Is a brand new 32.5mp APS-C sensor from Canon on the way? [CR1]

[masterpix]

26MP APS-C, 32.5MP APS-C, no 7DIII... does it sound wired that Canon will not have a 7DIII but work on new APS-C sensor? if they are slowly closing the XXXD XXD XD lines, while making even cheaper R (FF) body (why even go for R-APS-C when a pro-R is the real goal)? Those rumors sound very contradicting to each other. So where is the "logic" unless those vague rumors are just, rumors.

 

[AlanF]

Alan F: Then it depends what phone camera are we looking at. I´m looking at newer Sony IMX586, which is usually coupled with f/2 lens (28mm eq), and my math tells me it is f/11 equivalent for FF lens. That is getting into this diffraction limited territory with 48Mpx.

The iPhone has 1.4 µ pixels, which give a DLA of f/2.25, larger than its f/1.8 lens. The 48 mpixel sensor on the Sony is unique, and I don't really understand it. Its pixel size is 0.8 µ, which would be give a DLA of f/1.3. But, it has what is described as "Quad Bayer" technology, with each pixel a member of a block of 4, with an effective size of 1.6 pixels. It seems to me that the true resolution may well be that of a 12 mpixel sensor of a DLA of f/2.6. Can you tell me more about it?

 

[Pape]

Alan F: Then it depends what phone camera are we looking at. I´m looking at newer Sony IMX586, which is usually coupled with f/2 lens (28mm eq), and my math tells me it is f/11 equivalent for FF lens. That is getting into this diffraction limited territory with 48Mpx.

No idea what math you using .but i think when F amount is announced it refers f amount counted from true focal lenght not about salesman trick focal lenght

 

[crashpc]

Alan F: I think that they might have some issues with doing so small CFA. So they use CFA for quadruple of pixels. But these pixels are still accessible as separate pixels. So with some additional color error, you still get more resolution from it.
And once aperture is between f/1.8-f/2 on this sensor model, it is diffraction limited sensor for sure. How about Huawei? They use 40Mpx sensors, and Samsung also has 48Mpx.
I pick these because these are also quite large in area, compared to other sensors. Usually 1/2" or 1/1,7", which is nice to have. I would be happier if they went right to 1"

Pape: Yes, I wrote "f/11 equivalent for FF". It was not for lens comparisons purposes, it was for diffraction effect purposes comparison between two systems.

 

[mb66energy]

You have misunderstood what I wrote: a 1.4x is a 20% increase over a 1.16x increase, by which I meant 1.4/1.16 = 1.2, in other words a 1.4 gives 20% more resolution than a 1.16!

Alan: Sorry for misinterpreting your post ! You are right with your numbers. And I built in a mistake, a 1.4 TC converts 600 mm to 840 (not 960) mm - I run into the APS-C factor accidentally.

 

[mb66energy]

You shoot whatyou have to. If you are doing landscape f5.6 will probably give too little DOF - sometimes these diffraction comments ignore the necessities of the art and end up being purely philosophical.
Can you show me an image where a high-res sensor 'diffration limited' photo has less resolution than a lower-res sensor image that (in theory) is less 'diffraction limited'??

I just wanted to explain why there are only a few shooters which observe diffraction limitation and not the majority of people. I see a clearly visible difference on the display of my M50 between f/5.6 and f/16 but you are absolutely right with your remark that the gain of DOF may be worth of some loss in resolution in landscape and macro work.

I can NOT show such an image because I haven't tried it. I would always take a higher res sensor without hesitation because it helps in a lot of situations if ... the general IQ isn't degraded e.g. by smaller total photosite area/well capacity which might be the case if you cannot scale down some readout electronics which is in front of the sensor - but I think just this is well mitigated by the microlenses which at least increase effective sensor area.

 

[AlanF]

Alan: Sorry for misinterpreting your post ! You are right with your numbers. And I built in a mistake, a 1.4 TC converts 600 mm to 840 (not 960) mm - I run into the APS-C factor accidentally.

Thanks! We are on the same wavelength.

 

[Mikehit]

I can NOT show such an image because I haven't tried it.

I apologise if I am wrong but it seems you were arguing against higher MP sensors on the basis of diffraction limitation happening at wider apertures which I presumed meant you had some knowledge of it.

... the general IQ isn't degraded e.g. by smaller total photosite area/well capacity which might be the case if you cannot scale down some readout electronics which is in front of the sensor - but I think just this is well mitigated by the microlenses which at least increase effective sensor area.

This seems to be saying that diffraction may not be an issue, but well capacity?
If this is a concern you have (which is fair enough) how would you get the information you need to make a buying decision?

 

[Chris Jankowski]

As far as I know, between Nikon, Canon and Sony there still hasn’t been an APS-C BSI sensor, let alone a stacked sensor.

