6D Sensor... why?

[daniel_charms]

According to Canon USA the image format of 6D is 35.8mm x 23.9mm, 5D2 is 36mm x 24mm.
I guess Canon just trim down the 5D2's sensor a bit. Maybe the AF is also modified from the 9 point AF in the 5D2. In this way, Canon is able to use these 4 years old parts to create a new body, reduce the overstocked 5D2 sensors and AF module and cut the cost a lot. Three birds with one stone.

Nope. I did some quick calculations and the number of total pixels on this sensor is less than the number of effective pixels on a trimmed-down 5d2 sensor, so the pixel pitch is definitely different.

Besides, modifying a stock of existing components is, even if it's possible (and I really doubt that it is in this case), hardly cost-efficient. It's just plain easier to produce a new piece from scratch.

 

[simonxu11]

According to Canon USA the image format of 6D is 35.8mm x 23.9mm, 5D2 is 36mm x 24mm.
I guess Canon just trim down the 5D2's sensor a bit. Maybe the AF is also modified from the 9 point AF in the 5D2. In this way, Canon is able to use these 4 years old parts to create a new body, reduce the overstocked 5D2 sensors and AF module and cut the cost a lot. Three birds with one stone.

Nope. I did some quick calculations and the number of total pixels on this sensor is less than the number of effective pixels on a trimmed-down 5d2 sensor, so the pixel pitch is definitely different.

Besides, modifying a stock of existing components is, even if it's possible (and I really doubt that it is in this case), hardly cost-efficient. It's just plain easier to produce a new piece from scratch.

I did my calculation as well, but I think canon also used other techniques (something difficuilt for consumers to find out) to achieve this. I don't think canon is that stupid to let us discover this just by any simple calculation.
All of these are just my speculation though.

 

[extremeinstability]

5D II had 12,000 and 25,000 for the H1 H2 while 6D has 51,000 and 102,000 for H1 H2. Perhaps it's a trimmed down 5D III....not a trimmed down 5D II. Or just all new. Not that I know jack about creating sensors.

 

[simonxu11]

5D II had 12,000 and 25,000 for the H1 H2 while 6D has 51,000 and 102,000 for H1 H2. Perhaps it's a trimmed down 5D III....not a trimmed down 5D II. Or just all new. Not that I know jack about creating sensors.

The main reason of this because 6d has the latest digic 5+ processor.

 

[K-amps]

True... but since the pixel pitch "is" different, it cannot be the same sensor. 6.4 not same as 6.54 even if you put each sensor through a "visegrip"

 

[ishdakuteb]

According to pixel size, this will be expected to produce less noise comparing to 5D Mark III (since both are using the same Digic 5+)... but let's see. However, to what i have known that every single new technology is an upgrade/improvement/and modification from early one... try to talk with R&D people and you will find out...

 

[Canon-F1]

However, to what i have known that every single new technology is an upgrade/improvement/and modification from early one... try to talk with R&D people and you will find out...

really? :

well not every single new technology... but yes most new sensors are build on improved technology not entirely new technology.

 

[Tcapp]

Just wait, Canon is going to shock all of us and give us a sensor with ZERO banding in this 6d. That can be its big selling point. I think that is the SINGLE biggest thing canon can do to improve their sensors.

 

[UrbanVoyeur]

high MP fullframe sensors... high compared to what?

Compared to the 30+ MP senors from Sony.

so they decided to put money in R&D to produce yet another FF sensor instead of using the 5D MK2 sensor?
if it is a new developed sensor and not some camouflaged 5D MK2 sensor.

You missed the last part of my post where I suggested is might be the same sensor die as the 5D MkIII, but with a greater number of pixels failing to make the grade. These would then be averaged together as a single pixel. If you do that across a sensor you get very respectable performance but with a lower total MP count.

This sensor could also be the "failures" or less than top performers from the yet to be announced 36-40 MP FF sensor die that Canon has been working on. This makes more sense given the large pitch which could be the result of nearest neighbor averaging. If that's the case, then Canon should be ready with a 36-40 MP camera before summer 2013.

 

[Gothmoth]

high MP fullframe sensors... high compared to what?

