Nikon announces the Z6III
- Thread starter Canon Rumors
- Start date
The cost from stacked sensors comes from having to stack 3 silicon wafers with different features on it, screwing up your yield even more. Basically, if you combine 95% yields of 3 wafers, the yield of the final stacked wafer will be much lower than 95%, as failed dies in one wafer will meet working ones in another, resulting in a failed die. If they just built it on the wafer with the sensor already, they aren't "stacking" anything anymore, so this yield issue doesn't exist anymore.
Maybe they used a FSI sensor and built the DRAM circuits on the same layer used for the pixels circuitry (the layer that is moved to under the pixels on BSI sensors). That wouldn't require them to stack wafers, but maybe it's an idea that only works with FSI sensors?
Canon has been doing something different as well to get faster readouts, maybe they used similar ideas but just didn't market it? If so, it might explain why Canon chose to stick with FSI for the R5 and R6/ii.
In any case, I am just thinking out loud, and I am not even completely sure this sensor is FSI, I just could not find a reference to BSI coming directly from Nikon (DPReview lists it as BSI in their comparison table, but they tend to do a LOT of mistakes in those rushed tables). I am just glad Nikon managed to one-up the R6ii's sensor with this release, seeing only Canon pursuing faster sensors in this price category was getting annoying, while others were or just using the A7iii's sensor or, in the case of Sony, pushing for a very small resolution increase.
Upvote
0
It looks like the Z6III can do 14-bit RAWs with electronic shutter while the R6II is limited to 12-bits, presumably because of the semi-stacked nature of the sensor.
The actual light sensitive area is not stacked (so there are no multiple layers of wiring to enable faster transport of signals to the ADCs) but the ADCs and associated circuitry around the light sensitive area seem to be stacked, so that they can presumably fit more ADCs in the same area without taking a noise hit from having longer wires.
In general, common implementations of ADCs (e.g. successive-approximation ADCs) take more time to pull out more bits out of a signal, so having more ADCs around the sensor likely means each ADC can take a bit longer to extract that last 2 bits of information.
Upvote
0
If R8ii gets the 45MP for sub $1500....I can smell GOAT.R6 mkiii needs to match competitor for the market. Or they can put R5 sensor to R8 and still sell 1499.99usd.
Yes, the Z DX is in worse state than RF-S. Just because there's few Chinese 3rd party primes doesn't make Z DX viable when compared to E/RF-S/X mount.
Why couldn't get E mount lenses with adapter on Nikon. I did it with the Z7, AF-C is bad as the native Z, while AF-S is usable. No Sony shitty colours is the goal.
45MP isn't that much, considering R5 handles up to ISO8000
Get R R5....
Upvote
0
Canon's sensor in the R6 II is at least 2 Canon generations old at this stage, it's still a front side illuminated sensor. so we cannot make presumptions like that at all.
Except that's not true. even normal FSI / BSI none stacked would have ADC's to the outside on a stack that has the connections between substrates at the edge. no real practical difference and if the connections are under the photodiode, it's considerably worse. in any case the wires aren't shorter and depending on the pads between substrates, it could actually be far longer - also it's the material that governs noise, but I suspect they are using copper like most of sony sensors these days.
successive approximation ADC's aren't what Sony or Canon use. Canon uses ramp comparator ADC which only requires switch / comparator at the row / column level, and Sony has their own unique patented method that takes up nearly 0 real estate.
the only benefit I can see out of such a sensor is cost. Since it's possible that Nikon is using 4 separate small pieces for the top stacked substrates.
Last edited:
Upvote
0
in theory yes, but Canon also has patented tricks with that as well - such as employing dual slopes.
the point is you can't correlate anything from what we know. all we know is marketing fluff.
in this day and age a 1/60th refresh rate is nothing remarkable - and it's not as if they passed any cost savings onto their customer base, as they jacked the price up $500.
Upvote
0
certainly doesn't mean it's any better.
we'll see when canon releases their new cameras where things stand.
but for now, I'm not really that impressed until i see what photonstophotos shows.
Upvote
0
So long as the micro lens coverage isn't affected it wouldn't have to mean a change in efficiency unless there were some other issue. I'm meaning - diode coverage area is small, it's the micro lenses that concentrate the light for them to get the efficiency; things below the seams between the micro lenses would be beside the diodes and not in the light path.
Still, so much easier to speculate about than to make one that doesn't have a dozen other downsides. (Ex: do the microlenses have to be taller and cause more vignetting/shadowing when the incoming light isn't parallel as with the sensor edge?)
Upvote
0
As I said. I don’t want 45 Mpix. It brings me no benefits at all, just dealing with bigger files. Besides it doesn’t fit my budget and it crosses my weight tolerance
. Yes I loved the R and I’d buy the Rmk2 if there’s one but I doubt so.
Upvote
0
I think there is as little reason to get into any mount more than E mount... Clearly the best mount is the Z (largest mount and closest flange), E has fantastic lenses and great camera features, L is can be quite price competitive and only lacked that AF to lift, and RF is very well rounded.
I chose Canon RF for no other reason than me preferring the Canon bodies and the existence of the 28mm F2.8 and the RF 100-400, but also the 100-500 or 200-800 in the future (for me). If I had to choose based on lenses alone I would take the Z 24-120 over the RF 24-105 and most E Tamrons over most other lenses, but as much as you marry glass you do hold and interact with the body.
Last edited:
Upvote
0
Wonderful! I was worried that I would feel regret, FOMO or GAS after getting the R6II and not at all! The Z6III looks fantastic though and I am glad that Nikon is recovering. I rather move from a Canikon dominated market to one dominated by Canikony than just Canony.
Upvote
0
