Canon EOS 7D Mark II in 2014 [CR2]

[Marsu42]

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]

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?

 

[Jan]

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]

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.

 

[TrabimanUK]

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

 

[StudentOfLight]

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.

 

[dufflover]

http://www.pcpro.co.uk/blogs/2010/05/06/why-are-processor-wafers-round/

 

[photonius]

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]

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

 

[StudentOfLight]

Thanks for the links guys.

 

[TrabimanUK]

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

 

[unfocused]

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.

 

[9VIII]

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.

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.

 

[Marsu42]

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.

 

[privatebydesign]

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

No.

 

[jrista]

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.

Since 2006, at the very least, 12" (300mm) wafers have become far more common. I doubt the costs of an 8" wafer still top out at $5000, I think they are quite a bit cheaper. I don't know if Canon has yet moved from 8" wafers to 12" wafers for their APS-C and FF fabrication, but even if they have not, it is highly doubtful their 8" wafer cost is $5000 (if it was, they would have a SEVERE handicap relative to the likes of Aptina and Sony, both of whom use 12" wafer fabs to produce CMOS Image Sensors (CIS).

I think Canon is currently using more advanced 12" wafer production for small form factor sensors, and I believe those fabs can produce 180nm transistors with Cu metal interlinks, lightpipe tech, etc. It is my sincere hope that they are using these fabs to produce the new 7D II and future BigMP sensors...but who knows for sure. There really isn't much good, solid information about this stuff.

 

[Richard8971]

I think Canon is currently using more advanced 12" wafer production for small form factor sensors, and I believe those fabs can produce 180nm transistors with Cu metal interlinks, lightpipe tech, etc. It is my sincere hope that they are using these fabs to produce the new 7D II and future BigMP sensors...but who knows for sure. There really isn't much good, solid information about this stuff.

I would imagine that soon "DLSR's" (either mirror or mirror-less) would soon become "choose your sensor" size cameras.

Think about it and it makes sense. It's becoming more and more difficult to produce something new in the camera world and look at what this has spawned. For one thing a new very impressive mirror-less full frame from Sony.

I would imagine that the next big thing will be a full frame camera that offers a full frame format that you can select FF, APS-H or -C formats. I do believe that there are a few camera offerings (perhaps Nikon? I'm not sure the D7100 1.5x crop counts) that does this but I believe it will become more commonplace.

A full frame that offered FF @ 5fps, APS-H @ 8fps and APS-C @ 12+fps and a viewfinder that "changed" with each format size you chose. Maybe Canon or Nikon won't go this route, but someone will. If Sony or Panasonic came out with a serious camera with this offering, it would be a very tempting offer. A photographer could at a click of a switch, choose whatever format he needed. That could move some serious buying market from Canon and Nikon if they did.

Most offerings so far have been "cheesy" at best, not all, but most.

I had always imagined that the 7D2 would offer something along these lines, but the fact that any upgrade to the 7D would have to include being able to EF-s lenses, it rules out -H and FF.

D

 

[dufflover]

I don't see the point of that. That's nothing more than a fancy viewfinder and software (easily doable with an EVF system) because the camera you buy still has a 35mm sensor costing $___ . To change the shot size in camera would make it nothing more than another JPEG feature for the people who need good out-of-camera shots. And part of the cost appeal of a crop sensor is cheaper cost because you aren't paying for a bigger sensor.

 

[jrista]

I think Canon is currently using more advanced 12" wafer production for small form factor sensors, and I believe those fabs can produce 180nm transistors with Cu metal interlinks, lightpipe tech, etc. It is my sincere hope that they are using these fabs to produce the new 7D II and future BigMP sensors...but who knows for sure. There really isn't much good, solid information about this stuff.

I would imagine that soon "DLSR's" (either mirror or mirror-less) would soon become "choose your sensor" size cameras.

Think about it and it makes sense. It's becoming more and more difficult to produce something new in the camera world and look at what this has spawned. For one thing a new very impressive mirror-less full frame from Sony.

I would imagine that the next big thing will be a full frame camera that offers a full frame format that you can select FF, APS-H or -C formats. I do believe that there are a few camera offerings (perhaps Nikon? I'm not sure the D7100 1.5x crop counts) that does this but I believe it will become more commonplace.