Compared to the 30+ MP senors from Sony.

so a canon 22 MP sensor is a high MP sensor compared to sonys 30+ pixel sensor.. no that makes sense.

You missed the last part of my post where I suggested is might be the same sensor die as the 5D MkIII, but with a greater number of pixels failing to make the grade. These would then be averaged together as a single pixel. If you do that across a sensor you get very respectable performance but with a lower total MP count.

not possible because of the pixel pitch.

 

[UrbanVoyeur]

so a canon 22 MP sensor is a high MP sensor compared to sonys 30+ pixel sensor.. no that makes sense.

Sorry for my poor communication skills. I am NOT saying that at all.

I think that Canon has trouble producing high MP FF sensors (30-40 MP) and that yet another FF camera (6D) in the 20 MP range is evidence. I think the Canon yields from the 30-40 MP die that are usable at full resolution are extremely low. If they could produce a higher than 20 MP FF sensor at this price point would. So far it is too expensive to market the Canon 30-40 MP sensor. Sony appears to have overcome this problem, as seen in the new Nikon and Sony FF's.

You missed the last part of my post where I suggested is might be the same sensor die as the 5D MkIII, but with a greater number of pixels failing to make the grade. These would then be averaged together as a single pixel. If you do that across a sensor you get very respectable performance but with a lower total MP count.

not possible because of the pixel pitch.

Then perhaps it is from their 30-40 MP sensor die. I don' think Canon would go through the trouble of developing an new interim 20 MP die when they are so close with the 30-40 MP die. It makes more sense to use those rejects.

 

[Octavian]

Just wait, Canon is going to shock all of us and give us a sensor with ZERO banding in this 6d. That can be its big selling point. I think that is the SINGLE biggest thing canon can do to improve their sensors.

+1

And add to that and correct me if im wrong but as someone stated that the low light image quality might not be as good as a MkIII, HOWEVER in general doesn't a larger pixel size aid in low light capability? this may well yet be a good sensor indeed but why they cut it a bit is odd?

 

[BXL]

Maybe it's a complete different sensor because the 6D aims at a different market segment? Lower MP, hopefully lower noise at low and high ISO as well? The 6D aims imo at landscape and available light photography and in both areas everyone would welcome lower noise.

Landscape photographers are looking forward to exceptionally good-looking images at low ISO levels. They also don't need a very sophisticated AF (but would like to have GPS). Another area is architecture photography - again high quality images at low ISO levels and no AF since T/S-E lenses don't have AF. The other area is AL photography, there you want low noise at high ISO levels and for AL the most important AF point is the center cross point.

IMO the 6D targets a very specific market and if they developed a new sensor to reduce noise, this DSLR could be spot on for that kind of photography.

 

[Gothmoth]

Landscape photographers are looking forward to exceptionally good-looking images at low ISO levels. They also don't need a very sophisticated AF (but would like to have GPS). Another area is architecture photography - again high quality images at low ISO levels and no AF since T/S-E lenses don't have AF.

but they also want DETAILS.. as much as they can get.. that´s why i still shot MF sometimes.

that is why the D800 looks so good when your a landscape photographer... 20 MP for 2099$ don´t cut the cake.

 

[Bosman]

They had to design a new sensor, using a 4 yrs old sensor would get them flamed from here to eternity. The new sensor has to be the strongest part of this camera for it to work. As you can see if the body can be this small with gps and all the other crap they stuffed in there, putting it in a d series is plenty doable. That will only happen if Sony or Nikon do it in their flagship cameras. Canon follows far more than it leads.

 

[K-amps]

They had to design a new sensor, using a 4 yrs old sensor would get them flamed from here to eternity. The new sensor has to be the strongest part of this camera for it to work. As you can see if the body can be this small with gps and all the other crap they stuffed in there, putting it in a d series is plenty doable. That will only happen if Sony or Nikon do it in their flagship cameras. Canon follows far more than it leads.

The tech is basically the same as 4 years ago. the 5dii and 5diii RAW files show similar levels of noise, the magic happens in Digic 5+ and the jpeg rendition, thats where the 5d3 surpasses the 5dii. The sensor has not changed much. With the 6D they have probably juggled a few variables form the 5d's and with a larger pixel pitch, we can expect better RAW noise performance than both the 5D's... this will not be due to new technology, rather via tried and tested trade-offs of MP vs Noise.

