Could Canon's Next Leap in IQ be a big one?

[whitedjp]

Hi everyone,

So I have been wondering this for a while, bear with me if im wrong I have been reading a lot lately how Canon has not updated its sensor fabrication process which is why we haven't seen much too too much improvement over the years. However to my knowledge, the 7d mark ii gets benefits in IQ from other internal components (i think one of them was reducing readout noise) without updating the sensor fabrication?

So I come to my question: do you think that if Canon continues to increase the ?efficiency? of its systems and then integrate this with the newer sensor fabrication, that Canon would then lead the IQ pack again?

This may make absolutely no sense but I ask because i'm curious,

Thanks,

Jon

 

[eos650]

I can't speak for Canon's fab process improvements, but I would be surprised to see anything more than an incremental improvement.

This press release from Panasonic, on the other hand seems to have potential for a big leap. I'm hoping this pans-out and that Canon and others will adopt this technology. I would love to pick up another stop or so of sensitivity, without the corresponding noise and loss of dynamic range.

http://news.panasonic.com/press/news/official.data/data.dir/2013/02/en130204-6/en130204-6.html

Has anyone heard of any updates on this technology and if or when it might come to market?

 

[LetTheRightLensIn]

Hi everyone,

So I have been wondering this for a while, bear with me if im wrong I have been reading a lot lately how Canon has not updated its sensor fabrication process which is why we haven't seen much too too much improvement over the years. However to my knowledge, the 7d mark ii gets benefits in IQ from other internal components (i think one of them was reducing readout noise) without updating the sensor fabrication?

So I come to my question: do you think that if Canon continues to increase the ?efficiency? of its systems and then integrate this with the newer sensor fabrication, that Canon would then lead the IQ pack again?

at the moment that would probably be true, but they show zero signs of bother to do that and by the time, and if they ever, do I have a feeling it might not be true anymore

 

[sunnyVan]

The only thing behind competition is dynamic range. I don't see a huge deal. At the end of the day if a scene is too contrasty you'd have to do HDR anyway. Just have to do it in a way that looks natural. If Sony sensor could produce 18-20 stops and canon only 12, then I'd say this is too behind! 12 vs.14/15 isn't a huge deal. Besides, including the whole dynamic range in a scene isn't necessarily a good thing either. My point is that canon doesn't have class leading sensor but it's still good enough with good post processing skills.

Other than dynamic range I don't see any areas that are significantly behind competition. Sharpness is good. Color is great. I stick with canon really because of the lenses and ergonomics.

 

[KBStudio]

The only thing behind competition is dynamic range. I don't see a huge deal. At the end of the day if a scene is too contrasty you'd have to do HDR anyway. Just have to do it in a way that looks natural. If Sony sensor could produce 18-20 stops and canon only 12, then I'd say this is too behind! 12 vs.14/15 isn't a huge deal. Besides, including the whole dynamic range in a scene isn't necessarily a good thing either. My point is that canon doesn't have class leading sensor but it's still good enough with good post processing skills.

Other than dynamic range I don't see any areas that are significantly behind competition. Sharpness is good. Color is great. I stick with canon really because of the lenses and ergonomics.

I would disagree. As I own a Sony A7r and a 5DMII and use, in studio, 5DMIII, the Canon chips are nowhere near as sharp and clean as the Sony A7r. Cropping to compare apples to apples the Canons still come up wanting.

 

[Jan van Holten]

Getting a leap in dynamic range should be a nice gesture to all those loyal users. And we don't all have the possibility to change brand.

 

[zlatko]

Some people are more interested in the "sensor fabrication process" than in photography. If you're focused on engineering, that's understandable. But for actual photography, Canon IQ is already pretty sensational.

