Big Megapixel Camera in 2014

[LetTheRightLensIn]

Interesting about a quicker sideband "refresh" of the 5D line. I wonder if that is because Canon is finally ready to move to a newer 180nm process, and want to get all of their cameras on it sooner rather than later. I, for one, would happily spend a few grand on a high MP, high frame rate, 5D X (or whatever it ends up being called) if it had reduced read noise and competitive DR (i.e. at least 13 stops).

I can see that you want such a product (dont we all), but what makes you think it will be high framerate? "Big megapixel camera" makes me think that it is to be a D800/MF killer for landscapes/macro, and that framerate/AF/high-ISO will be less prioritized.

I think it will be high frame rate because high frame rate is what Canon does better than anyone else. I have also been poring over Canon patents for the last month, and they seem to have quite a number of parallel readout and parallel pixel processing patents for high speed readout of high megapixel count sensors. Canon has also prototyped a 120mp sensor with a 9.5fps readout rate using some combination of block and row/column parallel readout and on-die image processing.

I see no reason why that technology could not be applied to a "measly" 30-40mp FF sensor to achieve at least 6-8fps. I also see no reason why ISO range would have to suffer. High ISO capabilities are not mutually exclusive with low ISO capabilities. On the contrary, high ISO is limited by physics, while low ISO is limited by electronic noise sources. Canons maximum well capacity is already more than high enough to fully exploit 14 bit data, as well as fully exploit 16 bit data...the only thing in the way is their high read noise. That could be solved with a parallel digital readout approach that applies digital noise reduction similar to Sony. If Canon solves the noise problem, they could easily have both quality high and quality low ISO performance.

Thanks for your post, jrista.

Now THAT sounds logical... and promising!

I keep my hopes up.  Currently a happy 7D user, but always looking to technological advances helping my  future photography.

Paul

It does sound logical and promising to the extreme. I just hope Canon is seeing it that way. The signs point that they might be, OTOH they haven't actually directly shown much to hope that though and delays and all might be not due to what we hope. I think that he is right about that, but I do fear a touch that I might end up disappointed.

[LetTheRightLensIn]

The 1D X definitely has better noise characteristics compared to the others, and it does not seem to exhibit the oscillating +/- 1/3rd stop ISO quirk (which is a big improvement IMO).

That is nothing new. All the 1 series, certainly any half-way recent one has used two amps, 1 for the main ISO and then one to adjust 1/3 stops on top of that. 1D4, 1Ds3, 1D3 were all free of that too. No non-1 series has ever been free of it though, they all used faked 1/3 ISOs.

(I am not sure why it works that way, but whatever the core, common, fundamental design factors of Canon's 500nm process are, it causes a non-linear read noise issue in all of their sensors (basically, read noise climbs from a floor around two electrons worth at high ISO to between 10 to 40 electrons worth at low ISO. Sony Exmor sensors effectively have a flat, linear noise curve. I'm hoping a move to 180nm process will allow Canon to solve those issues.)

A combo of the process size (since D4 sensor doesn't use exmor but does have less read noise than any Canon) and lacking the column ADC, more fully digital on chip 'NR' of the exmor and other sensors of that sort of design.
(some speculate those types of designs can't be done on 500nm process though, even with patents, since they take up too much room at 500nm, some speculate that the patents are not even an issue at other and that others do similar things and that it is the size alone that might be holding Canon back, not sure though).

[LetTheRightLensIn]

24mp x 10fps would require 1dx's pipeline so its highly unlikely, even 24x8 would be kinda farfetched but it might be forced if the competition steps up. That would drive the whole APS pro category to 2K pricerange across the brands and the signs sofar from both camps point to a more conservative generation, i guess we'll see..

Why?? 7D did the same as the 1 series throughput?
Did it make it cost $6000? No. Digics cost dollars.

[pedro]

"That could be solved with a parallel digital readout approach that applies digital noise reduction similar to Sony. If Canon solves the noise problem, they could easily have both quality high and quality low ISO performance."

I just hope it turns out like this. An 1Dx is out of range for me. Therefore I really like the 5D3 for my type of photography. It is a very versatile allround cam allowing me to shoot at extremly high ISOs in decent quality. But honestly: 22.3 MP are way enough for me!

[jrista]

The 1D X definitely has better noise characteristics compared to the others, and it does not seem to exhibit the oscillating +/- 1/3rd stop ISO quirk (which is a big improvement IMO).

That is nothing new. All the 1 series, certainly any half-way recent one has used two amps, 1 for the main ISO and then one to adjust 1/3 stops on top of that. 1D4, 1Ds3, 1D3 were all free of that too. No non-1 series has ever been free of it though, they all used faked 1/3 ISOs.

