February & March are Announcement Months for Canon [CR2]

[hmmm]

The 180nm process should start making appearances in DSLRs soon.
It appears that parts of the 6D sensor are already made on 180nm process, as vaguely confirmed by Canon Japan:

• The newly developed CMOS sensor, introducing a process miniaturization in semiconductor process CMOS

It's interesting that Canon USA/Europe do not mention anything about that.

Based on the available info, though, I'd say that the 6D will end up having better image quality than the 5DIII.
Note that the rumors floating around are saying that only parts of the 6D sensor are made on 180nm.
So, the 6D sensor is essentially a 180nm/500nm hybrid.

The question is, are the new APS-C sensors from Canon going to be fully made on 180nm?
If they are 180nm/500nm hybrids, performance might not be all that different from current sensors.
 
But if they are fully made on 180nm, they are certainly going to match/beat the current 16mp Sony sensors.

Thanks - great find  -- there is a little blurb on Adorama saying:  "the sensor, which contains a new photodiode structure" ...  which also indicates something new to the sensor design, but that's a little vague.   Just what do "process miniaturization" and "new photodiode structure" mean to the design, exactly, anyway?   

It sounds promising: I'm looking forward to seeing some production 6D performance data.   Hopefully within a few weeks now.   

[pedro]

Based on the available info, though, I'd say that the 6D will end up having better image quality than the 5DIII.
Note that the rumors floating around are saying that only parts of the 6D sensor are made on 180nm.
So, the 6D sensor is essentially a 180nm/500nm hybrid.

The question is, are the new APS-C sensors from Canon going to be fully made on 180nm?
If they are 180nm/500nm hybrids, performance might not be all that different from current sensors.
 
But if they are fully made on 180nm, they are certainly going to match/beat the current 16mp Sony sensors.

Without understanding too much of tech here, if that is the case with the 6D, a next 5D could be fully equipped with 180nm sensors. Which would yield more than an incremental upgrade, right? So if the thesis is right, even the next 5D might be called a dream cam again. I am currently in my 5D3 learning curve and the cam is fantastic. First time in 30 years I am back to fullframe again, and it reall rocks!

http://www.flickr.com/photos/guatitamasluz/8196223634/#in/photostream
http://www.flickr.com/photos/guatitamasluz/8168836149/#in/photostream/
http://www.flickr.com/photos/guatitamasluz/8091631310/#in/photostream/
http://www.flickr.com/photos/guatitamasluz/8127771730/#in/photostream/
http://www.flickr.com/photos/guatitamasluz/8132680792/#in/photostream/

[jrista]

Canon produces back-side illuminated CMOS sensors with 1.5 micron pixels (equivalent to 24,000x16,000 = 384MP on full-frame) for its compact cameras. 

These are likely Sony sensors, as Canon does not have BSI technology.

Um, I beg to differ: http://www.canonrumors.com/2012/01/patent-large-back-illuminated-sensor/. Canon does have BSI technology, and for LARGE form factor sensors as well, FF and APS-C!

[x-vision]

... Canon does not have BSI technology.

Um, I beg to differ: http://www.canonrumors.com/2012/01/patent-large-back-illuminated-sensor/. Canon does have BSI technology, and for LARGE form factor sensors as well, FF and APS-C!

This is a patent, not an actual sensor.

Canon does not have any BSI sensors in production, as Lee Jay implied.

[x-vision]

Without understanding too much of tech here, if that is the case with the 6D, a next 5D could be fully equipped with 180nm sensors. Which would yield more than an incremental upgrade, right?

Right. This should not prevent you from enjoying your (excellent) 5DIII, though .

[jrista]

... Canon does not have BSI technology.

Um, I beg to differ: http://www.canonrumors.com/2012/01/patent-large-back-illuminated-sensor/. Canon does have BSI technology, and for LARGE form factor sensors as well, FF and APS-C!

This is a patent, not an actual sensor.

