August 23, 2014, 02:08:37 AM

Author Topic: Canon EOS 7D Mark II in 2014 [CR2]  (Read 28743 times)

9VIII

  • 6D
  • *****
  • Posts: 547
    • View Profile
Re: Canon EOS 7D Mark II in 2014 [CR2]
« Reply #120 on: November 18, 2013, 12:15:36 PM »

Sensors are getting cheaper and cheaper to manufacture so it really isn't so much a matter of pure costs anymore. Canon and Nikon (and others) recognize that even though they could inexpensively put FF sensors into ALL of their cameras now, not everyone is going to want that.


I have to disagree with this statement - it will always be a matter of cost. The reason being that a crop sensor is significantly less expensive to manufacture:



Yes prices are dropping, and of course there are a lot of other factors that go into the price of a camera/camera body, but remember just based on size, a full frame sensor will always be roughly three times the cost to manufacture as a crop sensor.

If a crop sensor can yield 90% of the IQ for a third of the cost - it's kind of a no-brainer for the manufacturer!

http://www.robgalbraith.com/images/canon_full-frame_cmos_white_paper.pdf

Quote
Interestingly, the APS-H sensor of the EOS-1D Mark II N is the largest size that can be imaged in one shot onto a wafer. Extended through the whole sensor production process, the difference in price between the 1D Mark II N and the 1Ds Mark II can be readily understood.

I want APS-H sensors back!
Though I wouldn't be surprised if they increased the size of their projectors since 2006.

In the article it says that Full Frame sensors cost 10-20 times as much ,or more, than APS-C. It says that dust particles can easily wipe out an entire wafer of Full Frame sensors, where an APS-C batch would still have plenty of usable chips.

I hate to think what people have to go through to get a medium format sensor out the door.
« Last Edit: November 18, 2013, 12:20:12 PM by 9VIII »
-100% RAW-

Marsu42

  • Canon EF 400mm f/2.8L IS II
  • *******
  • Posts: 4391
  • ML-66d / 100L / 70-300L / 17-40L / 600rts
    • View Profile
    • 6D positive spec list
Re: Canon EOS 7D Mark II in 2014 [CR2]
« Reply #121 on: November 18, 2013, 12:53:38 PM »
but remember just based on size, a full frame sensor will always be roughly three times the cost to manufacture as a crop sensor

... now the one thing that would be really, really interesting how much in *absolute* $$$ a ff sensor costs - ff cameras aren't so expensive just because of the sensor, but because they add other expensive features (yes, even the 6d...) and have a price premium as they produce the best dslr iq.

ashmadux

  • Rebel T5i
  • ****
  • Posts: 142
  • Art Director, Visual Artist, Freelance Photography
    • View Profile
    • Edward Ofori Photography
Re: Canon EOS 7D Mark II in 2014 [CR2]
« Reply #122 on: November 18, 2013, 01:52:19 PM »
My 2c

The 70d feels like a great camera in use. The plastic-ness was very off-putting at first handle- same like the 60d. Playing with it and taking sample images yesterday gave me a much better impression. I can only wonder at what the 7d 2 will be like- that's gotta be a killer.

Hmm- smaller things though will probably be the return of the spot Af mode?
Be the best you, screw everything else.

Jan

  • Rebel T5i
  • ****
  • Posts: 128
    • View Profile
Re: Canon EOS 7D Mark II in 2014 [CR2]
« Reply #123 on: November 19, 2013, 03:10:28 AM »
I want APS-H sensors back!
Though I wouldn't be surprised if they increased the size of their projectors since 2006.
That's exactly it. I don't think the statements from 2006 still hold. At least, I hope...  ;)

dufflover

  • Rebel T5i
  • ****
  • Posts: 102
  • OH YEAH!
    • View Profile
Re: Canon EOS 7D Mark II in 2014 [CR2]
« Reply #124 on: November 19, 2013, 05:03:34 AM »
As much as I'd like a 7DII I'm starting to think realistically I'd end up with a 5DMark3 or my 7D + 60D sold/merged into a 70D (with the EOS-M as the new 2nd body).

It's not that I need a FF sensor but like many other CR members I'm sure, I'm a bit of a gear head, a tech head. I know I don't need it but I like my toys! Well, of the not-rich-not-poor variety where I can't go buying 1D-X bodies and Canon super-telephotos, but my friends all thought I had a FF camera LOL. Just because I look like that sort of person.
Hurry up Canon and do something with your sensors! :P

TrabimanUK

  • EOS M2
  • ****
  • Posts: 191
  • In the words of Brian Johnson - "Shoot to thrill!"
    • View Profile
Re: Canon EOS 7D Mark II in 2014 [CR2]
« Reply #125 on: November 19, 2013, 06:34:00 AM »
I want APS-H sensors back!