A full frame that offered FF @ 5fps, APS-H @ 8fps and APS-C @ 12+fps and a viewfinder that "changed" with each format size you chose. Maybe Canon or Nikon won't go this route, but someone will. If Sony or Panasonic came out with a serious camera with this offering, it would be a very tempting offer. A photographer could at a click of a switch, choose whatever format he needed. That could move some serious buying market from Canon and Nikon if they did.

Most offerings so far have been "cheesy" at best, not all, but most.

I had always imagined that the 7D2 would offer something along these lines, but the fact that any upgrade to the 7D would have to include being able to EF-s lenses, it rules out -H and FF.

So, your saying everything becomes a FF camera with the ability to read the FF area, APS-H area, or APS-C area of the sensor? Sure, this could be an option...but you would always be paying for the FF sensor. There are some benefits to that, but I think there is still explicit value in smaller physical sensor formats like APS-H and APS-C. I don't ever foresee the 7D line becoming a FF with selectable readout areas. It will always be an APS-C part.

FF sensors will always be more expensive than APS-C sensors as well. The reasons why FF sensor cost has come down (which include the use of 300mm wafers) are the same reasons APS-C will always maintain a cost lead. Reducing defect rates or whatever will result in higher APS-C yield as well. There is always a market for the cheaper version. Doesn't matter how cheap FF gets, people will still buy APS-C (and other, similarly small formats.)

When it comes to interchangeable camera backs, if that is what you were talking about, that comes at a significant increase in cost. You have to standardize the systems design, make sure that each camera back will work with the body (or, as could quite likely be the case...bodies). Standardizing the design of a camera system limits future progress. Let's say you create an interchangeable camera back DSLR system, allowing you to drop in FF, APS-H and APS-C sensors. You have a lot of challenges. Either you put the full readout pipeline on the back, which basically means the back is 80% of the camera, that greatly increases the cost of each back. If you put the readout pipeline on the body, then you suddenly created a potential bottleneck to future, faster sensors that come out in the future (since image processors like DIGIC and EXPEED tend to improve generation over generation right along with sensors, BY NECESSITY.)

I really don't see either of these things really occurring any time soon, if they ever do. If they do, then it would still be a premium feature, because adding the options requires additional work, regardless of how you go about doing it. More work on the part of the manufacturer never really results in a cheaper product for the consumer. Your also always going to have advocates who insist the best way to get the best IQ is with a system designed explicitly to produce the highest IQ from a given sensor, and they won't buy anything else.

 

[Richard8971]

So, your saying everything becomes a FF camera with the ability to read the FF area, APS-H area, or APS-C area of the sensor? Sure, this could be an option...but you would always be paying for the FF sensor. There are some benefits to that, but I think there is still explicit value in smaller physical sensor formats like APS-H and APS-C. I don't ever foresee the 7D line becoming a FF with selectable readout areas. It will always be an APS-C part.

What I said was a possible trend for DSLR's to go, not a "this is what's going to happen". (geesh : )

DSLR's have a limited lifespan anyway because of the mirrorless segment and if you don't think that mirrorless will someday outperform DSLR's, well then you are not really paying attention to the technology and what it's capable of. The technology is rapidly advancing and because people don't really like radical change, it will come, in small doses and before you know it. BAM! DSLR's are gone and mirrorless becomes the standard.

Just because Nikon and Canon have not given mirrorless a serious thought does not mean that it is useless. Companies like Sony and Panasonic, IF they continue down the road that they have started to build, will soon offer up some very serious camera bodies that Nikon and Canon will have to pay attention to, if they have not already.

Don't think DSLR's are going to be replaced? CRT monitors? Floppy disk? Tape players? How about DVD? oh wait they were ALL replaced by something better and by something that was a radical difference from what people ever thought was possible. Heck, CRT monitors disappeared almost overnight and you would be hard pressed to even fine one new now-a-days.

Don't think Canon and Nikon could ever fail as a company? Well Rome was a world power and fell...

And I never seriously suggested the 7D2 would be FF, I have always believed that the 7D2 was going to stay APS-C. Go back and look at my older posts and you will see.

Don't get all buggered on here because someone suggests a product or performance that YOU may not agree with. This IS Canon RUMORS right, not Canon FACTS???

Lighten up and have some fun...

D