Canon EOS-1D X Delays [CR2]

[jrista]

BSI primarily benefits sensors with small pixel pitch, and the aim is to increase QE (quantum efficiency), which only might affect noise levels as more of a byproduct of its primary job. (BSI basically "flips" the fabricated sensor upside down, putting all the R/C activation and readout wiring behind the photodiode, and therefor out of the light path from the pixel/microlens.) The pixel pitch on the 1D X sensor is relatively very large, and it would benefit little from a BSI design. The D800 does not use a BSI design either...it is still FSI.

The difference between Sony cmos sensors and Canon cmos sensors is that Sony integrates FAR more hardware-level noise reduction technology than Canon. Currently, to my knowledge, Canon sensors only employ CDS, Correlated Double-Sampling...however I believe their patents date back nearly a decade. Sony sensors employ a newer and more effective form of CDS, a form of transistor differential compensation to reduce FPN, integrated column-parallel ADC (a smaller, slower ADC for every column of pixels built right into the sensor...slower ADC's produce less noise of their own, and having one ACD per column also helps reduce FPN), and a few other smaller improvements that I currently can't find the patents for. Its these explicit noise reduction features that make a Sony Exmor sensor produce cleaner pictures than a Canon sensor.

Canon could benefit from a BSI sensor in their compact and bridge cameras, but the improvement to QE in a large sensor with a very large pixel pitch like the 1D X would be very small...maybe 1-2%...definitely not enough to put them in the same league as a Sony Exmor. (It should be noted that Canon uses a gapless "microlens" sensor design...but the pixels themselves still have gaps between them...most of the activate and readout wiring exists within the spaces of the gaps, with minimal intrusion into the light path from a pixel. If this were not the case, as might indeed be the case with a very high density full-frame camera (say 60mp or more, the 2-3 micron pixel pitch range), then a BSI design would probably benefit a full-frame high resolution sensor as much as it benefits a tiny point and shoot sensor.)

Your post needs more acronyms ;D

Hah! I could probably conjure up a few more for ya... ;P

 

[jrista]

Your post needs more acronyms ;D

Awww you're being tough. FWIW he's probably from the Democratic Republic of Acrynomia (DRA).
Famous for some great photographers and excellent BLT's.

PW

Hmm...gonna have to look DRA up. (And get me some BLT's...MMM!)

 

[jrista]

ehhh what? ???

Well, to summarize:

BSI:
Backside Illuminated Sensors (BSI) only offers significant benefits when your pixels are ultra tiny...say 2 microns in size or less (many point and shoot/phone camera sensors have pixels as small as 1.9 microns, possibly even smaller these days, what with 40mp+ phone cameras floating around...!!) For comparison, a 7D has 4.3 micron pixels, the D800 has 4.6 micron pixels, the 5D II has 6.4 micron pixels and the 1D X has 6.95 micron pixels. Readout wiring is in the range of hundreds nanometers (fraction of a micron), so it isn't usually a problem until your pixels are around 2000 nanometers or less (where a couple hundred nanometers is a significant percentage of your pixel area).

Noise:
Sony Exmor mondo badass hardware noise removal.
Canon uber suckass hardware noise removal (well, ok..SO-SO mediocre hardware noise removal...to be fair I am a Canon user after all. )

 

[Ivar]

Unfortunately not a very good test for deciding the high ISO capability - look at the shutter speed, there was plenty of good quality (studio) light, which absolutely doesn't reflect the intended use. It is the low light under which cameras start to break down in IQ.

There is some good news out there, though. Have any of you seen the recent series of sample images? I thought for sure someone was going to post the link because they have been there for 36 hours or so, but I haven't noticed anyone mention it yet.

http://www.fotomagazin.de/test_technik/testbilder/detail.php?objectID=6204&class=&thema

If you toggle through the photos at full screen size (not 1:1), it's impossible to tell any difference until beyond ISO 12,800. At 1:1 it is great, no worse than ISO 400 on cameras five-six years ago. The top of the regular ISO range, 51,200, actually does look usable as well--certainly better than 25,600 on the 5D3.

