December 21, 2014, 08:02:35 PM

Author Topic: Still no news about a Canon shift in sensor fabrication?  (Read 31420 times)

David Hull

  • EOS M2
  • ****
  • Posts: 230
    • View Profile
Re: Still no news about a Canon shift in sensor fabrication?
« Reply #75 on: July 12, 2013, 07:25:57 PM »
Sony are investing  for the future  which impress so much that Eric Fossum has comment  their foreward spirit in competition with other Omnivision, Aptina  etc.  We are here  discussing if Canon are using 180nm tech,  Sony are   at 45nm.

http://www.sony.net/SonyInfo/News/Press/201208/12-107E/index.html

Tell me, what signs are there that Canon has invested big money in new technology to meet  the competition?
You should be more worried about  Canon that have  locked  them selfs  in to a corner like Apple did before they went over to Intel.
I wouldn't get so hung up on the geometry.  For smartphones where the sensor is small and all of the rest of the phone electronics is implemented in 28nm and 45nm there is probably a lot of benefit to going to the newer process nodes (the electronics gets smaller, the power is lower and the voltage interfaces will be similar) but for APS-C and FF size chips, sitting in DSLR bodies with huge batteries this may not be as important.

It only makes since to move to the next process node if there is genuine benefit to be gained from doing so; otherwise the older nodes tend to be less expensive.  What would be the driver for Canon to move to 45nm?  It cannot be that the sensors are not implementable in 180nm, since Sony and others have demonstrated in the past that sensors with good DR and very low FPN can be implemented in that technology.

Then I have one answer, where are the high megapixel cameras?
Isn't the 70D 40 MP on an APS-C chip?  That is more pixel density than anything Sony has done regardless of what node they are operating in.

Incidentally, something I didn’t mention earlier is that if you look at the actual sensor performance which you can see when the ISO gain is cranked to max, the Canon 6D and the Nikon D800 perform about the same (actually the Nikon is worse 4e- vs. 3e-) which means from a pure sensor perspective the Canon 500nm technology is working fine (or at least as well as whatever Sony is using).  It is not Canon’s sensor that is at issue, it is their system architectural choices.  Canon is every bit as good at “sensor” design as Sony is.

If you take the time to study the available data and figure out what it is really saying, you will see the Canon actually does sensors quite well.  I suspect that part of their issue is that they aren't about to arbitrarily "fix" something that they consider not to be "broke".  Their challenge is to find a way to keep their already excellent sensor performance which is arguably the best in the business) and implement it in a way that ferries that performance all the way to the output.

The 70D shows that canon can clearly make a high MP camera if they want to.  However, if they had one, I doubt that it would sell as well as the 5DIII.  I see no evidence that the D800 is outselling the 5DIII particularly now that the prices have dropped to more reasonable levels.

nope, it shows that canon can make a APS sensor with their own tech regarding AF , nothing else
and you are going back to sales figures, thats have nothing to do with the new tech from others as Sony, Aptina, Omnivision and smaller Sensel
what about  pattern noise; Canons have pretty high random read noise at low ISOs, too.
That is the ADC not the sensor, the noise at max gain would indicate that the Canon sensor implementation is as good as (if not better than) anything else out there.

canon rumors FORUM

Re: Still no news about a Canon shift in sensor fabrication?
« Reply #75 on: July 12, 2013, 07:25:57 PM »

x-vision

  • Canon 7D MK II
  • *****
  • Posts: 480
    • View Profile
Re: Still no news about a Canon shift in sensor fabrication?
« Reply #76 on: July 12, 2013, 08:17:33 PM »
This sensor is made from canon line 2 , APS line and compact camera line, nothing difficult with that

At the CMOS/electronics level, the 70D sensor is a 40mp sensor.  You'd better accept that.

It's hard to believe that Canon has managed to make a 40mp sensor on their old 500nm process.
But there are no clear clues at this time to confirm whether Canon has indeed switched to a new process.

We'll surely find out, as I'm sure Chipworks is eager to put this new sensor under their microscopes.


jrista

  • Canon EF 400mm f/2.8L IS II
  • *********
  • Posts: 4816
  • EOL
    • View Profile
    • Nature Photography
Re: Still no news about a Canon shift in sensor fabrication?
« Reply #77 on: July 12, 2013, 08:24:38 PM »
This sensor is made from canon line 2 , APS line and compact camera line, nothing difficult with that

At the CMOS/electronics level, the 70D sensor is a 40mp sensor.  You'd better accept that.

