New Sensor Tech in EOS 7D Mark II [CR2]

[Don Haines]

And finally, I think it will be a dual processor.... but I am wondering if the time has come for one processor to be optimized for stills and the other processor optimized for video.

That's an interesting thought. I guess it depends on the frame rate. If they only bump up to 10fps, I think a single DIGIC7 could handle it (easily...with room to spare for a whole ton of other stuff). That would be ESPECIALLY if they move the ADC onto the sensor die and make it column parallel. They do have a patent for CP-ADC with a Dual-Scale Ramp ADC (the dual-scale just allows the ADC to operate at different rates based on some trigger factor...say sensor heat...more heat, higher noise, slower readout, less noise...switch from high speed readout to low speed readout when possible under higher heat, and you could counteract the increase in dark current noise...I have no idea what the trigger factor would be to switch from the higher speed to the lower speed or vice versa in an actual product, though.) Parallelizing ADC and putting that logic on the die also reduces load in the DIGIC itself...it would then solely be responsible for digital pixel processing, in which case a DIGIC 7 that has no ADC units could theoretically have even more processing power than a DIGIC 7 that did include the ADC units. So instead of being 7x faster than a DIGIC 6, it might end up being 12x or 14x faster.

If you had one of those dedicated to stills/af/metering, and one dedicated to video, you could really do a hell of a lot with the video. Canon should be able to surpass what the Bionz X in the A7s does easily, achieving ultra low noise ISO 400k, maybe even 800k.

Every so often there needs to be a "reset"

It happened in lenses when AF started to come out. Canon took the brave step of completely redesigning the interface to handle the requirements of digital communication between lens and body and we jumped from FD to EOS... this might be the time for a similar jump on the inside of the camera.

15 years ago, the innards of digital cameras were a collection of ic's with specific functions and the communication between them was both complex and at the same time, fairly limited. At the moment, Canon is doing a major redesign to fit DPAF onto it's sensors and presumably, onto a smaller fabrication technique. This gives us four big possibilities on the sensors. First, with less wasted surface area, the amount of captured light goes up and with that, so does the performance. The second one is with smaller fabrication comes smaller transistors and that means shorter electrical paths and that gives us higher speed. Third is that with smaller transistors and lower voltages, we get less heat, and that means lower noise and longer battery life. Fourth is that with smaller transistors the a/d can be integrated into the sensor and that gives us less noise and a cleaner design.

With all the analog confined to the sensor, one can now communicate digitally between the sensor, processor(s), display devices, and storage medium(s). Gigabyte per second transfer rates are easy to achieve.

15 years ago, there was no video on DSLRs.... now it is a standard feature.... yet we have the same general purpose DIGIC doing both..... it might be time for a split into a dedicated stills processor and a dedicated video processor.

This could be the time for a "reset" of the internal architecture of the Canon DSLRs.....

 

[jrista]

And finally, I think it will be a dual processor.... but I am wondering if the time has come for one processor to be optimized for stills and the other processor optimized for video.

That's an interesting thought. I guess it depends on the frame rate. If they only bump up to 10fps, I think a single DIGIC7 could handle it (easily...with room to spare for a whole ton of other stuff). That would be ESPECIALLY if they move the ADC onto the sensor die and make it column parallel. They do have a patent for CP-ADC with a Dual-Scale Ramp ADC (the dual-scale just allows the ADC to operate at different rates based on some trigger factor...say sensor heat...more heat, higher noise, slower readout, less noise...switch from high speed readout to low speed readout when possible under higher heat, and you could counteract the increase in dark current noise...I have no idea what the trigger factor would be to switch from the higher speed to the lower speed or vice versa in an actual product, though.) Parallelizing ADC and putting that logic on the die also reduces load in the DIGIC itself...it would then solely be responsible for digital pixel processing, in which case a DIGIC 7 that has no ADC units could theoretically have even more processing power than a DIGIC 7 that did include the ADC units. So instead of being 7x faster than a DIGIC 6, it might end up being 12x or 14x faster.

If you had one of those dedicated to stills/af/metering, and one dedicated to video, you could really do a hell of a lot with the video. Canon should be able to surpass what the Bionz X in the A7s does easily, achieving ultra low noise ISO 400k, maybe even 800k.

Every so often there needs to be a "reset"

It happened in lenses when AF started to come out. Canon took the brave step of completely redesigning the interface to handle the requirements of digital communication between lens and body and we jumped from FD to EOS... this might be the time for a similar jump on the inside of the camera.

15 years ago, the innards of digital cameras were a collection of ic's with specific functions and the communication between them was both complex and at the same time, fairly limited. At the moment, Canon is doing a major redesign to fit DPAF onto it's sensors and presumably, onto a smaller fabrication technique. This gives us four big possibilities on the sensors. First, with less wasted surface area, the amount of captured light goes up and with that, so does the performance. The second one is with smaller fabrication comes smaller transistors and that means shorter electrical paths and that gives us higher speed. Third is that with smaller transistors and lower voltages, we get less heat, and that means lower noise and longer battery life. Fourth is that with smaller transistors the a/d can be integrated into the sensor and that gives us less noise and a cleaner design.