I am so excited because I was still grappling in my mind with the worry that I should have gone with the D4 (I already own complete systems of both Canon and Nikon, so the array of lenses isn't an issue for me).

 

[jrista]

There is some good news out there, though. Have any of you seen the recent series of sample images? I thought for sure someone was going to post the link because they have been there for 36 hours or so, but I haven't noticed anyone mention it yet.

http://www.fotomagazin.de/test_technik/testbilder/detail.php?objectID=6204&class=&thema

If you toggle through the photos at full screen size (not 1:1), it's impossible to tell any difference until beyond ISO 12,800. At 1:1 it is great, no worse than ISO 400 on cameras five-six years ago. The top of the regular ISO range, 51,200, actually does look usable as well--certainly better than 25,600 on the 5D3.

I am so excited because I was still grappling in my mind with the worry that I should have gone with the D4 (I already own complete systems of both Canon and Nikon, so the array of lenses isn't an issue for me).

Hmm, I guess I would disagree that there are imperceptible differences till *after* 12800. At full size, it is readily apparent that there is some pretty heavy duty noise reduction going on at 12800, and its even visible at 3200. Below 3200, the difference between ISO 100 and ISO 1600 is largely imperceptible at 1:1 crop.

When viewing the images scaled down to "fit on screen" (2560x1600 30", a tad less than 1/4th the native image size, so approximately 2x downscaling), there is minimal perceptible difference between ISO 100 and ISO 3200. At ISO 6400, things start to look ever so slightly "muddy" compared to ISO 100...fine details start to dull...although things still appear sharp. Fine detailed highlights in particular start to fade at ISO 6400. At ISO 12800, there is definite "muddying" of fine detail...the difference in the blue feather and thread wheels; the highlights of the silver bristle holder on the brush, the strainer, even fine highlight detail in the crumpled ball of foil; black printing on all of the highlight markers; finer detail in the queen playing card (which isn't really that "fine" overall)...all soften visibly between ISO 100 and 12800.

I would call every ISO setting up through 25600 "usable"...however if you need fine detail, 3200 seems to be the limit (most fine detail, including highlight detail, is preserved up through ISO 3200.) I would call 51200 usable in certain circumstances, however it definitely obliterates finer details. If I wanted to make a recording like the one NASA Astronauts made from the ISS of earth and the auroras at night, I would say that 51200 would do a better job than the Nikon D3 did on their first video, preserving even finer earthly details.

It is a bummer all of these photos are JPEG's though. I would really love to see how the same photos fare with RAW and some more meticulous, manual noise reduction and sharpening. I wonder how much detail could be preserved.

 

[1dxhurryup]

More about 1dx.

The 1dx firmware is 7.1.1 B0.9

so close now!!!

 

[John Thomas]

ehhh what? ???

Well, to summarize:

BSI:
Backside Illuminated Sensors (BSI) only offers significant benefits when your pixels are ultra tiny...say 2 microns in size or less (many point and shoot/phone camera sensors have pixels as small as 1.9 microns, possibly even smaller these days, what with 40mp+ phone cameras floating around...!!) For comparison, a 7D has 4.3 micron pixels, the D800 has 4.6 micron pixels, the 5D II has 6.4 micron pixels and the 1D X has 6.95 micron pixels. Readout wiring is in the range of hundreds nanometers (fraction of a micron), so it isn't usually a problem until your pixels are around 2000 nanometers or less (where a couple hundred nanometers is a significant percentage of your pixel area).

Noise:
Sony Exmor mondo badass hardware noise removal.
Canon uber suckass hardware noise removal (well, ok..SO-SO mediocre hardware noise removal...to be fair I am a Canon user after all. )

Why do you think that Nikon D800's Exmor sensor settled at 36 Mpix?