 

[sunnyVan]

The only thing behind competition is dynamic range. I don't see a huge deal. At the end of the day if a scene is too contrasty you'd have to do HDR anyway. Just have to do it in a way that looks natural. If Sony sensor could produce 18-20 stops and canon only 12, then I'd say this is too behind! 12 vs.14/15 isn't a huge deal. Besides, including the whole dynamic range in a scene isn't necessarily a good thing either. My point is that canon doesn't have class leading sensor but it's still good enough with good post processing skills.

Other than dynamic range I don't see any areas that are significantly behind competition. Sharpness is good. Color is great. I stick with canon really because of the lenses and ergonomics.

I would disagree. As I own a Sony A7r and a 5DMII and use, in studio, 5DMIII, the Canon chips are nowhere near as sharp and clean as the Sony A7r. Cropping to compare apples to apples the Canons still come up wanting.

But then if you use.different lenses on different cameras, that's not a fair comparison. If rumor is true that Sony is also making a 50mp sensor, then you can compare it to Canon's counterpart with same lens i.e.. sigma 50 art.

 

[unfocused]

I have been reading a lot lately how Canon has not updated its sensor fabrication process which is why we haven't seen much too too much improvement over the years...

So I come to my question: do you think that if Canon continues to increase the ?efficiency? of its systems and then integrate this with the newer sensor fabrication, that Canon would then lead the IQ pack again?

Clearly you are spending too much time reading internet forums. That's your first mistake.

Canon's image quality compares very favorably with other brands. Better in some areas, not quite as good in others, but overall, the differences among all brands are insignificant.

Those who complain generally fall into two categories: 1) persons who have very specific needs/wants that are out of the mainstream and expect highly specialized tools from mass market manufacturers (these people comprise only a tiny percentage of complainers and an even tinier percentage of the market); and 2) measurebators who read internet forums and test sites and misinterpret the tiny differences that certain test sites measure and assume that these measurements, however flawed, are somehow significant to users.

The vast majority of photographers, professional and amateur alike, find that today's tools, even at the low end, are far and away better than they generally need.

There is no prize for having marginally the "best" in one narrow category and it will not affect any company's position in the marketplace. Canon (and Nikon and others) will continue to make marginal improvements, but as the technology has matured, the improvements are likely to remain marginal and not hugely significant until the "next big thing" comes around. So far, the only thing out there that could possibly fit that description might be light field technology, but it is a long way away from being perfected.

 

[sunnyVan]

I have been reading a lot lately how Canon has not updated its sensor fabrication process which is why we haven't seen much too too much improvement over the years...

So I come to my question: do you think that if Canon continues to increase the ?efficiency? of its systems and then integrate this with the newer sensor fabrication, that Canon would then lead the IQ pack again?

Clearly you are spending too much time reading internet forums. That's your first mistake.

Canon's image quality compares very favorably with other brands. Better in some areas, not quite as good in others, but overall, the differences among all brands are insignificant.

Those who complain generally fall into two categories: 1) persons who have very specific needs/wants that are out of the mainstream and expect highly specialized tools from mass market manufacturers (these people comprise only a tiny percentage of complainers and an even tinier percentage of the market); and 2) measurebators who read internet forums and test sites and misinterpret the tiny differences that certain test sites measure and assume that these measurements, however flawed, are somehow significant to users.

The vast majority of photographers, professional and amateur alike, find that today's tools, even at the low end, are far and away better than they generally need.

There is no prize for having marginally the "best" in one narrow category and it will not affect any company's position in the marketplace. Canon (and Nikon and others) will continue to make marginal improvements, but as the technology has matured, the improvements are likely to remain marginal and not hugely significant until the "next big thing" comes around. So far, the only thing out there that could possibly fit that description might be light field technology, but it is a long way away from being perfected.

Like!

 

[PureClassA]

Looking strictly at sensors, I still dont think a 5D3 vs A7R by itself is as telling as one would assume. The Canon has a low pass filter in front the sensor. The Sony does not. The only real comparison looking truly apples for apples is going to be to put the new Sony 50MP against the Canon 5DsR. James Miller removed the AA filter from his 5D3 a couple years ago and the sharpness went notably higher...granted it came with aliasing. But then, that whole debate goes back to how much REAL detail are you recapturing without the filter vs. false detail.

