bit slower at 19.6ms at least with 14-bit output), and for people who were paying attention that was and I would say should have been a red flag this was a different sort of stacked sensor camera. The camera was obviously in a lot of people hands, so the leaks could have been from someone violating an NDA, but they could have been orchestrated by Sony as well. Perhaps both sources. With leaks it is often, if not always, difficult to know from where they came. So, is Sony to blame? Perhaps, but even if they were responsbile for the leaks, in this case I think there was enough information out there to give anyone pause that this was going to be an A1 II replacement. Those who made that interpretation weren't even thinking about the leaked specs carefully enough, IMO.
|