Wouldn't be a much better solution WRT noise removal a, let's say, 22-24 Mpix sensor? Now I'm thinking that if Nikon would had a 18-24Mpix Exmor then the 5D3 would be in serious trouble, because Exmor's NR hardware correlated with a rather big pixel size would have an amazing output even at high ISOs.

What do you think?

 

[John Thomas]

More about 1dx.

The 1dx firmware is 7.1.1 B0.9

so close now!!!

1. Aha! They have a firmare in late Beta. Very good! They're working on it.

It is very very good for the community to know this. Also I presume that the 5D3's firmware is update accordingly, where applicable, isn't it?

2. > "So close now!!!" ...hmmm.... from WHERE do you know?

Usually these sorts of things are shipped "when is/are ready" (TM). A small hurdle can keep the team for enough time stuck. What makes you to say "So close now!!!" (with three exclamation marks)

OTOH, someone very close to the team knows such things. (I don't think that's very bad to say that you know more - in fact it would help us, the guys which are left in the twilight zone) Especially if we can help with something and/or is something which affects many (eg. it is related also to 5D3 - for ex. a wide-impact update) or affects few (eg. a niche feature which is related only to 1DX - eg. Ethernet card).

3. Did you just received a new firmware for your 1DX?

Thanks in advance for your response!

 

[1dxhurryup]

More about 1dx.

The 1dx firmware is 7.1.1 B0.9

so close now!!!

1. Aha! They have a firmare in late Beta. Very good! They're working on it.

It is very very good for the community to know this. Also I presume that the 5D3's firmware is update accordingly, where applicable, isn't it?

2. > "So close now!!!" ...hmmm.... from WHERE do you know?

Usually these sorts of things are shipped "when is/are ready" (TM). A small hurdle can keep the team for enough time stuck. What makes you to say "So close now!!!" (with three exclamation marks)

OTOH, someone very close to the team knows such things. (I don't think that's very bad to say that you know more - in fact it would help us, the guys which are left in the twilight zone) Especially if we can help with something and/or is something which affects many (eg. it is related also to 5D3 - for ex. a wide-impact update) or affects few (eg. a niche feature which is related only to 1DX - eg. Ethernet card).

3. Did you just received a new firmware for your 1DX?

Thanks in advance for your response!

That's not my 1dx.
Just know it...from a chinese forum.

 

[1dxhurryup]

More about 1dx.

The 1dx firmware is 7.1.1 B0.9

so close now!!!

1. Aha! They have a firmare in late Beta. Very good! They're working on it.

It is very very good for the community to know this. Also I presume that the 5D3's firmware is update accordingly, where applicable, isn't it?

2. > "So close now!!!" ...hmmm.... from WHERE do you know?

Usually these sorts of things are shipped "when is/are ready" (TM). A small hurdle can keep the team for enough time stuck. What makes you to say "So close now!!!" (with three exclamation marks)

OTOH, someone very close to the team knows such things. (I don't think that's very bad to say that you know more - in fact it would help us, the guys which are left in the twilight zone) Especially if we can help with something and/or is something which affects many (eg. it is related also to 5D3 - for ex. a wide-impact update) or affects few (eg. a niche feature which is related only to 1DX - eg. Ethernet card).

3. Did you just received a new firmware for your 1DX?

Thanks in advance for your response!

In addition, mid June is still the target date.
From the sample pic there, the high iso is not really cool as Canon said before.
3200 is acceptable.
U can c so many noise when push to 6400...
A little bit disappointed about that...

However, this machine is still on the top of Canon camera tree.
Nikon's high iso is always better, but Canon's color is better!!!

Am I right?

 

[nikkito]

ehhh what? ???

