« on: February 09, 2015, 10:49:26 PM »
And right now, based on revenue forecast due to overall market shrinkage, Canon are not showing any sign of investing in a different process. Which for many people, won't matter. For some it may do, and they will weigh it up as to move or stay. In that respect, the 5Ds does not change Canon's position, it just offers a bunch of people who are happy with the DR of the current sensors a higher res sensor in a similar package to the MK III. I think expectations for the IV and X II should align similarly. Iteration of, modest improvements, no step change. Which again, will be enough for many people...
Aye, a shrinking market would certainly put a damper on investments, however Canon already has a 180nm fab. From what we do know, it was used to manufactuer their P&S sensors in high volume. The P&S market has crashed already, and Canon couldn't possibly be at full capacity on that second fab. They are clearly still investing some money (a billion and change or so?) in R&D on the photography side of things. Most of that seems to be going to lens innovations, but some has gone to sensor innovations. Canon should be able to move some fabrication off their ancient 500nm fab and onto their 180nm fab without actually having to invest a billion or so into a new fab.
Sounds like a win-win to me, and to some others...the curiosity is that they simply haven't done it. I cannot fathom why...but from Canon's own mouth, they stated that they see a big reason for the shrinking DSLR market being lack of technological innovation. Again, seems like a win-win for them to utilize freed up capacity on their 180nm fab (which is a 300mm wafer fab that can apparently produce sensors on a copper wiring process, which is competitive with what Sony is doing) to improve their technology.
Fortunately (?) there may not be any significant change in Sonikon sensors in 2015 either, but there will be a 50MP body from both of them....
I'd call it unfortunate myself. The more pressure other companies can put on Canon from a technological-through-IQ standpoint, the better. It's not so bad for SoNikon though, as they are already ahead of the curve when it comes to eeking out as much IQ as possible from their current sensor technology. I think Sony is in a much better position to create a 50mp body that gives closer to medium format class IQ than Canon is.
I am very interested to see if Canon has increased FWC while lowering read noise, or whether the lower read noise is simply a consequence of smaller pixels, and paired with a similarly smaller FWC. It seems read noise varies more linearly (not exactly, but more closely) with pixel size, while FWC varies with area. If we divide the 6D read noise of 26.4 by the 7D read noise of 12.9, we get 2.05. As far as FWC goes, the ratio of pixel areas between the 6D and 7D II is 2.513 (sqr(6.5)/sqr(4.1)), the FWC of the 6D is 74256e- and the FWC of the 7D II is 29544. Divide the FWC of the 6D by the area ratio, and you get 29,544.22.
We still don't know if DPAF is 180nm or 500nm.... It costs a lot of money to keep 2 fabrication runs open when you only have enough demand for one... just from a financial point of view, they should be migrating their FF and APS-C sensors to the smaller and newer fabrication line. One would expect to see a flurry of new releases just before that happens.... like the 70D, 7D2, EOSM-3, and new rebels causing just about the entire APS-C line to be replaced (just the SL1 and T3's to go).... and then the same thing happening to the FF models.
Things look quite suspicious at the moment...