October 21, 2014, 04:08:43 PM

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.


Messages - Rocky

Pages: 1 ... 31 32 [33] 34 35 ... 43
481
EOS Bodies / Re: My Prediction for the new EOS Lineup
« on: July 06, 2011, 06:30:07 PM »
The quality of the wafer is yet another factor.  Canon say they use a higher grade of wafers with as few defects as possible, because the yield can be very low with FF or APS-H sensors. 

Still, I wonder if they are able to find all the defects before they assemble the sensor with microlenses, anti-aliasing, etc.  If they have to do all that before testing, the cost of a good sensor goes up a whole lot.
There are so much at stake for the 12" or even 8" wafer. So everybody are using high quality wafer. Raw(starting wafer) are dirt cheap, compared to the finished wafer.  Infact most of the defects are from each processing steps. there are at leat 30 steps, some can go as high as 60 plus steps. Testing sensor can be quick, it is all automatic problem is that you cannot notto add microlens in individual sensor. You have to do it on the whole wafer, for bothj good and bad sensors all at the sametime.

482
EOS Bodies / Re: My Prediction for the new EOS Lineup
« on: July 06, 2011, 05:30:38 PM »
Stu_bert,  increase the wafer size is not as easy as it looks. It is very envolved. Also the equipment will be extremely expensive for large wafer. As far as I know, nobody can break the 12" barrier yet. As for yield, the ratio is not the ratio of the size but roughly the 1/ square of the ratio of size. The size of idividual trnssitors are getting smaller and smaller, As a result, Some IC are getting smaller and smaller and hence getting cheaper and cheaper.  Some IC have multifunction. that is why most of the electronic device are getting cheaper including Digital camera. As for CPU, that is a slightly different story. The transistors are getting smaller and becomes faster. The CPU also evolved from single core to double, quad, even hex. I can predict tha we will see Octo soon.
As for flat panel TV, IT is not yet a mature process, so the cost is dropping due to increase in yield.

Hope this will help

483
EOS Bodies / Re: Canon Mirrorless on the Horizon?
« on: July 06, 2011, 01:45:22 PM »
I think there are two questions here, with two possible partial answers:

1 - how small could they make a DSLR? I have a film EOS that's much smaller than any digital, so could they shrink one down further? I think the film camera size comes down to only needing space for a thin strip of film before the back of the camera. Now we have a sensor with filter assembly on top of it, and typically a LCD display behind that. Let's say the rear LCD was ditched, and they just relied on the viewfinder for everything....

2 - if they go mirrorless, where in the range would they target? The m4/3 and APS-C sensor size is pretty much covered by existing players for example. Could Canon bring something new to that space and not come out with a "me too" product? The tiny sensor like Q I find hard to take off, as you're competing directly with compacts there, and to me I can't see why I would want one over a compact unless the price is slashed right down, but then what's the point? The rumoured small-ish sensor Nikon is more interesting, as you can get smaller lenses than current APS-C models (assuming you're not after strict DoF equivalence) without compromising too much on image quality. That would be a more logical positioning keeping both compacts and SLRs out of the way of self competition. As a wild card, could they go high end only? Go full frame, and make a Leica for the 21st century. I don't think they would have any trouble undercutting Leica pricing anyway...
The DSLR is bigger than the SLR due to the battery, memory cards, a whole bunch of electronics and motors inside the body. Plus every body wants a hand grip for the DSLR.
As for the size of sensor,I think Canon need to make it big to be attractive. Otherwise we can just buy a S95 and we will have anything that a mirrorless has got except the interchangable lens.
Personally, I would like to see Canon to make something that will be a M9 competitator With a M mount. ( Canon has been making Leica competitator with Leica mount up to the late 60's)

484
EOS Bodies / Re: Canon Mirrorless on the Horizon?
« on: July 06, 2011, 12:16:54 PM »
although APS-C is possible, it's just as likely to share a sensor with the G series, which would have the advantage of not needing as large a lenses to feed the sensor, which makes the lenses cheaper to make thus creating a greater profit margin.  I suspect also that the lens range will be large, but also EF/EF-S compatable using an expensive adaptor.

