New Sensor Technology Coming From Canon? [CR1]

[traveller]

Thus either this rumor is a hoax (why would Canon not want to reduce the cost of sensors made for the top end?)...

Can I flip this around: why would the top end be the priority for reducing production costs? Surely the margins are tighter at the bottom? Besides, I can't think of why a new production technology that improves yield wouldn't equally benefit APS-C sized sensor production costs.

I think that this whole rumour is based upon the "all cameras will be full frame in the future" fallacy that we're now meant to buy into. If Canon are experiencing pressure from mirrorless in the APS-C market, then it's lenses that are more to blame than camera bodies.

So I think your first proposition is probably more correct:

Thus either this rumor is a hoax...

 

[neuroanatomist]

Not sure this can even be answered yet but if Canon came out with a full frame EOS-M version, would they need to change to a new lens mount as well? Could the EF-M still be used?

EF- M mount can't be used for FF unfortunately. Too small. Likely they'd create a mirrorless camera with the regular EF mount instead.

This is widely stated, but I can't see that the EF-M mount is much different in dimensions to the Sony E mount; I know that E mount is tight for full frame, but it is still possible. I'm struggling to find the technical specifications, but here's a comparison (assuming the scaling is correct) -measure for yourself:

http://camerasize.com/compact/#487,351,325,466,459,ha,f

EF-M is pretty similar to E-mount in its internal diameter and a bit larger than either X-mount or micro 4/3rds. We also know that the flange back distance is the same as E-mount (18mm, vs 44mm for regular EF).

I'm not saying that this proves EF-M is compatible with full frame sensors, nor that Canon would have any near term plans to produce a full frame mirrorless camera if it were, but it would be a bit strange if they happened to make it so similar in size to E-mount and it not be FF capable. They must have had some idea that Sony were interested in making a FF E-mount camera. I believe that FF probably is possible with EF-M mount, if nothing else then to cover that base for the future. Of course, Canon would never admit that now whilst it is still trying to push their FF DSLRs!

As for a mirrorless camera with an EF mount: it's possible but not with a reduced flange back distance, or they'd create all sorts of lens compatibility confusion!

According to Canon's full frame white paper, the diagonal measurement of a FF sensor is 43.3mm The measured inner diameter of the lens mount opening on the EOS M, accounting for the bayonet protrusions, is 43mm. For comparison, the measured inner diameter for the EF mount opening is 51mm.

Having said that, the Sony a7 mount opening appears to 'clip the corners' of the sensor, and is quite similar in size to the EOS M's opening.

 

[mclaren777]

If they were able to match (or possibly even surpass Sony's current sensors) I would buy a 5D Mark IV in a heartbeat!

 

[unfocused]

Before people get too excited, they might want to re-read this CR-1 rumor.

It is focused on improvements in manufacturing technology to increase yields and reduce costs. Aside from a glancing mention of "Foveon Like" technology (whatever that is supposed to mean), this is all about reducing costs of production, not about any change in the performance of sensors.

That's not to say it isn't important or beneficial to consumers, just that the benefits are more likely to come in some combination of lower costs and better margins.

 

[kaihp]

Thus either this rumor is a hoax (why would Canon not want to reduce the cost of sensors made for the top end?)...

Can I flip this around: why would the top end be the priority for reducing production costs? Surely the margins are tighter at the bottom?

I believe that you're thinking it wrong: ANY reduced manufacturing costs goes straight to the bottom line.

Sure, the lower end has a higher volume, but sometimes it is easier to reduce costs at the high end simply because people didn't bother too much about cost, with the argument that "it's high end, so our focus is quality, not cost", which ends up in a circular argument resulting in high cost.

Believe me, I speak from experience (sigh).

 

[sdsr]

FF mirrorless + 3-4 pancake lenses to start with: 35,50, 85, and 18mm

Omg, this would be ridiculously amazing.

Yes, especially if it has good IBIS. I don't think I'll hold my breath, though....

