Canon Leads in Sensor Tech

[Eldar]

As I understand it, the advantage Dual Pixel AF brings to live view focusing is speed.

It is the speed I´m looking for. An AI Servo mode in live view, with a sufficiently fast AF, can give you much better working conditions than using the view finder, for example when hunting insects. But the performance on their current (1DX/5DIII) live view AF is not good enough. It might be that I am overly ambitious for the new solution, but I am looking forward to try it out.

 

[AvTvM]

Video is a must have feature in a DSLR for a lot of people. It is very hard to sell a camera without 1920x1080 video and people are starting to look for 4K video in cameras. For a company to compete, they have to offer video.

I really really doubt this. We are just not being given a choice, video-enabled cameras are just stuffed down our throats.

A stills-only, stills-optimized camera with no video-output and sensor only video enabled to the extent required for live-view purposes would be puirchased by 90% of DSLR-buyers, if they spend any thought on their purchase and if it was offered at a 100 USD/Euro discount compared to the fully video enabled model. To most, video is a mere gadget. Everybody tries it once or twice and then ends up never editing the video footage and will not touch it ever again. 4k is a total lunacy anyways, as long as there are no affordable 4k output devices [monitors, TV-sets]. For youtube and facebook smartphone-video is more than sufficient.

Video enthusiasts and pros on the other hand would be way better served by a real [mirrorless!] video cam that can also capture stills rather than working their way around an unwieldy mirror-flipping DSLR stuck into some freaky rig. Video folks are just buying HD-DSLRs, because these are sold so dirt cheap compared to similarly large-sensored, dedicated videocams.

 

[Zv]

I wonder how long Canon spent on the R&D for this dual pixel thing? Prob a while. It's not really a feature anyone really demanded but they gave it to us anyway. One thing to take away from that is at least they are (as mentioned before) still innovating and not just making existing tech "a little better".

Personally I have no use for DPAF except in the M line where it would have been awesome. It's a shame they didn't have this in the M. That woulda blown people away I reckon. But then we woulda had no mirrorless until now?! Do we need a mirrorless camera? Probably not.

I totally agree about the use of video or lack there of. I have shot a little video but not enough to really care for it. It is nice to have though. I would love to see a "pure stills" body. Some kinda DSLR monster that is designed for one purpose only - taking f'in awesome pictures! Cost be dammed. We would be all over that! Even if they make two versions - one with video and one without, a bit like the D800E / D800 situation.

However, that said I'm fairly happy with my gear. It gets the job done and I enjoy using it.

Really looking fwd to see what comes next. 7D2? Bring it on!

 

[Sporgon]

This has probably been mentioned before, but is the dual pixel technology that has initially been launched for contrast AF actually the platform for a whole raft of sensor improvements ? In what other ways could it be used for practical advantage in a future, more advanced form ?

Any thought ? Also I presume this is a Canon patent ?

 

[jrista]

This has probably been mentioned before, but is the dual pixel technology that has initially been launched for contrast AF actually the platform for a whole raft of sensor improvements ? In what other ways could it be used for practical advantage in a future, more advanced form ?

Any thought ? Also I presume this is a Canon patent ?

Dual Pixel is not for Contrast AF, it is for sensor-based Phase Detection AF. I don't think there is enough knowledge about DPAF yet, to really know how Canon uses it. Theoretically, Canon can identify target zones within the 80% sensor area, and accurately PDAF any and all of them simultaneously. If you are using some kind of auto-DOF mode (not sure if they still have this, but it may exist on their lower end cameras and in EOS-M), then the camera could also determine the necessary aperture to get all of the selected subjects in focus. Most of the functionality at this point would be firmware based, and who knows what they will do with it.

The only future hardware update I can conceive of would be Quad Pixel AF, which would support sensor-plane PDAF in both the horizontal as well as vertical directions.

 

[LetTheRightLensIn]

I don't see video as the growth market that others seem to think. Consumer and professional level video camcorders have been around for decades. Affordable video cameras at least 20 years. That was a defined, mature market. The "growth" that Canon experienced was stealing away users from that market, both professional and consumer, so that they could have stills and HD video from one unit....and also use Canon's lens system.

I heard that a good deal of sales success of the 5D2 was because of so many video guys gobbling them up. It was quite a revelation (I'm still shocked that Canon was actually caught dumfounded that people wanted manual controls for 5D2 video, how insanely short-sighted could they be). They added AF and speed to the 5D3 to try to get the stills people gobbling a ton. Of course as soon as they saw some cash then went into protection mode and came up with the C100 scheme instead of continuing the DSLR video take over and kind of lost their huge momentum and let others jump in etc (they somewhat punted on with the 5D3, at least until ML RAW came out for it, it is interesting that the 5D3 price suddenly jumped up to near release price again just a few weeks after ML RAW came out, I don't know what it went up, but the timing at least makes you wonder).