Well, to summarize:

BSI:
Backside Illuminated Sensors (BSI) only offers significant benefits when your pixels are ultra tiny...say 2 microns in size or less (many point and shoot/phone camera sensors have pixels as small as 1.9 microns, possibly even smaller these days, what with 40mp+ phone cameras floating around...!!) For comparison, a 7D has 4.3 micron pixels, the D800 has 4.6 micron pixels, the 5D II has 6.4 micron pixels and the 1D X has 6.95 micron pixels. Readout wiring is in the range of hundreds nanometers (fraction of a micron), so it isn't usually a problem until your pixels are around 2000 nanometers or less (where a couple hundred nanometers is a significant percentage of your pixel area).

Noise:
Sony Exmor mondo badass hardware noise removal.
Canon uber suckass hardware noise removal (well, ok..SO-SO mediocre hardware noise removal...to be fair I am a Canon user after all. )

Thanks for the explanation

 

[John Thomas]

More about 1dx.

The 1dx firmware is 7.1.1 B0.9

so close now!!!

1. Aha! They have a firmare in late Beta. Very good! They're working on it.

It is very very good for the community to know this. Also I presume that the 5D3's firmware is update accordingly, where applicable, isn't it?

2. > "So close now!!!" ...hmmm.... from WHERE do you know?

Usually these sorts of things are shipped "when is/are ready" (TM). A small hurdle can keep the team for enough time stuck. What makes you to say "So close now!!!" (with three exclamation marks)

OTOH, someone very close to the team knows such things. (I don't think that's very bad to say that you know more - in fact it would help us, the guys which are left in the twilight zone) Especially if we can help with something and/or is something which affects many (eg. it is related also to 5D3 - for ex. a wide-impact update) or affects few (eg. a niche feature which is related only to 1DX - eg. Ethernet card).

3. Did you just received a new firmware for your 1DX?

Thanks in advance for your response!

In addition, mid June is still the target date.
From the sample pic there, the high iso is not really cool as Canon said before.
3200 is acceptable.
U can c so many noise when push to 6400...
A little bit disappointed about that...

However, this machine is still on the top of Canon camera tree.
Nikon's high iso is always better, but Canon's color is better!!!

Am I right?

Thanks for the info.

OTOH, regarding to ISOs - Hmmm... I don't know. 5D3 is MUCH better at high ISOs in 100% crops than its competitor (D800). Also, I expect that 1DX to be better than D4, but we'll see. The thing is debatable.

Also, I preffer the Canon's "better colors". On scientific side, tough, while D800 has an amazing DR on low ISOs, this falls quite abruptly at high ISOs and Canon is better there by a sensible margin. I would say that 5D3 has a good 3200, very usable 6400 and an usable 12800. Also, if you really want a shoot, 28500 can do also your job, but you can loose enough details there.

 

[jrista]

ehhh what? ???

Well, to summarize:

BSI:
Backside Illuminated Sensors (BSI) only offers significant benefits when your pixels are ultra tiny...say 2 microns in size or less (many point and shoot/phone camera sensors have pixels as small as 1.9 microns, possibly even smaller these days, what with 40mp+ phone cameras floating around...!!) For comparison, a 7D has 4.3 micron pixels, the D800 has 4.6 micron pixels, the 5D II has 6.4 micron pixels and the 1D X has 6.95 micron pixels. Readout wiring is in the range of hundreds nanometers (fraction of a micron), so it isn't usually a problem until your pixels are around 2000 nanometers or less (where a couple hundred nanometers is a significant percentage of your pixel area).

Noise:
Sony Exmor mondo badass hardware noise removal.
Canon uber suckass hardware noise removal (well, ok..SO-SO mediocre hardware noise removal...to be fair I am a Canon user after all. )

Why do you think that Nikon D800's Exmor sensor settled at 36 Mpix?

Wouldn't be a much better solution WRT noise removal a, let's say, 22-24 Mpix sensor? Now I'm thinking that if Nikon would had a 18-24Mpix Exmor then the 5D3 would be in serious trouble, because Exmor's NR hardware correlated with a rather big pixel size would have an amazing output even at high ISOs.

What do you think?