It's hard to believe that Canon has managed to make a 40mp sensor on their old 500nm process.
But there are no clear clues at this time to confirm whether Canon has indeed switched to a new process.

We'll surely find out, as I'm sure Chipworks is eager to put this new sensor under their microscopes.

If Canon has used some kind of BSI process, I guess it's possible they stuck with 500nm. Even if they did that, I think it's still impressive...I don't think BSI has been used in a sensor as large as APS-C before. I do know that they actually have a patent for such a thing, however:

http://thenewcamera.com/canon-patent-back-illuminated-cmos-sensor/

jrista

  • Canon EF 400mm f/2.8L IS II
  • *********
  • Posts: 4816
  • EOL
    • View Profile
    • Nature Photography
Re: Still no news about a Canon shift in sensor fabrication?
« Reply #78 on: July 14, 2013, 01:12:54 AM »
This sensor is made from canon line 2 , APS line and compact camera line, nothing difficult with that

At the CMOS/electronics level, the 70D sensor is a 40mp sensor.  You'd better accept that.

It's hard to believe that Canon has managed to make a 40mp sensor on their old 500nm process.
But there are no clear clues at this time to confirm whether Canon has indeed switched to a new process.

We'll surely find out, as I'm sure Chipworks is eager to put this new sensor under their microscopes.

If Canon has used some kind of BSI process, I guess it's possible they stuck with 500nm. Even if they did that, I think it's still impressive...I don't think BSI has been used in a sensor as large as APS-C before. I do know that they actually have a patent for such a thing, however:

http://thenewcamera.com/canon-patent-back-illuminated-cmos-sensor/

BSI does not improve the sensel size we are talking about, source Eric Fossum

Sure it does. That is the entire point. To expose a greater photodiode surface area by burying transistors and wiring on the opposite side (non light side) of the sensor. In normal sensor manufacture, the photodiode is light sensitive silicon surrounded by those transistors and readout wires. In other words, in an FSI sensor, logic circuitry intrudes on surface area that could otherwise be dedicated to photosensitive diode area. If that wasn't the case, then there wouldn't be any point whatsoever in having BSI technology in the first place!

Malte_P

  • Guest
Re: Still no news about a Canon shift in sensor fabrication?
« Reply #79 on: July 14, 2013, 05:44:19 PM »
yawn.....

northbyten

  • PowerShot G1 X II
  • ***
  • Posts: 34
    • View Profile
Re: Still no news about a Canon shift in sensor fabrication?
« Reply #80 on: July 14, 2013, 09:40:28 PM »
We are going to sit here and argue back and forth for what?

Let's just wait until it comes out.

I've been using my Nokia Lumia 920 over my Canon 550D for personal shot landscapes because the colours are that much nicer and they retain shadows much better straight from the camera.

Yes I can shoot in RAW and grade it to come out nicer on my 550D but that's extra work on top of simply capturing.

If that's a tell tale sign then I don't know what is.

jrista

  • Canon EF 400mm f/2.8L IS II
  • *********
  • Posts: 4816
  • EOL
    • View Profile
    • Nature Photography
Re: Still no news about a Canon shift in sensor fabrication?
« Reply #81 on: July 16, 2013, 12:54:03 PM »
read what I write, the real improvements are around 1,1 to 1,4 um sensel  size

and there are no APS or 24x36 from Canon or others yet= with that small pixel size

BSI cost about 30% more than FSI

Eric Fossum:

Improvements like BSI typically improve image quality mathematically and from a perception point of view, by increasing QE and reducing effects orginating from pixel stack height, when comparing two pixels of equal size. At 1.4 um pixel pitch the improvement offered by BSI is small. By 1.1 um pixel pitch, BSI offers a substantial advantage, unless some FSI breakthrough is made. BSI costs more to make so there is motivation for the FSI breakthough

It really depends on the photodiode size. A 7D has 4.3 micron pixels, but the actual photodiode is smaller than that. The entire pixel is surrounded by 500nm (.5 micron) transistors and wiring, which would mean the photodiode...the actual light sensitive area embedded in the silicon substrate, is only about 3.3 microns at best (and usually, the photodiode has a small margin around it...so closer to 3 microns). A 24.4mp sensor would have pixels in the range of 3.2 microns, however with a 500nm process, the actual photodiode pitch is closer to 2 microns.