As of now, we may see the Sony 50MP camera released before the Canon.

 

[KBStudio]

But then if you use.different lenses on different cameras, that's not a fair comparison. If rumor is true that Sony is also making a 50mp sensor, then you can compare it to Canon's counterpart with same lens i.e.. sigma 50 art.
[/quote]

I use only my Canon L glass on all cameras. So the comparison is not only apples to apples it is critical. The Canon files are not as sharp, clear, or as smooth particularly in the 3/4 tones. Sony chips are better but not necessarily their cameras. Canon functionality is still much better.

 

[zlatko]

Clearly you are spending too much time reading internet forums. That's your first mistake.

And the second mistake is confusing "sensor fabrication process" with IQ. I don't really care how they make the sensors as long as the IQ is excellent, which it is. The processes that Fuji/Kodak/Agfa/Ilford/etc. used to make their films weren't that interesting, unless you were in film manufacturing. It's the same with sensors. We make pictures and either they satisfy or not. How the sensor was made is just not a big deal, unless you're a sensor manufacturer. Presumably someone who has a Canon system bought it because of the IQ, not because of some process at the factory.

 

[monkey44]

Without quoting / copying the entire post -- I agree totally with 'unfocused' ...

The differences between manufacturers at the "user" end become relevant only to a few specialists at extreme ends of the spectrum -- and the measurements so incremental is to be micron level. Most mean nothing at the print end - which is where most 'paid work' ends up. And at the digital end (web-level) it's indecipherable (nearly) ...

I cannot understand why all the arguments center on micro-measurements, and not how it emerges from the print media (whichever one is used for the end product) ... I'd bet (not a lot, because I'm not wealthy), that if one of us printed the same size image (say, 5x7 or 8x10) from a 30D or a 5DM3 under controlled shooting conditions and printed it, most folks (excepting specially trained) would not pick one from the other.

One of the main differences between older technology and newer technology is the size of the print, not the IQ of the print once the printer grabs it ... Altho' at the tech level, we'd find a lot of differences ... it doesn't necessarily equate to a "better" print, only to a larger print ...

Having said that:: I also agree that newer technology allows greater manipulation of the data contained in an image file ... so the manipulation for artistic variance and control will be much greater as well. But, for the actual reproduction of what we visualize in the field or the studio and reproduce exactly without major manipulation, it matters less. Some technicians, I'd also bet, are good enough with digital manipulation to fool us too -- I'm not one of them tho'...

 

[Mt Spokane Photography]

There is no evidence that a fabrication process has any effect on Camera IQ. Sony's sensors have to do with Sensor design and not fabrication process. Their design is protected by patents.

Sony puts A/D converters on the sensor itself and Canon puts the A/D converter in the Digic Processor.

Canon has NR circuitry on the sensor, but the Analog signal travels to the processor which lets a small amount of noise into the path.

 

[PureClassA]

There is no evidence that a fabrication process has any effect on Camera IQ. Sony's sensors have to do with Sensor design and not fabrication process. Their design is protected by patents.

Sony puts A/D converters on the sensor itself and Canon puts the A/D converter in the Digic Processor.

Canon has NR circuitry on the sensor, but the Analog signal travels to the processor which lets a small amount of noise into the path.

Yes. But Canon also has a very similar ON sensor ADC patent they haven't pulled the trigger on using. Hoping they will soon once the costs for retooling the fab process will aloow (as I assume that is at least in part the issue)

 

[Mt Spokane Photography]

There is no evidence that a fabrication process has any effect on Camera IQ. Sony's sensors have to do with Sensor design and not fabrication process. Their design is protected by patents.

Sony puts A/D converters on the sensor itself and Canon puts the A/D converter in the Digic Processor.

Canon has NR circuitry on the sensor, but the Analog signal travels to the processor which lets a small amount of noise into the path.