I don't really think there would be that much of a difference, honestly. Pixel size has more to do with QE, or Quantum Efficiency, than with noise. Improvements to QE have the side effect of improving noise characteristics, however outside of the lowest ISO settings (and even then, only to a slightly lesser degree), the very vast bulk of "noise" is photon shot noise, rather than electronic forms of noise. Photon shot noise is a matter of physics, due to the random and otherwise unpredictable nature of light packets (photons.)

All things being equal, once you eliminate most electronic forms of noise (such as is the case with Exmor sensors), more pixels is always a good thing. Higher spatial resolution at that point is always better than lower resolution, regardless of diffraction. At some point you reach a spatial resolution where even the finest details that you could possibly photograph require representation by many pixels (i.e. the smallest aspect of detail requires at lest 10x10 pixels to be represented.) Assuming little or no electronic noise, there is a HUGE benefit to that, because now noise is a SUB-DETAIL level issue, and noise removal is now largely and intrinsically a detail-neutral process.

 

[John Thomas]

ehhh what? ???

Well, to summarize:

BSI:
Backside Illuminated Sensors (BSI) only offers significant benefits when your pixels are ultra tiny...say 2 microns in size or less (many point and shoot/phone camera sensors have pixels as small as 1.9 microns, possibly even smaller these days, what with 40mp+ phone cameras floating around...!!) For comparison, a 7D has 4.3 micron pixels, the D800 has 4.6 micron pixels, the 5D II has 6.4 micron pixels and the 1D X has 6.95 micron pixels. Readout wiring is in the range of hundreds nanometers (fraction of a micron), so it isn't usually a problem until your pixels are around 2000 nanometers or less (where a couple hundred nanometers is a significant percentage of your pixel area).

Noise:
Sony Exmor mondo badass hardware noise removal.
Canon uber suckass hardware noise removal (well, ok..SO-SO mediocre hardware noise removal...to be fair I am a Canon user after all. )

Why do you think that Nikon D800's Exmor sensor settled at 36 Mpix?

Wouldn't be a much better solution WRT noise removal a, let's say, 22-24 Mpix sensor? Now I'm thinking that if Nikon would had a 18-24Mpix Exmor then the 5D3 would be in serious trouble, because Exmor's NR hardware correlated with a rather big pixel size would have an amazing output even at high ISOs.

What do you think?

I don't really think there would be that much of a difference, honestly. Pixel size has more to do with QE, or Quantum Efficiency, than with noise. Improvements to QE have the side effect of improving noise characteristics, however outside of the lowest ISO settings (and even then, only to a slightly lesser degree), the very vast bulk of "noise" is photon shot noise, rather than electronic forms of noise. Photon shot noise is a matter of physics, due to the random and otherwise unpredictable nature of light packets (photons.)

All things being equal, once you eliminate most electronic forms of noise (such as is the case with Exmor sensors), more pixels is always a good thing. Higher spatial resolution at that point is always better than lower resolution, regardless of diffraction. At some point you reach a spatial resolution where even the finest details that you could possibly photograph require representation by many pixels (i.e. the smallest aspect of detail requires at lest 10x10 pixels to be represented.) Assuming little or no electronic noise, there is a HUGE benefit to that, because now noise is a SUB-DETAIL level issue, and noise removal is now largely and intrinsically a detail-neutral process.

Hence the Megapixel Race will start again?

...However a very interesting effect is to be seen: Acording to DxO measurements (CIIW), while the EXMOR has an amazing Dynamic Range on very low ISOs, this falls linearly whereas 5D3's (and Nikon D4's) has a logarithmic(?) falloff having as a net result that the 5D3's DR is actually better (speaking at 100% crops) than Exmor's.

Another related question: Having so many Mpixels, perhaps is better to have an RGBW sensor rather than a RGB one? (I don't think so, but I'm asking anyway).

Thanks a bunch for your info,

John Th.

 

[jrista]

ehhh what? ???