 

[Loswr]

The only future hardware update I can conceive of would be Quad Pixel AF, which would support sensor-plane PDAF in both the horizontal as well as vertical directions.

Could be done as orthogonal dual pixel AF, where the half of the pixels are split vertically and half are split horizontally.

 

[jrista]

The only future hardware update I can conceive of would be Quad Pixel AF, which would support sensor-plane PDAF in both the horizontal as well as vertical directions.

Could be done as orthogonal dual pixel AF, where the half of the pixels are split vertically and half are split horizontally.

Sure. Exactly how they achieve it is not really the point...just that adding some way to detect phase in both directions is probably the next significant enhancement. After that, maybe diagonal phase.

 

[weixing]

Hi,
When dual Pixel AF mature, may be we'll see the first mirrorless sport/wildlife camera... taking full resolution images at high speed in silence... but I'll miss the "machine gun" sound... ha ha ha

Have a nice day.

 

[verysimplejason]

Hi,
When dual Pixel AF mature, may be we'll see the first mirrorless sport/wildlife camera... taking full resolution images at high speed in silence... but I'll miss the "machine gun" sound... ha ha ha

Have a nice day.

That would be AWESOME! But I think a corresponding better EVF is also needed to make that possible.

 

[Pi]

The only future hardware update I can conceive of would be Quad Pixel AF, which would support sensor-plane PDAF in both the horizontal as well as vertical directions.

Could be done as orthogonal dual pixel AF, where the half of the pixels are split vertically and half are split horizontally.

That may create pattern noise - pixels with different orientations may have slightly different sensitivities depending on their position in the frame or different vignetting. If they are arranged in rows or columns, that will create banding (no, not that again!).

 

[Loswr]

That may create pattern noise - pixels with different orientations may have slightly different sensitivities depending on their position in the frame or different vignetting. If they are arranged in rows or columns, that will create banding (no, not that again!).

Would that apply to subpixels? Regardless of the orientation, the DPAF subpixels have their signals summed and reported out as a single pixel for the captured image, which is why the 70D's sensor is 20 MP and not 40 MP.

 

[Pi]

That may create pattern noise - pixels with different orientations may have slightly different sensitivities depending on their position in the frame or different vignetting. If they are arranged in rows or columns, that will create banding (no, not that again!).

Would that apply to subpixels? Regardless of the orientation, the DPAF subpixels have their signals summed and reported out as a single pixel for the captured image, which is why the 70D's sensor is 20 MP and not 40 MP.

Who knows, I am just speculating. I can imagine that pixels with different oriented subpxels would look differently physically and may have different sensitivities depending on the angle of the falling light.

I am not sure how it is done now - all horizontal? If so, it would be interesting to compare the vignetting diagrams of the 70D and the 60D with the same lens; TDP may do it.

 

[Loswr]

I am not sure how it is done now - all horizontal? If so, it would be interesting to compare the vignetting diagrams of the 70D and the 60D with the same lens; TDP may do it.

They're all split vertically (into left and right subpixels), so the DPAF system is a giant horizontal line sensor, responsive only to vertically-oriented details.

 

[jrista]

That may create pattern noise - pixels with different orientations may have slightly different sensitivities depending on their position in the frame or different vignetting. If they are arranged in rows or columns, that will create banding (no, not that again!).

Would that apply to subpixels? Regardless of the orientation, the DPAF subpixels have their signals summed and reported out as a single pixel for the captured image, which is why the 70D's sensor is 20 MP and not 40 MP.

Who knows, I am just speculating. I can imagine that pixels with different oriented subpxels would look differently physically and may have different sensitivities depending on the angle of the falling light.

I am not sure how it is done now - all horizontal? If so, it would be interesting to compare the vignetting diagrams of the 70D and the 60D with the same lens; TDP may do it.

Even if there was some noise as a result of slightly different response, I can't imagine it would be any more significant than existing quantization noise. For all intents and purposes, quantization noise is largely meaningless in the grand scheme of read noise factors. If banding did occur, and it was not overpowered by banding caused by high frequency components or photon shot noise, I suspect a very significant exposure push or shadow lift would be necessary to cause it to show up.