(I am not sure why it works that way, but whatever the core, common, fundamental design factors of Canon's 500nm process are, it causes a non-linear read noise issue in all of their sensors (basically, read noise climbs from a floor around two electrons worth at high ISO to between 10 to 40 electrons worth at low ISO. Sony Exmor sensors effectively have a flat, linear noise curve. I'm hoping a move to 180nm process will allow Canon to solve those issues.)

A combo of the process size (since D4 sensor doesn't use exmor but does have less read noise than any Canon) and lacking the column ADC, more fully digital on chip 'NR' of the exmor and other sensors of that sort of design.
(some speculate those types of designs can't be done on 500nm process though, even with patents, since they take up too much room at 500nm, some speculate that the patents are not even an issue at other and that others do similar things and that it is the size alone that might be holding Canon back, not sure though).

I agree that it is unlikely Canon could do that with a 500nm process. I will have to go back and look at some of those patents again...I am not sure if a process size was specified. It was mostly just the electrical design of the concepts, not necessarily with actual prototypes. I am pretty sure Canon would need the 180nm die shrink to achieve anything more advanced than what they have now...otherwise they are just wasting die space, and probably producing too much heat to boot.

[LetTheRightLensIn]

That is nothing new. All the 1 series, certainly any half-way recent one has used two amps, 1 for the main ISO and then one to adjust 1/3 stops on top of that. 1D4, 1Ds3, 1D3 were all free of that too. No non-1 series has ever been free of it though, they all used faked 1/3 ISOs.

The 1Ds MkIII does not use genuine 1/3 stop iso amplification. I have mine set to full stops only.

http://www.northlight-images.co.uk/article_pages/cameras/canon_1ds3_noise.html

Hmm I thought I read that some had tested it and it did, perhaps not.
I thought it started before 1D4.

[c.d.embrey]

"I'm much more likely to buy a 31 megapixel Medium Format Digital than a 40 megapixel Canon."

Probably an obvious answer, but shooting in a studio what would be the benefit of MF over a high-megapixel Canon? Wouldn't the Canon be able to print even larger than MF if there are more pixels?

Who makes prints I shoot advertising that appears in magazines, etc. There have been more than a few Vogue covers shot with 16Mpx DX cameras. Lots of Sports Illustrated covers shot with Canon 1D cameras or the Nikon D3.

Because of the larger sensor in MFD cameras you use a longer lens than full-frame. For the medium format shooter, FF is a crop camera

[paulrossjones]

In other words (like I suspected) Nikon's D800 completely blindsided Canon.

So not to loose face and stem a possible hemorrhage of photographers into Nikon's camp, Canon releases disinformation rumors.

First:  We may be releasing a high MB camera soon.
Second:  Uh, we STILL haven't released a high MB camera because it's taking longer because it's neeeewwwwwww sensor technology.
Third:  We have to upgrade the lens first.

Last one really amuses me because it implies that Canon lens suck compared to Nikon.  Nikon didn't need to upgrade their lens for people to instantly see massive benefit from the D800.  Will a whole new slew of Canon lens be needed to see a difference with Canon new high MB camera?

Sad.

i have to agree. in my world (advertising photography), so many professionals have ditched canon for nikon, and more have ditched medium format. i only know of a few photographers still shooting medium format, because its a pain in the ass. i have considered buying a d800e for the meantime so i don't need to use my p65 so much, but i have so much invested in canon lenses. and some canon lenses are really unavailable in nikon. i use my 50 f1.0, 85 f1.2, 200 f1.8 and ts17 for almost all my shoots, and nikon has none of these.

i dream of having a fast shooting high megapixel canon, my life would be so much easier. i wish it was out soon.

paul

[pedro]

Jrista wrote;  However, the current approach to ADC taken by all manufacturers except Sony.

There are Panasonic with row wise ADC as Sony   , there are Aptina and Toshiba with ADC at the sensor chip with different solutions. Every 10 row in Aptina sensor as one  example
Sony has no over all patens regarding row wise ADC at the sensors edge.

And about Canons 120Mp sensor  do you mean that Canon has ADC at the sensor chip

I am not talking about "row-wise" in general. I am talking quite explicitly about Sony's CP-ADC w/ Digital CDS, which is an ADC for every single column that performs a refresh readout, negative read and register for each pixel, then full sensor read on top of the negative registration to produce a near-noiseless image. THAT is the genius behind Exmor, and why it performs better than every other sensor on the market.

Row-wise ADC is not the same, as it is just a form of bucketed parallel readout. It still has the potential (and frequently realizes that potential) to produce banding. Canon also has patents for bucketed parallel on-die ADC readout. According the the patents I've read recently, it is not row-wise but clock wise. Not really sure how that affects read noise or banding (I suspect a light hatching is probably the result), but it isn't much different than row-wise on-die ADC.

