Good reason to believe new APS-C cams from Canon use Sony sensor design

[crashpc]

Hi guys.

I compared images from M3/760D to my own (M/SL1) and Sony a6000 (with some help of DPR test scene) at ISO 6400 and based on the output it seems to be very clear to me, that Canon uses Sony sensors/tech for their new cameras.

Here is some (okay, a bit weak, but let me explain) evidence:



Top two are this: Left one EOS M shot of my dark(black) PC case ar ISO 6400 JPG OOC. Right one is the dark cut-out of propably JPEG OOC shot from M3/760D of night town shot leaked on the internet. For example here.
Bottom two are this: Left one SL1 from DPR test scene, cut-out from the dark background. Right one is the same thing, but taken with a6000. The same mushing approach of Canon, the same approach on the right side from suggested Sony.
Similarity? Yes!

 

[rs]

Good theory, but it's clearly not the well used 24MP Sony sensor. This uses a 1.6x sensor, not 1.5x. Even if it was a 1.5x with just the central 1.6x being utilised, the Sony 24MP sensor would only have 21 effective MP left.

 

[crashpc]

Yes, I'm aware of that. I don't think it's THE SAME senosor. It just might be Sony made sensor for Canon. And as they put it in at least three cameras, maybe four with possible T6/1300D, I would believe it is worth to outsource this single sensor for entry level cameras, and letting Sony to produce it for Canon, at 1.6 crop....

 

[Machaon]

...based on the output it seems to be very clear to me, that Canon uses Sony sensors/tech for their new cameras.

I can't see your logic. Are you suggesting that the visual appearance of lossy image files taken from multiple sources demonstrates that Canon must be using another company's technology in their most recently announced APS-C cameras?

Seems like a fallacy of affirming the consequent.

Assertion: If Canon used Sony technology, then some dark images from different cameras would appear to have similar noise.
Some dark images appear to have similar noise.
Conclusion: Canon used Sony technology.

There's a second, fallacious assumption that Canon is incapable of improving the noise performance of their own in-house product.

And a third fallacious assumption that these images, taken in different, uncontrolled conditions, are formally comparable.

Maybe you are right, but it's very unclear to me how the conclusion follows from the argument.

 

[crashpc]

The conclusion (stil rumor-ish) comes from the fact that Canon uses Sony sensors in their cameras. So they can do that for entry-level mirrorless and DSLR also.

Of course you´re right about many things, about that Canon is capable of making better sensor, but I offered another viewpoint and I believe it is more possible than Canon actually making better sensor, now, for entry level cameras. Highly unlikely it seems to be truth in my mind....

 

[psolberg]

possibly. Sony is a MUCH larger company than canon with far more technical muscle and sensor marketshare. So it makes sense for canon to offload resources and just use sony parts to focus on areas that it should. I think it is a smart thing. The reality is that as they have shown in the video market with their entries sweeping the competition under the bus, Sony is a powerhouse on electronics. If they are willing to license their tech, the smaller players like canon, nikon, and others should just tweak sony designs in much the same way video card makers tweak with Nvidia and ATI designs.

 

[DWM]

None of this proves anything. Do you know the camera setting of the image you believe to be from the new camera specifically ISO setting? Are the crops you post exactly the same pixel count? Were the images all taken in the same light level? To make accurate image comparison everything needs to be exactly the same for each camera or the results will be junk and useless.

 

[crashpc]

None of this proves anything. Do you know the camera setting of the image you believe to be from the new camera specifically ISO setting? Are the crops you post exactly the same pixel count? Were the images all taken in the same light level? To make accurate image comparison everything needs to be exactly the same for each camera or the results will be junk and useless.

Yes, The ISO setting is propably the same. I made my comparison based on this assumption (it´s told in the test images). Yes. My crops are the same pixel count. Maybe not count, but density FOR SURE. Light level? Not sure. But I tried many levels in my camera, and while it can look a bit less noisier if I shoot darker, it´s still totally the same large radius mush, just darket, instead of right sided examples, where it´s relatively fine grain.
I know it´s all rumor-is, guessing and stuff, but there is propably no major mistake in my comparison. The output is vastly different for sure.

 

[DWM]

Yes, The ISO setting is propably the same. I made my comparison based on this assumption

What information and where did you get that information that lead you to "probably" believe the image from the 760D was shot at ISO 6400? Making this assumption without any solid indication is silly. I would never take that shot at 6400 unless I was doing a comparison test. If the person taking that shot was doing test then where is the rest of their test shots. Also how much post processing and noise reduction was done on that image? I stand by my statement that if ALL test images were not taken at the same time and setting then the comparison is junk! Especially if post processing is not all the same and since you did not take or process the image from the new camera then it is a sure thing they are not processed the same.

 

[rfdesigner]

possibly. Sony is a MUCH larger company than canon with far more technical muscle and sensor marketshare.

I beg to differ.

Canon has a market cap about 50% bigger than Sony.

http://uk.reuters.com/business/quotes/overview?symbol=7751.T

http://uk.reuters.com/business/quotes/overview?symbol=6758.T

On it's own that's not the whole story, but it's a very important and valid way of comparing different corporations.

 

[crashpc]

DWM you can find the link to all information you need about that images in my first post under "here" word... It might not be pure truth, but screaming "Fake, fake!" without even looking at things, is not good way either. I'm not here to push you to believe, and If I can't make you believe, I miserably failed. No. I just provided some interesting stuff, and you make up your mind...

 

[takesome1]

possibly. Sony is a MUCH larger company than canon with far more technical muscle and sensor marketshare. So it makes sense

No, this conclusion doesn't make sense. Canon is the MUCH larger company, that is a camera company that makes a few other things. Where Sony is a company that made other things and decided to move in to the camera buisness.

 

[Don Haines]

possibly. Sony is a MUCH larger company than canon with far more technical muscle and sensor marketshare.

I beg to differ.

Canon has a market cap about 50% bigger than Sony.

http://uk.reuters.com/business/quotes/overview?symbol=7751.T

http://uk.reuters.com/business/quotes/overview?symbol=6758.T

On it's own that's not the whole story, but it's a very important and valid way of comparing different corporations.

Well.... GM is a larger company than both, and their sales of cameras is growing, not declining like Sony or Canon.... The size of the company has nothing to do with the size of a division.

 

[rfdesigner]

possibly. Sony is a MUCH larger company than canon with far more technical muscle and sensor marketshare.

I beg to differ.

Canon has a market cap about 50% bigger than Sony.

http://uk.reuters.com/business/quotes/overview?symbol=7751.T

http://uk.reuters.com/business/quotes/overview?symbol=6758.T

On it's own that's not the whole story, but it's a very important and valid way of comparing different corporations.

Well.... GM is a larger company than both, and their sales of cameras is growing, not declining like Sony or Canon.... The size of the company has nothing to do with the size of a division.

You're not wrong, yet that wasn't the statement.. the statement was a bold Sony > Canon.. no not true.

Sony Sensors > Canon Imaging maybe, I'd need to dig into the reports.

Canon is also grinding glass for the new generation of astronomical scopes, sony isn't.. we don't really need to wonder why, canon lenses are amongst the best in the business, with the ever growing performance of bodies I'd suggest that's more important than having this years highest MPixie camera, although that's nice to have.

At the moment Sony has the second best process, and best for DSLRs.