 

[Zv]

Not sure this can even be answered yet but if Canon came out with a full frame EOS-M version, would they need to change to a new lens mount as well? Could the EF-M still be used?

EF- M mount can't be used for FF unfortunately. Too small. Likely they'd create a mirrorless camera with the regular EF mount instead.

This is widely stated, but I can't see that the EF-M mount is much different in dimensions to the Sony E mount; I know that E mount is tight for full frame, but it is still possible. I'm struggling to find the technical specifications, but here's a comparison (assuming the scaling is correct) -measure for yourself:

http://camerasize.com/compact/#487,351,325,466,459,ha,f

EF-M is pretty similar to E-mount in its internal diameter and a bit larger than either X-mount or micro 4/3rds. We also know that the flange back distance is the same as E-mount (18mm, vs 44mm for regular EF).

I'm not saying that this proves EF-M is compatible with full frame sensors, nor that Canon would have any near term plans to produce a full frame mirrorless camera if it were, but it would be a bit strange if they happened to make it so similar in size to E-mount and it not be FF capable. They must have had some idea that Sony were interested in making a FF E-mount camera. I believe that FF probably is possible with EF-M mount, if nothing else then to cover that base for the future. Of course, Canon would never admit that now whilst it is still trying to push their FF DSLRs!

As for a mirrorless camera with an EF mount: it's possible but not with a reduced flange back distance, or they'd create all sorts of lens compatibility confusion!

According to Canon's full frame white paper, the diagonal measurement of a FF sensor is 43.3mm The measured inner diameter of the lens mount opening on the EOS M, accounting for the bayonet protrusions, is 43mm. For comparison, the measured inner diameter for the EF mount opening is 51mm.

Having said that, the Sony a7 mount opening appears to 'clip the corners' of the sensor, and is quite similar in size to the EOS M's opening.

So with the Sony a7r, do the clipped corners affect the image in anyway? Surely not since no one has reported black corners. How does that work then? Is the entire sensor area not used then? That would mean in reality a sensor size slightly smaller than FF, prob negligible though overall?

If that's the case then perhaps a FF sensor could be squeezed into the M mount then with a tiny bit of cropping. Or Canon could make a completely new sensor that is almost FF in size and fits perfectly (seems unlikely in terms of maximizing profits).

 

[traveller]

Thus either this rumor is a hoax (why would Canon not want to reduce the cost of sensors made for the top end?)...

Can I flip this around: why would the top end be the priority for reducing production costs? Surely the margins are tighter at the bottom?

I believe that you're thinking it wrong: ANY reduced manufacturing costs goes straight to the bottom line.

Sure, the lower end has a higher volume, but sometimes it is easier to reduce costs at the high end simply because people didn't bother too much about cost, with the argument that "it's high end, so our focus is quality, not cost", which ends up in a circular argument resulting in high cost.

Believe me, I speak from experience (sigh).

1. What yield improvement were you thinking of that is of no benefit to APS-C sized sensors?

2. If it is of benefit to APS-C sized sensors, why apply it only to full frame sensors? Surely you apply the technology that improves yield to the production line that has the highest production levels (i.e. APS-C), not the one with the lowest?

 

[AvTvM]

Well there you go! The reason the 7D2 has been delayed so long is that it will be a full frame mirrorless dual pixel quad pixel fovenon big megapixel camera with a 1DX build in an EOS-M package.... that will shoot at ISO 819,200 and take 8K video.....

sounds good. except for the video bit, which I don't care for. ;D

 

[t.linn]

If I were to guess, I would say that Canon will finally advance their sensor tech into this decade the day after I complete my transition to Fujifilm's X-system. :

 

[unfocused]

1. What yield improvement were you thinking of that is of no benefit to APS-C sized sensors?

2. If it is of benefit to APS-C sized sensors, why apply it only to full frame sensors? Surely you apply the technology that improves yield to the production line that has the highest production levels (i.e. APS-C), not the one with the lowest?