Canon has already demonstrated that larger pixels can be huge for overall SNR (and therefor actual light sensitivity) with the 1D X. Despite the fact that the 1D X is a FF sensor, it benefits greatly from a larger pixel, and thus a larger photodiode size...as the gain is relative to the square of the pixel pitch. Production of a BSI APS-C 24.4mp sensor would mean that it could have 3.1 micron photodiodes that perform at least as well as the 7D's 18mp sensor, as total electron capacity is relative to photodiode area. A 24.4mp BSI 7D II could then be roughly as capable (~21,000 electrons charge FWC @ ISO 100) as an 18mp FSI 7D.

Personally, I find that to be quite a valuable thing. Especially given that the 7D currently performs about as poorly as one could expect by today's standards. A 2 micron photodiode in the 7D II would mean SNR suffers even more, which is going to have an impact on IQ, especially for croppers, so I can't imagine Canon doing that.
« Last Edit: July 16, 2013, 12:56:23 PM by jrista »

canon rumors FORUM

Re: Still no news about a Canon shift in sensor fabrication?
« Reply #81 on: July 16, 2013, 12:54:03 PM »

Zv

  • 1D X
  • *******
  • Posts: 1320
    • View Profile
    • Zeeography (flickr)
Re: Still no news about a Canon shift in sensor fabrication?
« Reply #82 on: July 16, 2013, 09:43:06 PM »
read what I write, the real improvements are around 1,1 to 1,4 um sensel  size

and there are no APS or 24x36 from Canon or others yet= with that small pixel size

BSI cost about 30% more than FSI

Eric Fossum:

Improvements like BSI typically improve image quality mathematically and from a perception point of view, by increasing QE and reducing effects orginating from pixel stack height, when comparing two pixels of equal size. At 1.4 um pixel pitch the improvement offered by BSI is small. By 1.1 um pixel pitch, BSI offers a substantial advantage, unless some FSI breakthrough is made. BSI costs more to make so there is motivation for the FSI breakthough

It really depends on the photodiode size. A 7D has 4.3 micron pixels, but the actual photodiode is smaller than that. The entire pixel is surrounded by 500nm (.5 micron) transistors and wiring, which would mean the photodiode...the actual light sensitive area embedded in the silicon substrate, is only about 3.3 microns at best (and usually, the photodiode has a small margin around it...so closer to 3 microns). A 24.4mp sensor would have pixels in the range of 3.2 microns, however with a 500nm process, the actual photodiode pitch is closer to 2 microns.

Canon has already demonstrated that larger pixels can be huge for overall SNR (and therefor actual light sensitivity) with the 1D X. Despite the fact that the 1D X is a FF sensor, it benefits greatly from a larger pixel, and thus a larger photodiode size...as the gain is relative to the square of the pixel pitch. Production of a BSI APS-C 24.4mp sensor would mean that it could have 3.1 micron photodiodes that perform at least as well as the 7D's 18mp sensor, as total electron capacity is relative to photodiode area. A 24.4mp BSI 7D II could then be roughly as capable (~21,000 electrons charge FWC @ ISO 100) as an 18mp FSI 7D.

Personally, I find that to be quite a valuable thing. Especially given that the 7D currently performs about as poorly as one could expect by today's standards. A 2 micron photodiode in the 7D II would mean SNR suffers even more, which is going to have an impact on IQ, especially for croppers, so I can't imagine Canon doing that.

I was never quite sure about this topic, it seemed very electrical engineer related and there was a lot of acronyms and stuff that confused me and made my brain hurt but this post by jrista is the first time I kinda understand what you guys are talking about! Thanks!