There is  ways around different patents, and the results shows that in the new Toshiba/Nikon sensor in 5200 with 65% QE and very good S/N figures and DR 13,3 stops

This is what David Hull wrote in another discussion we had  about patents     
The original IBM patent: US-5877715

The More recent Sony Patent: US-7864094 B2

The CDS is the "Correlated Double Sampler" the point of this is that when you clear the photo diode prior to recording a new image all of them reset to a slightly different reference voltage. This difference needs to be taken into account and subtracted off prior to recording the image so that this residual “noise” does not become part of the picture. For this reason, so two samples are taken with the first being subtracted from the second. Canon uses a little capacitor to do this (an analog approach). Sony does it by counting DOWN the SAR (successive Approximation Register) counter during the first sampling phase and then counting UP from this reference when the real image is recorded. Both of these methods serve to subtract out the residual "noise" in the photo site. Sony gets this essentially for free with their column SAR architecture. Canon has a column ADC patent as well; I don't have the number handy for that one.

and this is from Bob Newman
US7375672

If you're interested this is Canon's patent for the CDS mechanism that they use. And here is Canon's column ADC.
The More recent Sony Patent: US-7864094 B2
That patent covers the use of the column ADC to 'bin' multiple pixels in the row, rather than the count down/count up CDS method.


ONE thing is for sure: Canon makes no column wise ADC sensors, the Sony only integrates the ADC. Canon still uses off chip, Analog Devices ADC's. That's why they can't get the performance that Sony, Toshiba does. One of the reasons that they can't is because their process geometry, on the old line, is just too coarse.

@Mike Risedal: Thank you for sharing! I am not a tech and non-anglo as well. But do I understand correctly, that Sony sensors apply kind of a black frame ( as we do it in long exposures at night) to get rid of all the noise before ever a new photograph is taken? Well, this allows much more noise free high ISOs then...So, when is it likely that Canon apply a similar system? My 5D3 seems to be a good investment until they are able to present a similar solution.

[meli]

24mp x 10fps would require 1dx's pipeline so its highly unlikely, even 24x8 would be kinda farfetched but it might be forced if the competition steps up. That would drive the whole APS pro category to 2K pricerange across the brands and the signs sofar from both camps point to a more conservative generation, i guess we'll see..

Why?? 7D did the same as the 1 series throughput?
Did it make it cost $6000? No. Digics cost dollars.

that 6k must be 2k i suppose? Eitherway keep in mind that msrps were 1.7k for 7d & 5k for 1d4. Its 7k for the 1d5 1dX, plus consider Canon's pricing trend for the last 2 years

[Cannon Man]

I like this rumor!!
Please be available in the stores before my 3 month long trip to Japan in 2014 !!!!

[neuroanatomist]

The 1D X definitely has better noise characteristics compared to the others, and it does not seem to exhibit the oscillating +/- 1/3rd stop ISO quirk (which is a big improvement IMO).

What is this quirk? I stopped using 1/3rd stop ISO after I was told that my 7D actually only has 1-stop analog amplification, while intermediate ISO values consists of only applying a digital gain (that only serve to throw away highlight info).

Bill Claff's data show the 'quirk' pretty clearly.  The same oscillating pattern seen below in the 5DIII plot is seen in the 7D plot, etc.  The 1D X has lower read noise overall, and a pretty smooth relationship with ISO.

[pedro]

@neuro, mikael: Thanks a lot. This helps for my better understanding!

[John Thomas]

@Mikael, Jon Rista, John Reilly & others: Why do you think that Canon got uncovered in the sensor game, since it has the patents and the like? I don't want to reiterate the architectural differences between different sensors but rather a "what happened and what they should do next?"

Also, besides improving the (classical) "data extraction engine" (read: ADC & co.) what do you think about the 'alternative' solutions like the...

Panasonic's new approach based on diffraction
(http://www.dpreview.com/news/2013/02/04/panasonic-promises-high-sensitivity-sensors-using-micro-color-splitters)

Fuji's X-Trans and similar other approaches to avoid the OLPF like eg. Foveon
(sorry, no links here...  )

stacked sensors (http://www.marketwatch.com/story/sony-develops-exmor-rs-the-worlds-first-stacked-cmos-image-sensor-2012-08-21)

curved sensors (http://www.sonyalpharumors.com/sony-patent-shows-a-new-curved-sensor-technology/)

honeycomb sensors (http://www.sonyalpharumors.com/new-sensor-patent-discloses-a-honeycomb-image-sensor/)


...and any other solution(s) as I said.


IOW, which would be, in your opinion, "The Road Ahead"?

[Atonegro]

Sh*t.... I was hoping for a better Canonsensor this year....
Looks like I have to buy me some more Nikon lenses.

Shame the canon lenses don't fit on the Nikon, Nikon has for sure the better camera, but I think the Canon lenses are better.