+1 - would make the 7DII a bit differnt and differentiate it from the 1D, 5D and xxD range.  Be a bit like ressurecting the 1D IV :)
Canon 5D, 60D, 40D, SX150-IR/UV, 50 f1.8, 70-200 f2.8 IS II, 70-300 f4-5.6 IS USM 
Sigma 10 F2.8 EX DC DIAGONAL FISHEYE HSM, 24-70 f2.8 IF EX DG HSM

StudentOfLight

  • EOS M2
  • ****
  • Posts: 228
  • I'm on a life-long journey of self-discovery
    • View Profile
Re: Canon EOS 7D Mark II in 2014 [CR2]
« Reply #126 on: November 19, 2013, 07:37:17 AM »
http://www.robgalbraith.com/images/canon_full-frame_cmos_white_paper.pdf
Thank for posting the link to the white paper. I see it was published in 2006... I don't know how much production processes might have changed since then. But it is very interesting reading none-the-less.

I'm not an electronics designer so I would appreciate some info with regards to the following questions:

1) Are sensors still being made on 8" silicon wafers? If larger diameter wafers are used then there could be a lower percentage wastage when larger sized sensors are manufactured, bringing it closer to the smaller sensors.

2) Is the silicon wafer the expensive raw material component in the manufacture or the sensor elements which (I assume) are deposited onto the wafers?

3) Why are these silicon wafers circular? If rectangular wafers could be used then there would be no inherent production wastage, only possible rejects.

These are honest questions, please don't bite my head off when answering.
« Last Edit: November 19, 2013, 07:46:34 AM by StudentOfLight »
Fantasy Gear:
TS-E: 45mm f/2.8 L-II,  EF: 40mm f/0.8,  100mm f/1.4,  35-85mm f/1.8, 
EF with 1.4xInt: 100-300mm f/4 ,  500mm f/5.6 L

dufflover

  • Rebel T5i
  • ****
  • Posts: 102
  • OH YEAH!
    • View Profile
Hurry up Canon and do something with your sensors! :P

photonius

  • Rebel T5i
  • ****
  • Posts: 128
    • View Profile
Re: Canon EOS 7D Mark II in 2014 [CR2]
« Reply #128 on: November 19, 2013, 08:58:08 AM »
http://www.robgalbraith.com/images/canon_full-frame_cmos_white_paper.pdf
Thank for posting the link to the white paper. I see it was published in 2006... I don't know how much production processes might have changed since then. But it is very interesting reading none-the-less.

I'm not an electronics designer so I would appreciate some info with regards to the following questions:

1) Are sensors still being made on 8" silicon wafers? If larger diameter wafers are used then there could be a lower percentage wastage when larger sized sensors are manufactured, bringing it closer to the smaller sensors.

2) Is the silicon wafer the expensive raw material component in the manufacture or the sensor elements which (I assume) are deposited onto the wafers?

3) Why are these silicon wafers circular? If rectangular wafers could be used then there would be no inherent production wastage, only possible rejects.

These are honest questions, please don't bite my head off when answering.

1) There are larger sizes, but they require bigger machines to handle, and production of larger, flawless wafers is more difficult.
2) Silicon wafers have not gone down in price.   So, unlike a CPU in a computer, where you just make the individual transistors smaller to pack more CPU power into the same size (Moore's law),
the image sensors don't scale like that. Yes, you could pack smaller and smaller pixels into the same size (megapixel race), but that's not really where the limitations lie these days.

privatebydesign

  • Canon EF 300mm f/2.8L IS II
  • *******
  • Posts: 2180
  • Ermintrude says "moo"
    • View Profile
Re: Canon EOS 7D Mark II in 2014 [CR2]
« Reply #129 on: November 19, 2013, 09:09:58 AM »


3) Why are these silicon wafers circular? If rectangular wafers could be used then there would be no inherent production wastage, only possible rejects.


Because of the laws of centrifugal force.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Czochralski_process
The best time to plant a tree is twenty-five years ago. The second best time is today.