Well, to summarize:

BSI:
Backside Illuminated Sensors (BSI) only offers significant benefits when your pixels are ultra tiny...say 2 microns in size or less (many point and shoot/phone camera sensors have pixels as small as 1.9 microns, possibly even smaller these days, what with 40mp+ phone cameras floating around...!!) For comparison, a 7D has 4.3 micron pixels, the D800 has 4.6 micron pixels, the 5D II has 6.4 micron pixels and the 1D X has 6.95 micron pixels. Readout wiring is in the range of hundreds nanometers (fraction of a micron), so it isn't usually a problem until your pixels are around 2000 nanometers or less (where a couple hundred nanometers is a significant percentage of your pixel area).

Noise:
Sony Exmor mondo badass hardware noise removal.
Canon uber suckass hardware noise removal (well, ok..SO-SO mediocre hardware noise removal...to be fair I am a Canon user after all. )

Why do you think that Nikon D800's Exmor sensor settled at 36 Mpix?

Wouldn't be a much better solution WRT noise removal a, let's say, 22-24 Mpix sensor? Now I'm thinking that if Nikon would had a 18-24Mpix Exmor then the 5D3 would be in serious trouble, because Exmor's NR hardware correlated with a rather big pixel size would have an amazing output even at high ISOs.

What do you think?

I don't really think there would be that much of a difference, honestly. Pixel size has more to do with QE, or Quantum Efficiency, than with noise. Improvements to QE have the side effect of improving noise characteristics, however outside of the lowest ISO settings (and even then, only to a slightly lesser degree), the very vast bulk of "noise" is photon shot noise, rather than electronic forms of noise. Photon shot noise is a matter of physics, due to the random and otherwise unpredictable nature of light packets (photons.)

All things being equal, once you eliminate most electronic forms of noise (such as is the case with Exmor sensors), more pixels is always a good thing. Higher spatial resolution at that point is always better than lower resolution, regardless of diffraction. At some point you reach a spatial resolution where even the finest details that you could possibly photograph require representation by many pixels (i.e. the smallest aspect of detail requires at lest 10x10 pixels to be represented.) Assuming little or no electronic noise, there is a HUGE benefit to that, because now noise is a SUB-DETAIL level issue, and noise removal is now largely and intrinsically a detail-neutral process.

Hence the Megapixel Race will start again?

...However a very interesting effect is to be seen: Acording to DxO measurements (CIIW), while the EXMOR has an amazing Dynamic Range on very low ISOs, this falls linearly whereas 5D3's (and Nikon D4's) has a logarithmic(?) falloff having as a net result that the 5D3's DR is actually better (speaking at 100% crops) than Exmor's.

Another related question: Having so many Mpixels, perhaps is better to have an RGBW sensor rather than a RGB one? (I don't think so, but I'm asking anyway).

Thanks a bunch for your info,

John Th.

To your first point about the 5D III, if I understand what your saying, the 5D III has a maximum limit on DR as ISO drops (lower ISO's), however it too is linear as you increase ISO. That linearity is due to the fact that photon shot noise dominates at most ISO settings (above 200-400 ISO). Because of the fact that shot noise is a matter of physics, the individual characteristics of a sensor matter less from a noise standpoint once you reach that level, and pretty much all sensors will show similar faloff, with slight differences in total DR that might be attributed to QE, ADC gain, etc. Technically speaking, the 5D III has much worse DR at low ISO than the D800. From a read noise standpoint, the 5D III also falls off, however it starts at a rather unbelievable and almost criminal 34e- read noise and falls off to around 3e-, where as the D800 has around 2-4e- read noise at all ISO settings.