Not really. The sensor in Sony A6400 camera is BSI, and its predecessor A6300 was also using a BSI sensor. So Sony has been using APS-C BSI sensors for at least 4 years now.

 

[Kit.]

Not really. The sensor in Sony A6400 camera is BSI, and its predecessor A6300 was also using a BSI sensor.

Where did you get that info?

As I see on Wikipedia, A6300 uses IMX284, and it is not BSI.

As I seen on sony-semicon.co.jp, Sony's APS-C sensor with BSI is 26.2 MP. Sony's APS-C 24.2 MP sensors are not BSI.

 

[Chris Jankowski]

26MP APS-C, 32.5MP APS-C, no 7DIII... does it sound wired that Canon will not have a 7DIII but work on new APS-C sensor? if they are slowly closing the XXXD XXD XD lines, while making even cheaper R (FF) body (why even go for R-APS-C when a pro-R is the real goal)? Those rumors sound very contradicting to each other. So where is the "logic" unless those vague rumors are just, rumors.

The logic is based on the following factors:

• Mirrorless cameras are cheaper to make and will become even cheaper in the future with falling prices of electronic components.
• Mirrorless cameras may be much smaller than equivalent DSLR. Market in general wants this.
• Mirrorless cameras allow easier addition of new gizmo features. Think pet eye AF. Important for marketing.

 

[Chris Jankowski]

Where did you get that info?

As I see on Wikipedia, A6300 uses IMX284, and it is not BSI.

As I seen on sony-semicon.co.jp, Sony's APS-C sensor with BSI is 26.2 MP. Sony's APS-C 24.2 MP sensors are not BSI.

I got this information from DXOMARK here:

Sony A6400 sensor review - DxOMark

After some three years since the introduction of the A6300, Sony has launched its follow up the A6400. Featuring a familiar rangefinder-style body, the design is mostly unchanged from that earlier model and it shares many of the same features, such as the OLED EVF, touch-enabled, tilting rear...

www.dxomark.com

It says that this is a BSI sensor.

Admittedly this is a murky area.

For example. Wikipedia, in the entries for A6300 and A6500 have Exmor RS sensor. This is the same sensor as in A6400. Exmor RS sensors are backlit and stacked. However, Wikipedia in the list of Exmor RS sensors has no APS-C sensor. On the other hand they list A6300 and A6500 against IMX284 sensor, as you found out. And this sensor is neither backlit nor stacked. It is plain Exmor sensor.

Sony in the technical specs for A6300. 6500 and 6400 says - Exmor sensor.

So there are contradictions here.

I think that the Wikipedia entry for Exmor sensor and Sony A6300/a6400/a6500 specs are right. Conversely, DXOMARK and Wikipedia entries for A6300/A6500 are wrong.

 

[Richard CR]

I got this information from DXOMARK here:

Sony A6400 sensor review - DxOMark

After some three years since the introduction of the A6300, Sony has launched its follow up the A6400. Featuring a familiar rangefinder-style body, the design is mostly unchanged from that earlier model and it shares many of the same features, such as the OLED EVF, touch-enabled, tilting rear...

www.dxomark.com

It says that this is a BSI sensor.

Admittedly this is a murky area.

For example. Wikipedia, in the entries for A6300 and A6500 have Exmor RS sensor. This is the same sensor as in A6400. Exmor RS sensors are backlit and stacked.

The A6xxx series are most certainly not stacked sensors. the only stacked sensor in Sony's cameras is in the A9.

I'm pretty certain that only the 26MP APS-C sensor that Fuji is now the only ones currently using is BSI, the rest are FSI including the ones in the A6400.

DXOMark is the only source that seems to be stating it's BSI. it's an error IMO.

 

[3kramd5]

The A6xxx series are most certainly not stacked sensors. the only stacked sensor in Sony's cameras is in the A9.

I believe Sony’s Venice also uses a stacked sensor.

 

[uri.raz]

26MP APS-C, 32.5MP APS-C, no 7DIII... does it sound wierd that Canon will not have a 7DIII but work on new APS-C sensor?

Nope. New cameras need new sensors.

(why even go for R-APS-C when a pro-R is the real goal)?

It's a goal. Canon has more than one.

 

[mb66energy]

I apologise if I am wrong but it seems you were arguing against higher MP sensors on the basis of diffraction limitation happening at wider apertures which I presumed meant you had some knowledge of it.

Maybe it was my non-native english: diffraction limitation occurs only at small aperture diameters / large f-stop numbers.

[...]

This seems to be saying that diffraction may not be an issue, but well capacity?
If this is a concern you have (which is fair enough) how would you get the information you need to make a buying decision?