Yes. But Canon also has a very similar ON sensor ADC patent they haven't pulled the trigger on using. Hoping they will soon once the costs for retooling the fab process will aloow (as I assume that is at least in part the issue)

I doubt if the fab process makes a difference, its more of a design philosophy. As far as I know, the fab process that Canon uses is only a matter of speculation and nothing is actually known about current production sensors.

Canon has patents for a ton of things, including putting circuitry on the rear of the sensor, they have just decided that its not worth the cost and reliability hit.

 

[whitedjp]

I have been reading a lot lately how Canon has not updated its sensor fabrication process which is why we haven't seen much too too much improvement over the years...

So I come to my question: do you think that if Canon continues to increase the ?efficiency? of its systems and then integrate this with the newer sensor fabrication, that Canon would then lead the IQ pack again?

Clearly you are spending too much time reading internet forums. That's your first mistake.

Canon's image quality compares very favorably with other brands. Better in some areas, not quite as good in others, but overall, the differences among all brands are insignificant.

Those who complain generally fall into two categories: 1) persons who have very specific needs/wants that are out of the mainstream and expect highly specialized tools from mass market manufacturers (these people comprise only a tiny percentage of complainers and an even tinier percentage of the market); and 2) measurebators who read internet forums and test sites and misinterpret the tiny differences that certain test sites measure and assume that these measurements, however flawed, are somehow significant to users.

The vast majority of photographers, professional and amateur alike, find that today's tools, even at the low end, are far and away better than they generally need.

There is no prize for having marginally the "best" in one narrow category and it will not affect any company's position in the marketplace. Canon (and Nikon and others) will continue to make marginal improvements, but as the technology has matured, the improvements are likely to remain marginal and not hugely significant until the "next big thing" comes around. So far, the only thing out there that could possibly fit that description might be light field technology, but it is a long way away from being perfected.

First off, I 100% agree and am 100% happy with my Canon gear! I'm not one who thinks we need more of everything (dynamic range, higher iso, etc, etc) and I probably don't push my 7d to the limits in 99% of situations. I was merely commenting that it seems that Canon is improving image quality in other ways to compete, so I was wondering more if Canon were to become on par with sensors from Sony, would we see a more than "marginal" increase in IQ due to the sensor and the system improvements working synergistically (using what seems is a very efficient 7dii system in FF with a new sensor)? Again this was just a thought, i'm merely curious on the future ;D!

 

[Mt Spokane Photography]

First off, I 100% agree and am 100% happy with my Canon gear! I'm not one who thinks we need more of everything (dynamic range, higher iso, etc, etc) and I probably don't push my 7d to the limits in 99% of situations. I was merely commenting that it seems that Canon is improving image quality in other ways to compete, so I was wondering more if Canon were to become on par with sensors from Sony, would we see a more than "marginal" increase in IQ due to the sensor and the system improvements working synergistically (using what seems is a very efficient 7dii system in FF with a new sensor)? Again this was just a thought, i'm merely curious on the future ;D!

Generally, all modern Cameras using the same size sensors do very well at low ISO's and most lighting conditions.

The differences come when lighting is difficult, such as deep shadows or high contrast that cannot be avoided. Low light is another area where the sensor can make a difference.

For all around usage Canon does very well. So the big factor for someone who makes money from his shooting is the whole system, reliability, and service/customer support. Canon is superb here, Nikon is fair, but Sony service is nearly non-existent. Sony is trying to improve, but their reputation has been established over 50 years or more of poor and expensive service with models being discontinued every year, and little or no service after that. At the pro video level where cameras run $20K and more, Sony does a good job, so its possible.

 

[Don Haines]

A change in fabrication size could increase the efficiency of Canon sensors by 10 maybe 15%. For anything else you need to change the design........but keep in mind that everything has trade-offs. For example the current canon designs have less low ISO dynamic range then the Sony design but it has greater high ISO dynamic range.change the design and you change the trade-offs.