As for pixel arrangements, having white pixels was something tried by Kodak and Fuji. Kodak simply alternated in white pixels every third, or alternated a third type of row. Fuji used additional but smaller "white" pixels to increase DR quite a number of years ago. The advent of microlensing pretty much killed off most attempts to use white pixels, as they were all largely intended to increase QE from a luminance standpoint. Extra pixels or pixel types complicates bayer interpolation, reducing overall compatibility of RAW files with existing RAW processors, and has other detractors. Gapless Microlensing these days is capable of gathering significantly more light than prior sensor designs, and double-layered gapless microlensing (again used in Sony Exmor sensors) offers further efficiency gains...all without changing the standard bayer layout, allowing standardized bayer interpolation algorithms to work with such RAW files.

The ideal CMOS RGB sensor design is really Foveon...layered pixels with blue, green, then red layers. This kind of sensor design normalizes pixel distribution...eliminating the distributed bayer pattern that results in 1/2 red and blue pixels relative to green. It uses Silicon's natural filtration effect to filter out wavelengths as it penetrates deeper into any given pixels tri-color pixel well. Because every pixel is sensitive to the full range of light wavelengths, your QE is naturally higher, and a layer of microlensing could improve QE even more. The lack of a bayer pattern generally eliminates the need for a low-pass filter (which are usually used to avoid COLOR moire in bayer sensors)...you will still encounter some luminance (monochrome) moire, but you'll generally encounter that regardless anyway with or without a low-pass filter (except in the case of upscaling). Canon's best competitive move would really be to buy Foveon from Sigma, and put it to some truly good use. They could greatly improve IQ that way, and if they could improve resolution to current standard ranges (18-22mp), they could make a killing, and get competitive again. I figure that a backside illuminated design, and further copper-based/high conductivity activate and read wiring BSI would be necessary to increase Foveon-style sensors to current resolutions, however BSI designs are becoming rather academic at this point.

 

[JaxPhotoBuff]

This thread has gone seriously off the rails.

 

[jmac1]

The 1DX was announced and I was sold on it, from a 5D2 upgrade. Then the 5DIII addressed 90% of what I was looking for in an upgrade, but I already set my sights on the 1DX, and have researched and self-justified it to myself. Now just waiting, especially after the March release came and went, then April, now June.

I am starting to worry as we are now into June and there are no rumours of potential shipping dates. Still shooting weddings on what I anticipated would be my new 1DX by now. And each wedding that passes without a prospect to release is frustrating.

Sorry just needed to vent!

 

[John Thomas]

The ideal CMOS RGB sensor design is really Foveon...layered pixels with blue, green, then red layers. This kind of sensor design normalizes pixel distribution...eliminating the distributed bayer pattern that results in 1/2 red and blue pixels relative to green. It uses Silicon's natural filtration effect to filter out wavelengths as it penetrates deeper into any given pixels tri-color pixel well. Because every pixel is sensitive to the full range of light wavelengths, your QE is naturally higher, and a layer of microlensing could improve QE even more. The lack of a bayer pattern generally eliminates the need for a low-pass filter (which are usually used to avoid COLOR moire in bayer sensors)...you will still encounter some luminance (monochrome) moire, but you'll generally encounter that regardless anyway with or without a low-pass filter (except in the case of upscaling). Canon's best competitive move would really be to buy Foveon from Sigma, and put it to some truly good use. They could greatly improve IQ that way, and if they could improve resolution to current standard ranges (18-22mp), they could make a killing, and get competitive again. I figure that a backside illuminated design, and further copper-based/high conductivity activate and read wiring BSI would be necessary to increase Foveon-style sensors to current resolutions, however BSI designs are becoming rather academic at this point.

Also I do think that Foveon-like multi-layer sensors are the future. However:

1. Now, they behave poorly at high ISOs (layers response etc.). In how much amount of time do you think that they will be able to compete with Bayer on 800-6400 ISO?

2. I don't know if you're aware but it seems that Canon has a better patent than Foveon & Exmor for a multi-layer sensor:

http://www.canonrumors.com/forum/index.php?topic=1209.0

In fact, in order to stay on topic , this was the sensor which I've expected in 5D3/1DX. However it seems that it isn't. :'(

3. OTOH, related to this, there are reports that 5D3 works without the AA (OLPF) filter. And I mean it works well. (No moire etc.).