Rookie question - what does BSI and FSI stand for?
« Last Edit: July 16, 2013, 09:47:10 PM by Zv »
6D | 17-40L | 24-105L | 70-200 f4L IS | 135L | SY 14 2.8 | Sigma 50 1.4

EOS M | 11-22 IS STM | 22 STM | FD 50 1.4

Drizzt321

  • 1D X
  • *******
  • Posts: 1675
    • View Profile
    • Aaron Baff Photography
Re: Still no news about a Canon shift in sensor fabrication?
« Reply #83 on: July 16, 2013, 10:06:53 PM »
read what I write, the real improvements are around 1,1 to 1,4 um sensel  size

and there are no APS or 24x36 from Canon or others yet= with that small pixel size

BSI cost about 30% more than FSI

Eric Fossum:

Improvements like BSI typically improve image quality mathematically and from a perception point of view, by increasing QE and reducing effects orginating from pixel stack height, when comparing two pixels of equal size. At 1.4 um pixel pitch the improvement offered by BSI is small. By 1.1 um pixel pitch, BSI offers a substantial advantage, unless some FSI breakthrough is made. BSI costs more to make so there is motivation for the FSI breakthough

It really depends on the photodiode size. A 7D has 4.3 micron pixels, but the actual photodiode is smaller than that. The entire pixel is surrounded by 500nm (.5 micron) transistors and wiring, which would mean the photodiode...the actual light sensitive area embedded in the silicon substrate, is only about 3.3 microns at best (and usually, the photodiode has a small margin around it...so closer to 3 microns). A 24.4mp sensor would have pixels in the range of 3.2 microns, however with a 500nm process, the actual photodiode pitch is closer to 2 microns.

Canon has already demonstrated that larger pixels can be huge for overall SNR (and therefor actual light sensitivity) with the 1D X. Despite the fact that the 1D X is a FF sensor, it benefits greatly from a larger pixel, and thus a larger photodiode size...as the gain is relative to the square of the pixel pitch. Production of a BSI APS-C 24.4mp sensor would mean that it could have 3.1 micron photodiodes that perform at least as well as the 7D's 18mp sensor, as total electron capacity is relative to photodiode area. A 24.4mp BSI 7D II could then be roughly as capable (~21,000 electrons charge FWC @ ISO 100) as an 18mp FSI 7D.

Personally, I find that to be quite a valuable thing. Especially given that the 7D currently performs about as poorly as one could expect by today's standards. A 2 micron photodiode in the 7D II would mean SNR suffers even more, which is going to have an impact on IQ, especially for croppers, so I can't imagine Canon doing that.

I was never quite sure about this topic, it seemed very electrical engineer related and there was a lot of acronyms and stuff that confused me and made my brain hurt but this post by jrista is the first time I kinda understand what you guys are talking about! Thanks!

Rookie question - what does BSI and FSI stand for?

BSI stands for Backside Illumination
FSI stands for Frontside Illumiation

Basically, BSI is a way of creating a sensor which has better sensitivity (light gathering ability) which can enable better performance in lower amounts of light. However it can be more costly, especially for larger chips where one fault can cause an entire chip to have to be discarded.

EDIT: That's not to say that all faults are the same. Some, depending on the exactly issue, can be tolerated and are usually designed for to an extent while others are (hopefully) rare but will render an entire chip, or possibly the whole wafer as bad and must be discarded.
5D mark 2, 5D mark 3, EF 17-40mm f/4L,  EF 24-105mm f/4L IS USM, EF 135mm f/2L, EF 85mm f/1.8
Film Cameras: Mamiya RB67, RB-50, RB-180-C, RB-90-C, RB-50, Perkeo I folder, Mamiya Six Folder (Pre-WWII model)
http://www.aaronbaff.com

jrista

  • Canon EF 400mm f/2.8L IS II
  • *********
  • Posts: 4816
  • EOL
    • View Profile
    • Nature Photography
Re: Still no news about a Canon shift in sensor fabrication?
« Reply #84 on: July 16, 2013, 10:45:37 PM »
read what I write, the real improvements are around 1,1 to 1,4 um sensel  size

and there are no APS or 24x36 from Canon or others yet= with that small pixel size

BSI cost about 30% more than FSI

Eric Fossum:

Improvements like BSI typically improve image quality mathematically and from a perception point of view, by increasing QE and reducing effects orginating from pixel stack height, when comparing two pixels of equal size. At 1.4 um pixel pitch the improvement offered by BSI is small. By 1.1 um pixel pitch, BSI offers a substantial advantage, unless some FSI breakthrough is made. BSI costs more to make so there is motivation for the FSI breakthough

It really depends on the photodiode size. A 7D has 4.3 micron pixels, but the actual photodiode is smaller than that. The entire pixel is surrounded by 500nm (.5 micron) transistors and wiring, which would mean the photodiode...the actual light sensitive area embedded in the silicon substrate, is only about 3.3 microns at best (and usually, the photodiode has a small margin around it...so closer to 3 microns). A 24.4mp sensor would have pixels in the range of 3.2 microns, however with a 500nm process, the actual photodiode pitch is closer to 2 microns.