 

[awinphoto]

After browsing many of the responses, i think a lot of you guys are simply missing the point. What camera has better reviews on this site or that site or what camera has more DR or less video or whatever is irrelevant. Over the last year, I've been doing a lot of business training getting my photography business to keep plugging along and help it grow, and one thing rings true... Not all customers are meant for each business. There's are probably a hundred photographers in my city, some better than others, but that means A) each client that chooses YOU over all the competition makes that customer even more special and B) customer billy bob may not like your shooting style but susie q down the street may. Because of that, trying to appeal to billy bob is a worthless endeavor because they wouldn't choose you anyways.

Same with Canon and Nikon. Some may say that canon shouldn't focus on video and focus more on stills. Well, anyone paying attention to what happened with the chicago newspaper? They FIRED all their photography staff in favor for videos from freelancers and every day citizens submitting their videos looking for their 2 seconds of fame. Ever look at the classifieds and notice how when you see at any news station when they have an opening for a PHOTOGRAPHER, they say send in a reel of your work, IE VIDEO. Even my photography school where I got my batchelors in Professional Photography, now, according to my last alumni newsletter, are requiring all future graduates to have video classes under their belt to graduate. Video is the wave of the future, embrace it or not, it is what it is.

Canon has ALWAYS been on the front lines of new technology within the last decade and a half or so... Canon was one of the first to go all in with digital and smoked nikon out the door with their digital cameras... Then they beat nikon to the punch with video, now mirrorless, etc. To be fair, nikon has really focused more of the photography aspect and perfected it if you will, however, even most pro's will say that video, on nikon, is uncomfortable and not as innovative, which is helping canon to continue grabbing that marketshare all the way of Professional VJ's (visual journalists), to wedding photographers who want to add video to their packages, to professionals who may want that extra video grab as a throw-in product for a client, to a mom and pop wanting to get video of their kids first steps. Plus, this topic is a lot like the story of nokia... they poll all their customers asking if they want touchscreens... their customers said no. The iphone comes out and crushes nokia because all of a sudden, customers decided touchscreens are kinda cool. Now everyone has one. What Canon should do or shouldn't do is irrelevant. I hate to say this, even customers really dont know what they want as a consensus. But, Canon is appealing to THEIR customers and nikon is appealing to theirs. Now should Canon's sales start dropping and nikon starts taking their marketshare, then it's time for them to rethink things, but until then, all this bickering is pointless. Jump to nikon, stick to canon, sink and float adrift to sony, who cares, just make a decision and go take some freaking pictures.

 

[AvTvM]

Canon has ALWAYS been on the front lines of new technology within the last decade and a half or so...

That is plain wrong as far as Canon Sensor Tech is concerned, which is the subject title of this thread.
Yes, 10 years ago Canon was clearly in the lead with their CMOS sensors vs. competition's CCDs and by offering full-frame sensors compared to all others with only APS-C sized sensors.

But over the last 5 years, Canon was has fallen behind the competition in terms of both sensor tech [500nm process] and was surpassed in imaging capability [visible in low ISO IQ and DR]. So far, Canon has managed to largely ignore this, because IQ from their products is basically "good enough for most uses" and because of brand recognition and inertia of market forces. That does not mean however that the party will last forever or even very much longer.

I hate to say this, even customers really dont know what they want as a consensus.

That's why every sensible company offers their customer base a choice of product variations. Even Canon does.

However, Canon is NOT offering its customers the choice of one or more "perfect for stills" cameras. All we get to choose from is either 100% video optimized [camcorders, "C/Cine" products] or DSLRs and the EOS-M which include a lot of video features and attract a minority of video-oriented customers who demand even more video-oriented stuff in them. And Nikon, Sony do the same.

It's as if all of a sudden all home improvement/do-it-yourself stores globally were to offer only screwdrivers and combination screwdrivers that can also be used as sort of a poor man's hammer to drive nails into walls, rather than screwdrivers and hammers.

But, Canon is appealing to THEIR customers and nikon is appealing to theirs.

Not quite. Many customers would be willing to move from one companies' products to the others, but are effectively hindered by (sizeable) investments into brand-specific lenses/flashes/accessories and the effort required to adopt to a different, unfamiliar user interface [especially as Canon is offering a UI that is more intuitive to most people than Nikon's].

Now should Canon's sales start dropping and nikon starts taking their marketshare, then it's time for them to rethink things, but until then, all this bickering is pointless. Jump to nikon, stick to canon, sink and float adrift to sony, who cares, just make a decision and go take some freaking pictures.

just keep watching market shares and see what happens.