I doubt that canon  will use the sensor from the G series for the upcoming mirrorless. The name of the game is to have a"larger" sensor than its competitators. So APS-C will be a good candidate.  Until Canon can solve the shutter lag issue, all bets are off.

485
EOS Bodies / Re: Canon Mirrorless on the Horizon?
« on: July 06, 2011, 02:58:26 AM »
Mirrorless is exciting - not because it's another gadget, but because there's no mirror!  In a DSLR a mirror is a neccessary evil, but evil it is.  It prevents the exit pupil being moved closer to the sensor plane (bad for wide angle especially), and then there's the mirror slap, you can move to live view to avoid it, but then you're shooting the same as the mirrorless camera, but without the benefits.  The shutter assembly is large only syncs with flash at slow speeds, it's possible without a mirror to increase the flash sync.

The true rangefinder comment is a  little confusing, the rangefinder is a focus system not a mount, and isn't particularly good with zoom lenses.  The reason the Leica M7 M8 appears sharp is that it doesn't have an anti aliasing filter.  Pros & Cons to that, but certainly sharp.
The mirror give us fast auto focus and fast shutter lag. Nowadays, the mirror are so well damped that It hardly causes vibration unless you are working with microscope or copying stand for extremely critical work. There is always a mirror lock up function. At slow shutter speed, most of the shaking are from the user, not the mirror.
So far the best mirrorless still have twice the shutter lag of DSLR. So would you rather have longer shutter lag or the mirror?
As for M9, the picture is sharp and good look is due to the exceptional good Lieca lens plus no AA filter. Leica may have better DSP also. Leica uses range finder manual focusing. It can be faster than the DSLR if handled correctly. Unfortunately, It is too expensive for me

486
EOS Bodies / Re: Canon Mirrorless on the Horizon?
« on: July 06, 2011, 02:46:03 AM »
If the X100 isn't a rangefinder, then it is more likely a point and shoot with a big sensor and compact body. Not very impressive.

So, what I'm getting at here is, it makes no sense for me to be gassing for mirrorless systems for the sake of portability or mounting a Zeiss if the end result is only competitive for almost-as-good-as dslr image quality. Where a true rangefinder would really make a difference.

You are right, X100 is not a range finder. The excitement of it is the retro style and the optical view finder and electronic view finder can be switch over through the same eyepiece.
None of the existing mirrorless camera excite me due to the slow shutter lag. The best one is still twice as much as a DSLR. There is only one that impresses me, the Leica M9. It is too rich for my blood. It takes careof the shutter lag by not using auto focus. Instead it uses manual focus via range finder. When it is handled properly(using zone focusing technique), it will be be faster than the auto focus of DSLR.

487
EOS Bodies / Re: Canon Mirrorless on the Horizon?
« on: July 05, 2011, 09:44:54 PM »
my 5-cents here:
- Digital full-frame version of Canon 7 w/ 50mm f/0.95 to directly compete with M9
- don't really care about lenses mount as long as it can mount some M lenses (via adaptor or not)
- Couple of extra lenses 28/35/50/90mm would be nice

Are there other canon fans that would vote for this?
That will be a fun camera to have. The only question is How many Canon fans will give up the auto focus? I am for it as long as Canon brings back the rangefinder lens with fine focus adjustment With a fine range finder built into the camera.

488
EOS Bodies / Re: My Prediction for the new EOS Lineup
« on: July 05, 2011, 05:43:15 PM »
Agreed, I am no engineer either so it is pure conjecture on my part, and I meant no offence in the discussion. I guess I am assuming that in the same way we keep cramming more transistors onto CPUs, and make bigger and higher res Plasma/LCD/LED devices, then the same cost-challenges with sensors can be overcome. Of course making a 12 MP FF sensor for $500 this year, which may have cost you $700 2 years ago to make, also means you can make an APS sensor for $300. So the economies of scale would apply to either.