StudentOfLight

  • EOS M2
  • ****
  • Posts: 228
  • I'm on a life-long journey of self-discovery
    • View Profile
Re: Canon EOS 7D Mark II in 2014 [CR2]
« Reply #130 on: November 19, 2013, 10:27:34 AM »
Thanks for the links guys.
Fantasy Gear:
TS-E: 45mm f/2.8 L-II,  EF: 40mm f/0.8,  100mm f/1.4,  35-85mm f/1.8, 
EF with 1.4xInt: 100-300mm f/4 ,  500mm f/5.6 L

TrabimanUK

  • EOS M2
  • ****
  • Posts: 191
  • In the words of Brian Johnson - "Shoot to thrill!"
    • View Profile
Re: Canon EOS 7D Mark II in 2014 [CR2]
« Reply #131 on: November 19, 2013, 10:34:31 AM »

Because of the laws of centrifugal force.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Czochralski_process

Sorry to be picky, but working with physics boffins sometimes rubs off.  Do you mean centripetal force?

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Centripetal_force

Canon 5D, 60D, 40D, SX150-IR/UV, 50 f1.8, 70-200 f2.8 IS II, 70-300 f4-5.6 IS USM 
Sigma 10 F2.8 EX DC DIAGONAL FISHEYE HSM, 24-70 f2.8 IF EX DG HSM

unfocused

  • 1D X
  • *******
  • Posts: 1992
    • View Profile
    • Unfocused: A photo website
Re: Canon EOS 7D Mark II in 2014 [CR2]
« Reply #132 on: November 19, 2013, 10:41:13 AM »
Interesting reading about the wafer production.

Not being a techie I could be wrong about this, but it sounds like the process is more organic or chemical than electronic, which in my mind would explain why the the cost doesn't drop nearly as much as for other components.
pictures sharp. life not so much. www.unfocusedmg.com

9VIII

  • 6D
  • *****
  • Posts: 547
    • View Profile
Re: Canon EOS 7D Mark II in 2014 [CR2]
« Reply #133 on: November 19, 2013, 03:18:08 PM »
http://www.robgalbraith.com/images/canon_full-frame_cmos_white_paper.pdf
Thank for posting the link to the white paper. I see it was published in 2006... I don't know how much production processes might have changed since then. But it is very interesting reading none-the-less.

I'm not an electronics designer so I would appreciate some info with regards to the following questions:

1) Are sensors still being made on 8" silicon wafers? If larger diameter wafers are used then there could be a lower percentage wastage when larger sized sensors are manufactured, bringing it closer to the smaller sensors.

2) Is the silicon wafer the expensive raw material component in the manufacture or the sensor elements which (I assume) are deposited onto the wafers?

3) Why are these silicon wafers circular? If rectangular wafers could be used then there would be no inherent production wastage, only possible rejects.

These are honest questions, please don't bite my head off when answering.

Page 11 in the article itself.
Quote
Depending upon its composition, (for example, high-resistivity silicon wafers have much greater electrical field depth -- and broader spectral response -- than low-resistivity wafers) an 8" diameter wafer could cost as much as $450 to $500, $1,000 or even $5,000.

I'm going to go with "not cheap" as a baseline. If they only lose 50% of their chips per wafer that's $50-$500 per sensor in raw materials. I guess that's a big spread, but the possibilities are kind of scary to think about.
« Last Edit: November 19, 2013, 03:59:30 PM by 9VIII »
-100% RAW-

Marsu42

  • Canon EF 400mm f/2.8L IS II
  • *******
  • Posts: 4391
  • ML-66d / 100L / 70-300L / 17-40L / 600rts
    • View Profile
    • 6D positive spec list
Re: Canon EOS 7D Mark II in 2014 [CR2]
« Reply #134 on: November 19, 2013, 05:11:17 PM »
I'm going to go with "not cheap" as a baseline. If they only lose 50% of their chips per wafer that's $50-$500 per sensor in raw materials. I guess that's a big spread, but the possibilities are kind of scary to think about.

If I understand pp11 correctly at 0% loss worst case a raw ff sensor would be $250 ($5000/20) - strangely the article gives such a large price span for a dslr-sensor quality wafer, so I guess the cost would be much lower than this to prevent doing the exact calculation we're trying to do.

The big question is how much yield they get, maybe not as much as in computer processors as these are designed to work around defective circuits while on a dslr sensor a big flaw cannot be covered up.

Btw the paper is from 2006 and the aps-h advantage seems to have gone by now - maybe a lot of other things have also changed since then.