Canon has already demonstrated that larger pixels can be huge for overall SNR (and therefor actual light sensitivity) with the 1D X. Despite the fact that the 1D X is a FF sensor, it benefits greatly from a larger pixel, and thus a larger photodiode size...as the gain is relative to the square of the pixel pitch. Production of a BSI APS-C 24.4mp sensor would mean that it could have 3.1 micron photodiodes that perform at least as well as the 7D's 18mp sensor, as total electron capacity is relative to photodiode area. A 24.4mp BSI 7D II could then be roughly as capable (~21,000 electrons charge FWC @ ISO 100) as an 18mp FSI 7D.

Personally, I find that to be quite a valuable thing. Especially given that the 7D currently performs about as poorly as one could expect by today's standards. A 2 micron photodiode in the 7D II would mean SNR suffers even more, which is going to have an impact on IQ, especially for croppers, so I can't imagine Canon doing that.

I was never quite sure about this topic, it seemed very electrical engineer related and there was a lot of acronyms and stuff that confused me and made my brain hurt but this post by jrista is the first time I kinda understand what you guys are talking about! Thanks!

Rookie question - what does BSI and FSI stand for?

Glad it was helpful. Any engineering stuff aside, an image sensor is really just a circuitboard with sensors that generate electric charge in response to light stimulus surrounded by a bunch of electronic logic (transitors, capacitors/resistors, and wiring) designed to make it possible to "read" out the charge of each pixel when told to do so. Generally, as a matter of physics, the larger the area of the sensor, the more light can be detected and converted into charge.

BTW, BSI stands for Backside Illiminated, it has to do with the specifics of how the sensor is manufactured. These nano-scale circuit boards are "etched" onto the surface of highly polished, high grade silicon wafers. Etching occurs via light, which is beamed through a much larger scale "circuit board template" and onto the surface of the silicon (its a lot more complicated than that, as etching a CMOS device is usually done in layers, with depositions of various material for each layer, and further etchings with different templates...but that's the gist). The "front" side is the side that is etched. Usually, all the logic is etched onto the front side, and the photodiode itself is simply appropriately doped silicon in a grid at the bottom of the "well" created by all the transistors and wiring. Sensors etched in such a way are FSI, or Front Side Illuminated.


Fig 1: You can see the photosite well in this image. The "pixel cathode" is the photodiode. Various wiring surrounds the photodiode. Above the pixel is a color filter and a microlens.


Fig 2: You can see the grid layout of pixels in this image.

A newer technique originally designed to support the increasingly small photodiode area left available in small form factor sensors (such as the ones that are a fraction of a fingernail in size) for cell phone cameras, cheap point & shoots, etc. put the photodiode on the back of the silicon wafer, then etched the wiring on the front side, connected to the previously etched photodiodes. There are also usually color filters and micro lenses etched into the back side as well, above the photodiode itself. The process is more expensive as usually, only one side of the wafer needs to be etched or doped. The back side is usually just part of the "substrate", and the number of defects (stratches, pits, or other marks or even particulate embedded into the surface) do not matter. Since both sides of the wafer are important in a BSI design, both sides of the silicon wafer must be not only polished, but defects must be kept to a minimum. Hence it is more expensive and harder to manufacture.


Fig 3: A sony BSI sensor design. You can see all of the logic on top (front side), and microlenses, color filters, and photodiode on the bottom (back side). You can see where the photodiode for each pixel is connected to its logic in the middle.

An alternative to BSI design is LightPipe design. Canon also has patents as well as prototype (and possibly production...not sure) designs for a 180nm Cu (copper wiring) LightPipe sensor design with a double layer of microlenses. LightPipes make use of a high refractive index material to fill in the well. Normally, any light not directly incident on the photodiode itself will convert to heat or possibly reflect. That results in a loss of light energy, reducing the sensitivity of the sensor.