I guess my point was more that overall cost, simplifying your whole range has an affect on a whole manner of elements - from develop/manufacture/market to support and thus help reduce your cost base and allow you to increase your margin or lower your prices. Whether that was standardise on FF or APS would have the same affect to your cost base. I was just biased as would hate them to standardise on APS sensors  ;D
CMOS process is a relative stable process and  has been around for a long time.. We cannot expect any substantial cost reduction in sensor from the process alone, except moving from 8 inch wafer to 12 in wafer. With  the same amount of physical work (mostly done with automation), a little more chemical, and a slight modification in process and you end up twice as much sensor.
As for improving the sensor performance, we should have high hope. just look at the latest sensor from Nikon( Sony). However, we have already pushed beyond the capability of the lens resolution with 18MP APS_C sensor.

As a foot note: Most other electronic device are enjoying huge cost reduction in the last 40 years due to the advance in processing technology and cost reduction in the processing itself and hence the internal device on the silicon is getting smaller and smaller and resulted in the actual silicon in each IC is getting smaller and smaller and hence more and more IC per wafer. They are getting cheaper and cheaper.  Unfortunately. This  does not appy to the DSLR snesor. The sensor size is fixed. So there is no cost reduction in shrinking internal device. Instead we end up with higher pixel count. We have moved from 2MP (APS-C) to 18MP (APS-C) in the last 15 years or so.
As for the prine difference of FF and APS-C, The size ratio between them is about 2.63. So the cost ratio between FF and APS-C will be 5 to 7 times depends on the cleningness of the  fabrication facility.

489
EOS Bodies / Re: Canon Mirrorless on the Horizon?
« on: July 05, 2011, 01:04:50 PM »
18x24 sensor
EVF
interchangeable lenses
pancake lenses

I take it
May I add 3 more requirement??
1. Shutter delay close to DSLR. I do not want point and shoot shutter delay.
2. With adapter for EF, EF-S lenses.
3. Adapter for Leica M lenses (i would be giving up auto focus for this) as a wish list.

490
Lenses / Re: new lens and camerabody
« on: June 30, 2011, 02:34:07 PM »
17-40mm f4 is a great lens for crop body if your interest is in landscape and not a fan of telephoto. It will give you 35mm equilvalent of 27 to 64mm. This is my main lens. It gets me through at least 85 % of the shooting situation. This lens will still be usable when you move to FF. It will become a super wide angle with some nastiness at the corners when wide open at the widest setting.  Also for $100 extra, the 18-55mm IS kit lens is good complement for the 17-40mm for low light situation. I use it mainly inside the museum.

491
Lenses / Re: new lens and camerabody
« on: June 30, 2011, 02:21:39 PM »
It seems nobody is talking about camera bags. It is another important part of the equipment. I know people that move from DSLR (entry level body) back to P & S just because they choose the wrong bag and claim the DSLR is too"Clumsy". camera bag is more personal than any camera gear. Some like the back pack style.  I hate it. whether you need to take you camera out or even worse, changing lens, you need to remove it from your back, put it down somewhere first then start changing your gear. How bad  can it get? I like a reasonable size shoulder bag to carry it across my body. My bag also have almost an inch overlap between the boby and the lid for water and dust protection. The lid can be zipped for full closure of a quick buckle for quick open or close to ensure stuuf in the bag will not fall out. The bag has close cell foam padding on all six side therefore it is semi-regid. the compartents inside the bag are extremely customizeable. Each piece of gear should have its own compartment and NO lens bag should be used.
I can change lens in a snap by using thr bag as a platfor/bucket wthout any help.  All my lenses are accessible from the top of the bag.
Last word: the bag should have extra room for a binocular, a small P & S camera and spce for your wallet if you travel a lot.

492
EOS Bodies / Re: End of the APS-H sized CMOS?
« on: June 29, 2011, 11:56:53 AM »
Ivar,  There is no doubt that FF is ALWAYS better than APS_C or APS-H. I am using a APS-C (40D) with a 17-40mm as my main lens. It will serve me 90% of the time. The other 10% (special situation) will be the 35-135( for longer reach), 18-55mm Kit lens with IS ( for hand held low light) and very occationally 70_300mm DO( It is heavy). I am not a fan of telephoto lens. The reason I use the APS-C is the cost, size and weight is less than the FF. I like to have the APS-H if the size and price will come down. APS-H will make my 17mm becomes 22mm and get rid of the funny behavior of the lens at the corners the same time. I think Canon should make a 7D size APS-H body with the price to match.