Canon does not have any BSI sensors in production, as Lee Jay implied.

You plain and simply stated, as quoted above, that Canon does not have "BSI technology". Having technology does not mean it has to be fabricated in a sensor. Lets stop mincing words. Canon DOES have BSI technology, and their patent is for BSI use in Full Frame and APS-C type sensors. They could put that into use in their next round of sensor designs for next year, and for all we know, they will!

It is a big difference to say "Canon has not used their own BSI technology in a sensor" and "Canon has no BSI technology period".

[pedro]

Without understanding too much of tech here, if that is the case with the 6D, a next 5D could be fully equipped with 180nm sensors. Which would yield more than an incremental upgrade, right?

Right. This should not prevent you from enjoying your (excellent) 5DIII, though .

You bet I do! I try out all the ISOs as high as 102k. Well, if I go for another 5D body by skipping the next, I just hope it gets about the same 51k ISOs as the 25k are looking now. As I really like to take photographs of a black cat in the dark ;-) Won't replace it with the next cycle I guess. It is plenty of camera for an amateur like me. According to my frames per year my 5D3 shutter is good for about 15 years;-) So, what I am hoping for is some real improvement in ultra high ISO IQ within the next eight years...thanks to the real tech cracks here I know it takes quite some time, as we are getting to the limits if not some like this fancy new sensor tech really changes the scene. This is holding me back quite a bit from dreaming about ISO 204k photographs in 5D3 51k quality. In upcoming 5D bodies I would love to see 51k as native ISOs. So one could easily try out the 36k range instead of a one step boost up to 51k.

[x-vision]

You plain and simply stated, as quoted above, that Canon does not have "BSI technology". Having technology does not mean it has to be fabricated in a sensor.

What if Canon's R&D team just simulated this BSI technology on their CAD/CAM workstations?
And then filed a patent based on this research.
Would you say that Canon has a BSI technology?

Lets stop mincing words.

A good, common sense definition of 'having a technology' is that you have products based on this technology.
Alternatively, 'having a technology' might just mean that you have filed a single patent based on paper research.

It can be argued that both of these are valid definitions.

So, when I said that Canon does not have a BSI technology, I was actually quite correct - as per the common sense definition above.

[jrista]

You plain and simply stated, as quoted above, that Canon does not have "BSI technology". Having technology does not mean it has to be fabricated in a sensor.

What if Canon's R&D team just simulated this BSI technology on their CAD/CAM workstations?
And then filed a patent based on this research.
Would you say that Canon has a BSI technology?

Lets stop mincing words.

A good, common sense definition of 'having a technology' is that you have products based on this technology.
Alternatively, 'having a technology' might just mean that you have filed a single patent based on paper research.

It can be argued that both of these are valid definitions.

So, when I said that Canon does not have a BSI technology, I was actually quite correct - as per the common sense definition above.

Well, I disagree with the notion that a company must be actively producing products based on "technology" to actually "have it". As far as I know, to file for a patent, one must have working prototypes of what the patent describes. Patent's are not generally for purely theoretical ideas, they must be proven ideas. A simple CAD model can't prove the concept, only model it. As such, I would expect Canon to have actually fabricated some prototypical BSI sensor designs in order to be qualified to file for the patent in the first place. Thus, I would still state that they "have" the technology, even if it is not in general use yet.

Sony files for CIS patents all year long, but not all of it has made its way into their regularly manufactured parts yet. They still "have" the technology they have patented...its theirs, and anyone else would have to pay Sony for the rights to use it. Same goes for Canon. Canon FILED A PATENT for BSI technology...they have it, they own it, its theirs...and if anyone wants to use it or infringes upon it, Canon has the right to license or sue. As far as I am concerned, that's a common sense definition of "having technology": When you own the rights to it, you "have it".

[neuroanatomist]

As far as I am concerned, that's a common sense definition of "having technology": When you own the rights to it, you "have it".