Fig 4: Canon's 180nm Cu LightPipe sensor cross section. This is for a very small sensor, possibly with pixels less than 2 microns in size (as evidenced by the very large wiring blocks next to each pixel, which on a 180nm process, means these pixels are quite small.)

Zv

  • 1D X
  • *******
  • Posts: 1320
    • View Profile
    • Zeeography (flickr)
Re: Still no news about a Canon shift in sensor fabrication?
« Reply #85 on: July 17, 2013, 02:25:44 AM »
Thanks jrista and Driz for the info. I couldn't quite picture a BSI sensor so I wikipediaded it and found some links that were helpful. I learned something today! This is why I love CR!

Let me see if I have this right -

So FSI is cheaper as only one side need to be treated in the manufacturing process, it's more common and what Canon uses. However light can be reflected by the metal layer which sits in front of the photodiode. One way to get around that would be to make the transistors and metal logic parts smaller, right? Or just have less pixels. See 1DX.

And BSI is more expensive to make due to both sides of the wafer being treated however it essentially captures more light and is better for low light photography as light hits the silicon layer directly. So this has up until recently only been used in very small sensors, right? I read Sony were putting a 1 inch sensor in the RX-200.

Some conflicting info though. Have Sony found a way to reduce the cost of producing a BSI sensor then?  And are there any other disadvantages to BSI?

I would imagine that the equipment that is used to make BSI sensors also costs more than FSI and that for Canon to switch they would have to spend a boat load of money which in turn would mean more expensive cameras? Or can it be done relatively easily and Canon are working on this for the big megapixel body next year?
6D | 17-40L | 24-105L | 70-200 f4L IS | 135L | SY 14 2.8 | Sigma 50 1.4

EOS M | 11-22 IS STM | 22 STM | FD 50 1.4

jrista

  • Canon EF 400mm f/2.8L IS II
  • *********
  • Posts: 4816
  • EOL
    • View Profile
    • Nature Photography
Re: Still no news about a Canon shift in sensor fabrication?
« Reply #86 on: July 17, 2013, 10:12:54 AM »
Thanks jrista and Driz for the info. I couldn't quite picture a BSI sensor so I wikipediaded it and found some links that were helpful. I learned something today! This is why I love CR!

Let me see if I have this right -

So FSI is cheaper as only one side need to be treated in the manufacturing process, it's more common and what Canon uses. However light can be reflected by the metal layer which sits in front of the photodiode. One way to get around that would be to make the transistors and metal logic parts smaller, right? Or just have less pixels. See 1DX.

And BSI is more expensive to make due to both sides of the wafer being treated however it essentially captures more light and is better for low light photography as light hits the silicon layer directly. So this has up until recently only been used in very small sensors, right? I read Sony were putting a 1 inch sensor in the RX-200.

Some conflicting info though. Have Sony found a way to reduce the cost of producing a BSI sensor then?  And are there any other disadvantages to BSI?

I would imagine that the equipment that is used to make BSI sensors also costs more than FSI and that for Canon to switch they would have to spend a boat load of money which in turn would mean more expensive cameras? Or can it be done relatively easily and Canon are working on this for the big megapixel body next year?

I think Sony quite simply just adds more debt in order to manufacture their sensors. They have tens of billions in debt, in no small part due to the creation of their highly modern fabs. Sony does bring in revenue, but last I heard, their operating expenses were higher, so they are loosing money to the tune of several hundred billion yen a year. I can't say whether they have found ways to make BSI fabrication cheaper or not...although I suspect they can certainly refine the process over time.

Canon is capable of producing sensors using more advanced processes. Currently, they use 8" wafers for fabricating smaller CMOS devices, sensors for small cameras. An 8" wafer doesn't offer as much surface area, so it is more expensive to fabricate larger sensors, like APS-C and FF, on them. They build their own fabs, so I see no reason they couldn't build a fab capable of 180nm on 12" wafers.

I think it is probably more likely that Canon is using some kind of BSI 500nm process for their high density APS-C and FF sensors. They actually have a patent for such a thing, and it wouldn't require them to build a new fab...and it would really be the only way to continue using a 500nm process and still make sensors with even smaller pixels produce IQ that is on par with their past and current generation sensors. I haven't heard even a rumor of anything indicating they have created new fabs or anything like that (although I certainly hope they have...I don't see how Canon can remain competitive moving forward without jumping to a 180nm process, while the rest of the world is already there or even moving beyond. Canon has certainly been able to remain competitive with 500nm...but they have to be well into the realm of diminishing returns now.)

