March 02, 2015, 02:33:58 AM

Show Posts

This section allows you to view all posts made by this member. Note that you can only see posts made in areas you currently have access to.

Topics - UrbanVoyeur

Pages: [1]
I wonder how long it will take before we come full circle and are able to upgrade/ change sensor packages and sensors become like film. After all, full frame lenses have the same minimum circle of coverage by definition, as do to all APS-C and 4/3’s lenses.

Not necessarily upgradeable by the end user – sensors still require precise alignment & a dust free environment – but say by a repair shop for $300-500 - what they charge in labor to replace a damaged sensor on a DSLR. (Though a very clever inventor might develop a way to auto align a sensor.)

Then you could buy the body features you want and select from either the OEM sensors or get an after-market. Sensors could be selected on size, MP count, DR and noise without regard to body make. Sony sensor in Canon. Canon sensor in a Pentax. No different than Fuji film in an Olympus.

Frames rate would be function of the amount and location of high speed memory and the speed of the digital processing chip, more than the sensor itself. High frame rates would still require expensive high speed RAM and processors – as they do now.

Other than standardizing the sensor pin-outs and some of the firmware API calls, there’s no serious technological hurdle. All sensors are mapped arrays like LCD screens or scanners. The power and cooling requirements are all roughly the same across comparable sensors, because ultimately, they all have to work with the same size batteries and bodies.

Metering and auto focus are sensor independent.

The various image processing chips are more about the firmware than the actual semi-conductors. They all have to do the same functions. Performance appears to be mostly a matter of software - from DIGIC 3 to DIGIC 5, the chips had only a modest increase in clock speed. And as hackers have shown, the chips and software are fairly standard across a given OEM’s models – it’s only a matter of unlocking features in the firmware.

You could even go further and make the digital processing chip upgradeable, though I suspect you would have to continue using a Canon processor in a Canon body.

The obvious place to start would be the 4/3’s cameras, which already maintain standards and interoperability.

Why would the camera manufacturers do this?

It would free the body development cycle from the sensor development cycle. Since the days of film, camera makers always made money from selling bodies, and this is no different. Canon for example, could refine its bodies and digital processing in response to market demands much more quickly, without having to wait on a new sensor.

Manufacturers like Nikon already source their sensors from Sony, allowing Nikon to focus on bodies and processing software, and letting specialized companies with more resources focus on sensors. This is just another step in that direction.

Camera makers could continue to make money selling various sensor and digital processing upgrades. When you figure that most of the retail price (not cost!) of a given SLR is digital components, breaking that out into its own product line makes sense.

It also opens up the possibility of putting higher end sensors in lower end bodies. There is no physical reason why a Rebel Ti, a 60D or 7D is limited to a APS-C size sensor other than the sensor itself and the choice of prisms.

10 years?

EOS Bodies / Why did Canon Release the 5D MkIII (pure conjecture)
« on: May 03, 2012, 10:22:57 AM »
I don't think Canon planned to release the 5D MkIII as it exists today. I think Canon intended to put a much higher MP, lower noise sensor with greater DR in it, but it wasn't ready in time. This is all pure conjecture.

I think Canon was fully aware of the Sony sensor and Nikon's plans, and physics and electronics being what they are, was able to produce a sensor equal to the one in the D800 using Canon technology. There's nothing revolutionary about the Sony/D800 sensor. But I don't think Canon could get it produced in the quantities they needed.

I suspect there was a quality control/yield issue. Yes, the sensor worked, but not enough of them were coming off the production line that met their standards - too many rejects in each batch.

This left Cannon with some choices:
- Release no update to the 5D MkII, already 3+ years old until the sensor was ready, and in so doing, appear to cede that market segment to Nikon.
- Put the top of the line 1D series sensor in the MkIII - an improvement, but the only way to maintain the price point would be to take a loss/break even on every body.
- Put a slightly tweaked MkII sensor back into the MkIII along with the other planned feature upgrades and basically mark time until the new sensor was ready.

I think they took the last option - issuing a minor upgrade so as not to be seen abandoning the market segment to Nikon.

Nikon took advantage of the situation by knocking down the price, and I think that, more than anything else caught Canon off guard. Canon would do well to take a price cut on the MkIII.

Why did Sony and Nikon succeed with the new sensor where Canon did not?

I'm not so sure they did.  First, I think Nikon may be creaming the sensor production - paying a premium to Sony for the very best of each run.  They don't need that many, since the D800 is a relatively expensive, low volume camera.

A company Sony's size may be able to afford production runs 100x or 1000x larger than Canon. Their yield of the very best sensors may be no better than Canon, but they may have buyers for the lesser sensors - other camera makers and other Sony models that may be happy with fewer pixels, more noise, lower DR or even, via trimming, smaller sensors.

Or Sony can afford to take a loss on initial production runs, knowing everything will work out in the near future. Sony did this with the PS 1 and PS 2 gaming processors.

It could also be that Canon's sensor production facilities for this model were in Thailand, were flooded out, and the replacement factories are not fully on line yet or tweaked for higher yields.

I think Canon's next full frame camera will be very informative. If it is in the  18-24 MP range, but retails near the 7D, then I would bet that these are based on the same sensor that was originally planned for the 5DMkIII, but represent the lesser quality production yields.  (18-24 usable low noise, high DR pixels vs 36-45)

I bet that within a year, Canon updates the 5D MkIII type camera with a much higher MP count, lower noise, higher DR sensor. They may not call it the 5D, but it will be what they had originally planned for the MkIII.

Pages: [1]