So...Apple "has" a rectangle with rounded corners.   

[jrista]

As far as I am concerned, that's a common sense definition of "having technology": When you own the rights to it, you "have it".

So...Apple "has" a rectangle with rounded corners.   

HAH! Touché. ;P

That does, of course, mire us in the discussion of what should and shouldn't be patentable. Personally, I hope Apple gets crushed under Samsung's Rounded Corner Ripoffs (tm), but...that's just me. 

[neuroanatomist]

It's a fair patent, and in my current environment, it's already reality.  I'm looking around the conference room in which I'm sitting, and I see window panes, tables, projector screens, and a dozen Lenovo/IBM laptops - all of them are rectangles with angled corners.  I see a clock - rounded, but no corners.  The only objects that I see that are rectangles with rounded corners are four iPhones, two iPads, and the MacBook Air on which I'm typing this post...   

[jrista]

It's a fair patent, and in my current environment, it's already reality.  I'm looking around the conference room in which I'm sitting, and I see window panes, tables, projector screens, and a dozen Lenovo/IBM laptops - all of them are rectangles with angled corners.  I see a clock - rounded, but no corners.  The only objects that I see that are rectangles with rounded corners are four iPhones, two iPads, and the MacBook Air on which I'm typing this post...   

Here's a test for ya: Ask everyone with a smartphone, regardless of brand or age, to put them on a table. Even if there are devices that go back ten years, almost every phone will have rounded corners, and half of the UI's will have icons with rounded corners.

I understand the value of a "trademark", and I think it is fine if someone trademarks their tradedress, but "patenting" the "idea" of "rounded corners"...seriously... When did the requirement that patents be original and NON-OBVIOUS go away? 

[neuroanatomist]

Here's a test for ya: Ask everyone with a smartphone, regardless of brand or age, to put them on a table. Even if there are devices that go back ten years, almost every phone will have rounded corners, and half of the UI's will have icons with rounded corners.

Well, yeah...but most of the phones will have the entire top and bottom edges with a slight curve, or be very slightly trapezoidal, and the UI icons are almost always square.  So none fit the strict definition of a rectangle with rounded corners.  Just sayin'. 

[gmrza]

The 180nm process should start making appearances in DSLRs soon.
It appears that parts of the 6D sensor are already made on 180nm process, as vaguely confirmed by Canon Japan:

• The newly developed CMOS sensor, introducing a process miniaturization in semiconductor process CMOS

It's interesting that Canon USA/Europe do not mention anything about that.

Based on the available info, though, I'd say that the 6D will end up having better image quality than the 5DIII.
Note that the rumors floating around are saying that only parts of the 6D sensor are made on 180nm.
So, the 6D sensor is essentially a 180nm/500nm hybrid.

The question is, are the new APS-C sensors from Canon going to be fully made on 180nm?
If they are 180nm/500nm hybrids, performance might not be all that different from current sensors.
 
But if they are fully made on 180nm, they are certainly going to match/beat the current 16mp Sony sensors.

Thanks - great find  -- there is a little blurb on Adorama saying:  "the sensor, which contains a new photodiode structure" ...  which also indicates something new to the sensor design, but that's a little vague.   Just what do "process miniaturization" and "new photodiode structure" mean to the design, exactly, anyway?   

It sounds promising: I'm looking forward to seeing some production 6D performance data.   Hopefully within a few weeks now.   

There is quite honestly not enough information to draw a conclusion.  Ultimately, once Chipworks analyses a 6D sensor, we will know.
It will be interesting if Canon introduces new sensor technology in the 6D - I would not have expected that, but would rather have expected the 1DX mark II (or whatever it is called) and 5D mark IV to be the first full frame bodies from Canon to see a 180nm sensor.
It would intrigue me if Canon moved to a new process with the 6D.  If Canon were to make such a move, that would seem to be a clear indication that Canon expects to move comparatively large numbers of bodies in order to drive the economies of scale.