And don't worry, we are taking pictures. 8)

 

[Jim O]

I hate to say this, even customers really dont know what they want as a consensus.

Very often true. In fact it's true most of the time.

But, Canon is appealing to THEIR customers and nikon is appealing to theirs. Now should Canon's sales start dropping and nikon starts taking their marketshare, then it's time for them to rethink things, but until then...

Actually, the time to do it is long before sales numbers change. That's one reason why Apple went from virtually bankrupt when Steve Jobs heroically rode back in on his white horse and rose to have the largest market capitalization of any publicly traded company in the world, surpassing Exxon Mobil. On the other hand, Microsoft got it wrong with Vista, and likely (definitely?) with Windows 8, and with a host of other decisions, and they went from number one in market cap in 2003 to number seven now. In fact Microsoft is worth less than it was ten years ago.

All of what Canon is doing behind the scenes now is purely speculative. Big companies with large bureaucracies can't turn on a dime, but they can change directions when pushed. I suspect Canon is aware of its sensors' issues, but is trying to get the most out of its investment.

The challenge for any company, as you say, is to identify their customers and figure out what they want now and in the future. However, growth comes by by finding new customers and by increasing market share, not losing it due to others getting ahead.

 

[Loswr]

However, Canon is NOT offering its customers the choice of one or more "perfect for stills" cameras.

Sure they are - this one.

 

[awinphoto]

Canon has ALWAYS been on the front lines of new technology within the last decade and a half or so...

That is plain wrong as far as Canon Sensor Tech is concerned, which is the subject title of this thread.
Yes, 10 years ago Canon was clearly in the lead with their CMOS sensors vs. competition's CCDs and by offering full-frame sensors compared to all others with only APS-C sized sensors.

But over the last 5 years, Canon was has fallen behind the competition in terms of both sensor tech [500nm process] and was surpassed in imaging capability [visible in low ISO IQ and DR]. So far, Canon has managed to largely ignore this, because IQ from their products is basically "good enough for most uses" and because of brand recognition and inertia of market forces. That does not mean however that the party will last forever or even very much longer.

I hate to say this, even customers really dont know what they want as a consensus.

That's why every sensible company offers their customer base a choice of product variations. Even Canon does.

However, Canon is NOT offering its customers the choice of one or more "perfect for stills" cameras. All we get to choose from is either 100% video optimized [camcorders, "C/Cine" products] or DSLRs and the EOS-M which include a lot of video features and attract a minority of video-oriented customers who demand even more video-oriented stuff in them. And Nikon, Sony do the same.

It's as if all of a sudden all home improvement/do-it-yourself stores globally were to offer only screwdrivers and combination screwdrivers that can also be used as sort of a poor man's hammer to drive nails into walls, rather than screwdrivers and hammers.

But, Canon is appealing to THEIR customers and nikon is appealing to theirs.

Not quite. Many customers would be willing to move from one companies' products to the others, but are effectively hindered by (sizeable) investments into brand-specific lenses/flashes/accessories and the effort required to adopt to a different, unfamiliar user interface [especially as Canon is offering a UI that is more intuitive to most people than Nikon's].

Now should Canon's sales start dropping and nikon starts taking their marketshare, then it's time for them to rethink things, but until then, all this bickering is pointless. Jump to nikon, stick to canon, sink and float adrift to sony, who cares, just make a decision and go take some freaking pictures.

just keep watching market shares and see what happens.

And don't worry, we are taking pictures. 8)

As far as sensor tech, you missed my point completely...They are the frontrunner when it comes to adaptation and innovations... when it came to digital, canon went full in and smoked nikon. When it came to evolving and bringing in video, they went all in and really took nikon (video wise) behind the woodshed. Mirrorless, etc.. I even said nikon has perfected the stills camera, but is lagging everywhere else.

As far as the perfect stills camera, other than the DR that people love to tout, tell me in any capacity the D800 is a better camera than the 5d3? what about the D3/D4 vs 1dx? Yes the d800 has a 36 MP sensor, but in mid to high ISO, canon STILL gets better results. Better AF, better ergonomics, even digital rev, who has historically been nikon fanboys chose the 5d3 over the d800. As far as typical stills camera, Canon offers excellent cameras and you can CHOOSE if you want to use video or not. As far as market share, i've known very few professionals that have made the jump from Canon to Nikon, BUT i've known more jump from Nikon to Canon. And frankly, other than this site, I've seen even less consumers jump from canon to nikon. I have though seen quite a few jump from Canon to Medium Format as Medium format prices are dropping, but that's another story alltogether.