A similar thought occurred to me, but as I understand it, the yield problem has always been more of an issue for full frame sensors than APS-C. An improvement in the manufacturing process the reduces waste could benefit both APS-C and Full Frame, but the relative benefits would likely be much greater for full-frame than APS-C.

Nothing in this CR1 rumor would rule out using the manufacturing improvements for APS-C, it's just that it might not be as significant a factor as it would be for full-frame.

 

[Zv]

OK, this is a very unscientific, quick and dirty photoshop effort using the camera compare link and superimposing two images to see if the sensor from the a7r would fit inside an EOS M.

The two mounts seemed to almost line up perfectly. Intriguing.

taken from this link - http://camerasize.com/compact/#487,351,325,466,459,ha,f

 

[kaihp]

1. What yield improvement were you thinking of that is of no benefit to APS-C sized sensors?

2. If it is of benefit to APS-C sized sensors, why apply it only to full frame sensors? Surely you apply the technology that improves yield to the production line that has the highest production levels (i.e. APS-C), not the one with the lowest?

???

I'm not sure why you are asking about FF vs APS-C sized sensors here, as my comment was meant truly generally and did not speak of sensor size.

 

[jrista]

Well there you go! The reason the 7D2 has been delayed so long is that it will be a full frame mirrorless dual pixel quad pixel fovenon big megapixel camera with a 1DX build in an EOS-M package.... that will shoot at ISO 819,200 and take 8K video.....

And support frame rates up to 100fps stills and 100,000fps video.

 

[jrista]

Before people get too excited, they might want to re-read this CR-1 rumor.

It is focused on improvements in manufacturing technology to increase yields and reduce costs. Aside from a glancing mention of "Foveon Like" technology (whatever that is supposed to mean), this is all about reducing costs of production, not about any change in the performance of sensors.

That's not to say it isn't important or beneficial to consumers, just that the benefits are more likely to come in some combination of lower costs and better margins.

Well, I think you can read into "inrease yields and reduce costs" a bit.

The only way to really increase yields, especially with a decade-old fabrication process that is highly likely to already be as refined as it can get, is to increase wafer size. If Canon was using 200mm wafers for their existing process, then it seems logical they are moving to 300mm wafers. If they are moving to 300mm wafers, then that means they are either sharing fab time with their small sensor fabs, or have built new fabs. If they have built new fabs, then it also seems likely that they have moved to a smaller process, 180nm? 90nm?

Even if Canon does not employ a layered foveon-like technology, a move to larger wafers and a smaller process would be huge. It's the thing Canon needs to be able to move more technology onto the sensor die, move to a CP-ADC design (which they have a patent for), etc.

 

[East Wind Photography]

Not sure this can even be answered yet but if Canon came out with a full frame EOS-M version, would they need to change to a new lens mount as well? Could the EF-M still be used?

EF- M mount can't be used for FF unfortunately. Too small. Likely they'd create a mirrorless camera with the regular EF mount instead.

This is widely stated, but I can't see that the EF-M mount is much different in dimensions to the Sony E mount; I know that E mount is tight for full frame, but it is still possible. I'm struggling to find the technical specifications, but here's a comparison (assuming the scaling is correct) -measure for yourself:

http://camerasize.com/compact/#487,351,325,466,459,ha,f

EF-M is pretty similar to E-mount in its internal diameter and a bit larger than either X-mount or micro 4/3rds. We also know that the flange back distance is the same as E-mount (18mm, vs 44mm for regular EF).

I'm not saying that this proves EF-M is compatible with full frame sensors, nor that Canon would have any near term plans to produce a full frame mirrorless camera if it were, but it would be a bit strange if they happened to make it so similar in size to E-mount and it not be FF capable. They must have had some idea that Sony were interested in making a FF E-mount camera. I believe that FF probably is possible with EF-M mount, if nothing else then to cover that base for the future. Of course, Canon would never admit that now whilst it is still trying to push their FF DSLRs!

As for a mirrorless camera with an EF mount: it's possible but not with a reduced flange back distance, or they'd create all sorts of lens compatibility confusion!