 

[Bosman]

They had to design a new sensor, using a 4 yrs old sensor would get them flamed from here to eternity. The new sensor has to be the strongest part of this camera for it to work. As you can see if the body can be this small with gps and all the other crap they stuffed in there, putting it in a d series is plenty doable. That will only happen if Sony or Nikon do it in their flagship cameras. Canon follows far more than it leads.

The tech is basically the same as 4 years ago. the 5dii and 5diii RAW files show similar levels of noise, the magic happens in Digic 5+ and the jpeg rendition, thats where the 5d3 surpasses the 5dii. The sensor has not changed much. With the 6D they have probably juggled a few variables form the 5d's and with a larger pixel pitch, we can expect better RAW noise performance than both the 5D's... this will not be due to new technology, rather via tried and tested trade-offs of MP vs Noise.

I agree, the gapless lens tech on the sensor is prob the only improvement to the actual sensor but the digic processors and in camera software are what has made the bigest impact.

 

[K-amps]

They had to design a new sensor, using a 4 yrs old sensor would get them flamed from here to eternity. The new sensor has to be the strongest part of this camera for it to work. As you can see if the body can be this small with gps and all the other crap they stuffed in there, putting it in a d series is plenty doable. That will only happen if Sony or Nikon do it in their flagship cameras. Canon follows far more than it leads.

The tech is basically the same as 4 years ago. the 5dii and 5diii RAW files show similar levels of noise, the magic happens in Digic 5+ and the jpeg rendition, thats where the 5d3 surpasses the 5dii. The sensor has not changed much. With the 6D they have probably juggled a few variables form the 5d's and with a larger pixel pitch, we can expect better RAW noise performance than both the 5D's... this will not be due to new technology, rather via tried and tested trade-offs of MP vs Noise.

I agree, the gapless lens tech on the sensor is prob the only improvement to the actual sensor but the digic processors and in camera software are what has made the bigest impact.

Agreed. with the 5d3's larger MP, noise would have been worse, so the gapless microlenses made up for that difference and it ended up being a wash.

I would have liked Canon to offer a "E" version...

 

[LetTheRightLensIn]

high MP fullframe sensors... high compared to what?

Compared to the 30+ MP senors from Sony.

so they decided to put money in R&D to produce yet another FF sensor instead of using the 5D MK2 sensor?
if it is a new developed sensor and not some camouflaged 5D MK2 sensor.

You missed the last part of my post where I suggested is might be the same sensor die as the 5D MkIII, but with a greater number of pixels failing to make the grade. These would then be averaged together as a single pixel. If you do that across a sensor you get very respectable performance but with a lower total MP count.

That wouldn't work out, you'd just have a ton more hot pixels and I've never heard of a manufacturer calling poorly made 22MP sensors that have 2 million dead pixels a 20MP sensor. And just think, they list the image dimensions, how do you get that change with random dead pixels here and there throughout?

It does seem weird, since you'd think just re-using 5D3 sensor would be more efficient. But I can't imagine they would do something that would cost them money so you'd think it would somehow have to be some sort of masking off or less masking off of another sensor or maybe they found a way to somehow pump these ones out more cheaply because something about them makes them noticeably less expensive to make than say the 5D3 or 1DX sensor.

Or maybe they did have a low ISO DR breakthrough but what on earth were they thinking to be so slow to get they needed that and not get that tech in the 5D3 and 1DX? Those user bases will raise a storm, if just a few months later a low end FF has a sensor that blows the ones they have away. It would at least give one a lot of faith about the 5D4 though. Something would seem to have been supremely poorly thought out and planned in Canon management.

 

[LetTheRightLensIn]

20MP vs 21MP vs 22MP pixel pitch will have ZERO noticeable difference on SNR....
I'm picky and pixel peepy as heck and there is no way I'd be able to tell if the same exact tech was used on a 20MP a 21MP and a 22MP sensor, not remotely.

(And did the D800 not prove a thing? 36MP and very, very good high ISO.)