Judging the technical IQ is at least a question if it is comparable to the rest of the bunch now e.g. best APS-C cameras from Fuji or Sony who have very good sensors. IMO noise and missing detail can spoil IQ independently. Canons sensors show for my eyes/brain often a little bit more noise but also more detail while Fuji sensors have very low noise but fine details are on the mushy side. And if you check the noise in different colors (dpreview, itten color circles) I see some fine tuning for different sensors/CFAs - I think it has to do with the spectral width of the R, G and B filters which color exhibits more noise: A narrow filter spectrum reduces the amount of light which reaches the sensor but gives maybe cleaner final colors.

If a 32.5 MPix sensor shows a little bit more detail compared to the current 24 MPix sensor but has a little bit more noise I would judge both sensors as comparable. If the well capacity would be reduced significantly I would expect much more noise and judge the 24 MPix sensor as the better sensor.

I use dpreview, tdp, photonstophotos to check the scenes and diagrams to get some picture of the situation without splitting hairs.

At the moment I am very satisfied with M50 and 200D technical IQ while the 200D seems to have slightly smother transitions without being soft: I observed that the grip gets warm while taking photos, maybe they have the voltage conversion displaced in the larger grip far from the sensor which keeps the sensor cool and out of the stronger electromagnetic fields of modern voltage converters.

Just a chip layout as top view would not help to judge about well capacity ... if a chip producer finds a way to use the 3rd dimension to store charge well capacity could be increased by a large factor compared to current systems. The only drawback would be a decrease in ISO but having ISO 25 or 12.5 would be something like a no-cost ND filter replacement!

As you can see: my buying decisions are made between gut instincts and physics knowledge!

 

[crashpc]

mb66energy: Diffraction limitation as we perceive it, is rather the function or ratio between entrance pupil, pixel size and display size.
If you dowsize diffraction limited image enough, then it is not diffraction limited. It´s very hard to discuss such thing with so many variables and dimensions, because most people are caught be incomplete set of aspects.

You are right about qualities and parameters to the image. They are mostly in series chain making the final quality.

 

[masterpix]

The logic is based on the following factors:

• Mirrorless cameras are cheaper to make and will become even cheaper in the future with falling prices of electronic components.
• Mirrorless cameras may be much smaller than equivalent DSLR. Market in general wants this.
• Mirrorless cameras allow easier addition of new gizmo features. Think pet eye AF. Important for marketing.

As all you said is correct, still the question remains: if FF RF body is less expensive than its DSLR "rival", and soon the prices of FF sensors will decrease even more, and as you said, mirror-less will become the main line, why will anyone buy a 32MP M series camera when they can get the RF (or other less expensive R body) for virtually the same price? The RF brings 26MP (which is over-kill for most people) and you have an adapter that you can use virtually any glass that exist on it. I still don't see the logic, the facts you mentioned are correct, but the logic leads to better FF sensors, not APS-C.

 

[Chris Jankowski]

As all you said is correct, still the question remains: if FF RF body is less expensive than its DSLR "rival", and soon the prices of FF sensors will decrease even more, and as you said, mirror-less will become the main line, why will anyone buy a 32MP M series camera when they can get the RF (or other less expensive R body) for virtually the same price? The RF brings 26MP (which is over-kill for most people) and you have an adapter that you can use virtually any glass that exist on it. I still don't see the logic, the facts you mentioned are correct, but the logic leads to better FF sensors, not APS-C.

Canon may drop the M series. Or de-emphasize it as they say. Be that as it may, a 32 MP APS-C sensor can be used in an RF mount camera. Canon may decide to manufacture RF cameras with APS-C sensor. They may also introduce RF mount lenses with smaller image circle for such cameras. RF-S anyone? These cameras may still be cheaper than FF RF cameras e.g due to smaller battery and cheaper lens. Every cent counts in manufacturing costs.
Whatever path they will choose they have the flexibility to offer a price competitive product that market will want.
We really do not know how the market will develop. We all know that it is shrinking fast and that affects all manufacturers.
Perhaps the right solution in the shrinking market will be to drop M series, drop all APS-C DSLRs , drop all FF DSLRs except for 1D and 5D follow-ons and concentrate all efforts on FF RF cameras.
The bottom of the range FF RF cameras can be made very cheaply with falling prices and increasing integration of electronics. Put it in a plastic body. Add cheap plastic 28-55mm zoom and you can market it for $500 or so. Not now, but certainly in a 3 to 5 years time this will be the reality of the market..
Around year 2002 Minolta was selling 35mm film SLR Maxum/Dynax 4 for about this price.

 

[3kramd5]

• Mirrorless cameras allow easier addition of new gizmo features. Think pet eye AF. Important for marketing.

The lack of a mirror does not make code development and integration easier. Using it may require one addition step, mirror lockup, which most every recent mirrored camera likely already has available.