According to Canon's full frame white paper, the diagonal measurement of a FF sensor is 43.3mm The measured inner diameter of the lens mount opening on the EOS M, accounting for the bayonet protrusions, is 43mm. For comparison, the measured inner diameter for the EF mount opening is 51mm.

Having said that, the Sony a7 mount opening appears to 'clip the corners' of the sensor, and is quite similar in size to the EOS M's opening.

Quite likely the reasoning is that the light from the lens is projected onto the sensor from a cone and not parallel to the light path. Telephoto lenses and in particular LONG telephoto lenses are more parallel and could potentially cause some vignetting on the corners. As such it is technically possible to put a FF sensor into the M. However there may not be much room for anything else.

I for one dont see it happening. The M format needs to be cheap and affordable and up to this point the smaller chips have dominated that price point. I get making the FF chips cheaper but as one other pointed out that will ALL go to Canon profit margin and not to the consumer.

 

[neuroanatomist]

So with the Sony a7r, do the clipped corners affect the image in anyway? Surely not since no one has reported black corners. How does that work then? Is the entire sensor area not used then? That would mean in reality a sensor size slightly smaller than FF, prob negligible though overall?

If that's the case then perhaps a FF sensor could be squeezed into the M mount then with a tiny bit of cropping. Or Canon could make a completely new sensor that is almost FF in size and fits perfectly (seems unlikely in terms of maximizing profits).

The clipped corners aren't a problem because of the way light travels when leaving the lens - think of it as an expanding cone, so the image circle is physically smaller at the lens mount than when it hits the sensor. Just look at the back of the EF 40mm f/2.8, the rear element is significantly smaller than a FF sensor:

OTOH, there may be issues with some lenses with a large aperture and an exit pupil close to the image plane (similar to the 'clipped' bokeh of the 85L wide open with close subjects).

 

[pierlux]

Interesting observations on lens mounts, but back on topic: no need to bother unicorns or flying pigs, Canon very likely will deliver something new in the imaging sensor compartment this turn. They already have, with DPAF; little advance for stills shooters, big one for videographers.

Whether this rumor is a hoax or not I don't know, I can only say I'm pretty sure something new is coming in the sensor tech area. It's not gambling to think so at this point since it's not a matter of "IF", but "WHEN" it'll come, presumably sooner than later. Smaller sensors first, then bigger ones. As usual.

If I remember correctly, there was another tiny bit of information in this CR1 rumor as soon as it appeared, an acronym or something similar, relative to this presumptive new sensor tech, which was soon removed: does any early reader of the rumor remember what it was exactly? Or it's me going nuts?

 

[East Wind Photography]

Interesting observations on lens mounts, but back on topic: no need to bother unicorns or flying pigs, Canon very likely will deliver something new in the imaging sensor compartment this turn. They already have, with DPAF; little advance for stills shooters, big one for videographers.

Whether this rumor is a hoax or not I don't know, I can only say I'm pretty sure something new is coming in the sensor tech area. It's not gambling to think so at this point since it's not a matter of "IF", but "WHEN" it'll come, presumably sooner than later. Smaller sensors first, then bigger ones. As usual.

If I remember correctly, there was another tiny bit of information in this CR1 rumor as soon as it appeared, an acronym or something similar, relative to this presumptive new sensor tech, which was soon removed: does any early reader of the rumor remember what it was exactly? Or it's me going nuts?

Tis true. The 7D2 has been reported many times it will have a new sensor.

... now where did my flying pig fly off too...

 

[Bob Howland]

Not sure this can even be answered yet but if Canon came out with a full frame EOS-M version, would they need to change to a new lens mount as well? Could the EF-M still be used?

EF- M mount can't be used for FF unfortunately. Too small. Likely they'd create a mirrorless camera with the regular EF mount instead.

I agree. I've never understood people's fascination with using a FF sensor in an M-mount camera. It always seemed more reasonable to just shorten the flange-sensor distance and use the EF mount. Just getting rid of the mirror box will allow significant size and weight reductions. I don't see how the M-mount would make that much of a difference.