Zv

  • 1D X
  • *******
  • Posts: 1320
    • View Profile
    • Zeeography (flickr)
Re: Still no news about a Canon shift in sensor fabrication?
« Reply #87 on: July 17, 2013, 11:25:48 AM »
Yeah i saw the info regarding the patent. Seems like they have the know how or even have known for some time. I guess they are just waiting for the right time. Seems they can keep up with current market trends just fine. If things change drastically then they'll prob step it up. I have faith. And in the meantime theres always Magic Lantern! Hey hey!
6D | 17-40L | 24-105L | 70-200 f4L IS | 135L | SY 14 2.8 | Sigma 50 1.4

EOS M | 11-22 IS STM | 22 STM | FD 50 1.4

canon rumors FORUM

Re: Still no news about a Canon shift in sensor fabrication?
« Reply #87 on: July 17, 2013, 11:25:48 AM »

jrista

  • Canon EF 400mm f/2.8L IS II
  • *********
  • Posts: 4816
  • EOL
    • View Profile
    • Nature Photography
Re: Still no news about a Canon shift in sensor fabrication?
« Reply #88 on: July 17, 2013, 01:12:05 PM »
Yeah i saw the info regarding the patent. Seems like they have the know how or even have known for some time. I guess they are just waiting for the right time. Seems they can keep up with current market trends just fine. If things change drastically then they'll prob step it up. I have faith. And in the meantime theres always Magic Lantern! Hey hey!

The Magic Lantern 14stop Dr thing is interesting. Certainly not the same as what you get with a D800 and its Exmor...you lose vertical resolution. To me, the point of having additional native hardware DR is the ability to recover shadow DETAIL. You can always downsample, which will improve image DR, but at the cost of detail...so to me that is kind of a net zero tradeoff (at least, when printing...doesn't matter if your uploading online.)

I guess for web publishers, the trick will be quite handy, and will certainly be better than the banding you get now on a Canon sensor.

Drizzt321

  • 1D X
  • *******
  • Posts: 1675
    • View Profile
    • Aaron Baff Photography
Re: Still no news about a Canon shift in sensor fabrication?
« Reply #89 on: July 17, 2013, 02:28:41 PM »
Yeah i saw the info regarding the patent. Seems like they have the know how or even have known for some time. I guess they are just waiting for the right time. Seems they can keep up with current market trends just fine. If things change drastically then they'll prob step it up. I have faith. And in the meantime theres always Magic Lantern! Hey hey!

The Magic Lantern 14stop Dr thing is interesting. Certainly not the same as what you get with a D800 and its Exmor...you lose vertical resolution. To me, the point of having additional native hardware DR is the ability to recover shadow DETAIL. You can always downsample, which will improve image DR, but at the cost of detail...so to me that is kind of a net zero tradeoff (at least, when printing...doesn't matter if your uploading online.)

I guess for web publishers, the trick will be quite handy, and will certainly be better than the banding you get now on a Canon sensor.

Yea, it'd be great to be able to pull some more detail out of the shadows. Once this makes it into a somewhat stable alpha I might play around with this. Might use it for stills, as it might not be as easy to see the moire/aliasing as it is with video since with video you can see it moving around. Plus most of my output is for web, so I'm downsampling much of the time.

As others have said, it'll be really interesting to see if the new 70D dual-photosite per pixel has 2 read-out chips, and if they read out the separate photosites at each pixel. If they do, that could make this really interesting.
5D mark 2, 5D mark 3, EF 17-40mm f/4L,  EF 24-105mm f/4L IS USM, EF 135mm f/2L, EF 85mm f/1.8
Film Cameras: Mamiya RB67, RB-50, RB-180-C, RB-90-C, RB-50, Perkeo I folder, Mamiya Six Folder (Pre-WWII model)
http://www.aaronbaff.com

canon rumors FORUM

Re: Still no news about a Canon shift in sensor fabrication?
« Reply #89 on: July 17, 2013, 02:28:41 PM »