Do you think that this thing really stands? An 5D3/E? An 5D3 without AA filter?

 

[jrista]

Also I do think that Foveon-like multi-layer sensors are the future. However:

1. Now, they behave poorly at high ISOs (layers response etc.). In how much amount of time do you think that they will be able to compete with Bayer on 800-6400 ISO?

Implementing the kinds of advancements Sony has built into their Exmor sensors, implementing a BSI design (which it seems the Canon patent below DOES do), using gapless microlenses and large photosites to improve QE, etc. should all help address the green and red layer response. Intriguingly, the blue layer in Foveon is at the top, so it actually has the least noise. I think this helps lead to the perception that blues are better in Foveon-based cameras...they would certainly make for much nicer skies. Red is actually the noisiest channel in a layered design, as like red and blue in a bayer design, it needs to be amplified more due to receiving less light (and being smaller in area). Lower electronic noise would help that, though.

2. I don't know if you're aware but it seems that Canon has a better patent than Foveon & Exmor for a multi-layer sensor:

http://www.canonrumors.com/forum/index.php?topic=1209.0

I do remember reading about that. I am actually glad they have a patent, and I REALLY hope they put it into use soon. That would be awesome. That patent is interesting in that it is not a gapless microlens design. Hopefully that is something they are improving, as a higher QE would help with overall IQ in a layered design. I also think that you could keep pixel sizes larger with a layered design, since you could use the full area of a bayer-style RGBG 2x2 quad for a single stack of BGR layered pixels...that would also help with QE. The BSI design of this patent is encouraging as well, as it puts the photodiode as close to the surface of the die as possible.

I am not sure how the readout wiring works. Relatively recent patents from Sigma showed some solid improvements in their column/row activate and read wiring, making it smaller, eliminating some wires allowing greater pixel area, and improved efficiency allowing faster readout. While I don't care much for Sigma's 46mp marketing (as when putting them head-to-head against bayer designs, they only offer 15mp in terms of image size), layered sensor designs do indeed have a lot more pixels for any given output size, so readout rate will suffer unless some significant improvements are made in that area. Canon did demonstrate a high-speed 120mp APS-H camera a number of years ago...if they could fold that kind of high-rate hyper-parallel readout technology into a layered CMOS design, then they could probably push total pixel counts closer to the 100mp range (which would produce about a 33mp output image.)

In fact, in order to stay on topic , this was the sensor which I've expected in 5D3/1DX. However it seems that it isn't. :'(

I really hope Canon does something innovative with their sensor design soon. I'm pretty much in holdout mode right now. I own a 7D, and I'm happy with everything about it except IQ in some cases. Every so often I get a shot that, for an unknown reason, shows FPN right up into the midtones. Drives me crazy, although I've found ways around that in many cases due to the kind of photography I do (birds, BIF, wildlife mostly). But it just feels so WRONG that I'm encountering such a degrading artifact in my images. And for all the money I've given Canon over the last few years (to the tune of nearly $12,000), I really EXPECT them to do better if they want to keep getting my money.

3. OTOH, related to this, there are reports that 5D3 works without the AA (OLPF) filter. And I mean it works well. (No moire etc.).

Do you think that this thing really stands? An 5D3/E? An 5D3 without AA filter?

The only cases where the AA filter was removed that I know of only removed the first half. Optical low-pass filters usually have a horizontal layer and a vertical layer, with an IR filter sandwiched between them. In the 5D III, it seems the second layer is glued to the CMOS sensor itself, so only half the OLPF was removed. That effectively reduces the anti-aliasing effect by 50%. Additionally, the cases where people described "zero moire" all seemed to be video cases. The lack of moire is more likely due to the fact that the 5D III uses 3x3 pixel binning when shooting video than the removal of the OLPF.