493
EOS Bodies / Re: End of the APS-H sized CMOS?
« on: June 28, 2011, 11:35:59 PM »
[It's entirely possible for two sensors, designed and built years apart, to have the same pixel pitch/size but use different "technologies". Moreover, it is possible for the newer sensor to have smaller pixels but the same number of them as the older and, because of technology improvements, provide a better image quality.
We are talking about "same technology" here. That will imply the same semiconductor processing for the sensors.  Who with the right mine will put a smaller pixel size with the same sensor with the same MP count even with newer technoloy. Canon is doing the absolute opposite. It make the pixel as big as posible (for better noise performanance), use gapless microlens, at least on the 7D officially, may even be with the Rebels, for better light gethering and hence better noise performance. I have nor heard of any body decrease the pixel size in the same sensor with the same pixel count. May be you can quote me an example.

You can't be serious. Canon is making the pixels as large as possible? That'll surprise a lot of people. Please compute the pixel sizes of the Nikon D700, Canon 5DMk2, Nikon D300S and Canon 7D. The percentage of the pixel which actively gathers light, the design of the microlenses, sensor fabrication methods, the number of sensor readout channels, the post processing after the analog signals leave the sensor and the quality of the A-to-D converter all could be classified as "technology". Are you and Hayden1971 deliberately trying to confuse matters and create non sequiturs. REMOVED.  Lets be CIVIL
Yes  I am serious. I work in the semiconductor industry on the techical area. I know what technology means. We are talking about pixel size in the sensors only. Nothing has been memtioned about anything outside the sensor. Please  read the the technical papers. 7d has the highest pixel density density. It will have the smallest pixel pitch,. However, Canon is trying to make the indvidual pixel as large as possible and use Gapless microlens to artifficial to increase the pixel size. FYI, number of channel for the sensor read out is not technology, it is "implementation".
You just keep on throwing in irrelevent  points to confuse the issue. Until you can show me an example of camera maker actually decrease the pixel size for a given sensor with the same pixel count, you are just arguing for the sake of argueing. Look, who is not civilized.

494
EOS Bodies / Re: End of the APS-H sized CMOS?
« on: June 28, 2011, 08:59:55 PM »
[It's entirely possible for two sensors, designed and built years apart, to have the same pixel pitch/size but use different "technologies". Moreover, it is possible for the newer sensor to have smaller pixels but the same number of them as the older and, because of technology improvements, provide a better image quality.
We are talking about "same technology" here. That will imply the same semiconductor processing for the sensors.  Who with the right mine will put a smaller pixel size with the same sensor with the same MP count even with newer technoloy. Canon is doing the absolute opposite. It make the pixel as big as posible (for better noise performanance), use gapless microlens, at least on the 7D officially, may even be with the Rebels, for better light gethering and hence better noise performance. I have nor heard of any body decrease the pixel size in the same sensor with the same pixel count. May be you can quote me an example.

495
EOS Bodies / Re: End of the APS-H sized CMOS?
« on: June 28, 2011, 04:37:17 PM »
If 1.3 crop was the same mp as a full frame, the pixel size would be about that (perhaps less) of a APS-C, which would give you just a single benefit of being able to take slightly wider angle shots than a APS-C with the same lens, but not much else, which would of course be too small a reason to spend £10's Millions in developing a specific 1.3 crop.

Let's try to go to the basics - do you agree that, provided using the same (and I mean the same) technology , the bigger light capture area has better signal, thus theoretically better IQ?
"Same Technology", I am assuming you mean same pixel density.  The picture quality (noise) per pixel is identical regardless of the acyual sensor size. The FF will have more pixel than the APS-H and hence better picture quality. Hydyn1971 is half right about the comparision of APS-C ans APS-H with the same pixel density.  besides a widen angle with the same lens, The APS-H will also have a higher resolution  and hence better opicture quality.

Pages: 1 ... 31 32 [33] 34 35 ... 43