With all the analog confined to the sensor, one can now communicate digitally between the sensor, processor(s), display devices, and storage medium(s). Gigabyte per second transfer rates are easy to achieve.

15 years ago, there was no video on DSLRs.... now it is a standard feature.... yet we have the same general purpose DIGIC doing both..... it might be time for a split into a dedicated stills processor and a dedicated video processor.

This could be the time for a "reset" of the internal architecture of the Canon DSLRs.....

Regarding the shorter electrical paths bit...I think you may be conflating CPUs with sensors. In a CPU, you can shrink the whole package...and yes, that results in shorter distances for electrons to travel. In a sensor, it isn't really the same. There is a very minimal amount of logic that occurs at the pixel...basically amplify. The distance that amplified charge travels is the same for any given sensor size thought...the top row of pixels is going to have to travel the full 24mm height of the light-sensitive area, plus the additional millimeter or so of masked and calibration pixels around the border, plus the extra millimeter to the CDS unit, plus another short distance to some voltage output (or in the case of CP-ADC, to the ADC units). Shrinking the transistor size doesn't really change charge travel distance in CIS devices, since the whole die generally remains the same. Even if you shortened the distances in the logic around the pixel itself, that is such a trivial distance compared to the total readout distances, I don't think it would be meaningful.

As for lower voltages, for cameras used for normal photography, again I don't think the difference in noise from using a lower voltage on the sensor itself is going to matter much. In Canon's current setup, the sensor itself is actually very low noise. Based on Roger Clark's work, some of Canon's more recent sensors have as little as 1.5e- worth of electronic noise introduced by the sensor itself (or maybe it was 1.2e-). When your FWC is around 30ke- for APS-C and around 67ke- to 92ke- for FF, that is effectively meaningless. The primary source of read noise comes from the downstream (and off the sensor die) electronics, the off-sensor bus, secondary downstream amp and the high frequency ADC units. Those suckers are adding up to 35e- or so worth of noise.

I do believe moving the ADC onto the sensor die is the biggest move that could reduce noise. Eliminating the bus, secondary amp, and massively increasing the parallelism of the on-die ADC units would allow them to operate at a significantly lower frequency. The reduction in operating frequency would have the most significant noise reduction effect. If Canon follows Sony's design, moving the clock and other high frequency components off to a remote corner of the die, away from the ADCs, would practically eliminate the noise they cause.

I also agree that once the analog signal is converted to a digital signal, then you have the freedom to move it around at high speed. You can use error-corrected transfer, and sure, ship the information around at gigahertz error-corrected speeds.

I think that DIGIC is still handling both still and video because up to date, the DIGIC houses the ADC units. Once the ADC units are on the sensor, then sure, I think it would be a lot easier to have some kind of switching unit on the digital bus between the sensor and the processors, and you could dedicate one to stills processing and another to video processing. However, if you have a sufficiently powerful DSP with enough horsepower, it would probably be more energy efficient to hose both of those dedicated processors in a single unit. Especially of the ENTIRE unit can be dedicated to image processing, since the ADC units wouldn't be taking up die space or power.

 

[Diko]

I think CR guy knows more than he's reporting. C'mon Craig, tell us something more!

His name is Craig !?! ;D ;D ;D
Anyways.....

;D ;D ;D

"... an image sensor including pixels each having a pair of photoelectric conversion units (photodiodes) capable of outputting the pair of image signals obtained by independently receiving a pair of light beams...

Btw, the word 'photodiode' is not even mentioned in the patent. So, you basically forged this quote.

The patent talks about sub-pixels, not photodiodes.
Your entire stance is based on forged/misinterpreted information.

Pspehaps the whole mistery behind "subpixel" can be easily explained: subpixel = photodiode + microlense

As for 7dm2 iso range of 100-12800 I now remember DPAF. More circuits around the photodiodes for improved DPAF would explain low isk digits

300nm wafer!? Jrista you are quite optmistic really.

As for 180 process - most probably YES. 1Dx after all is using it already.
QE is my dream.... in time of development of 70 andeven some 80% QE CMOS it is about time to make some advancments... But I am sceptical about it.

Tablet writing sucks!

 

[ULFULFSEN]

These specs are largely identical with the spec list posted by CR, with a few differences. The source told me that:
•The EOS 7D Mark II sports a 20.2 MP sensor but it is not the same sensor as featured on the EOS 70D
•The AF has 65 points but only 32 are cross-type. Center point is dual cross. f/8 on center point
•The EOS 7D Mark II has a “pro build quality” (whatever this means in detail)
•Price in EU will be €1800 (that could mean $1,990 in the US)

http://www.canonwatch.com/another-mention-20mp-sensor-eos-7d-mark-ii/

 

[ULFULFSEN]

As for 180 process - most probably YES. 1Dx after all is using it already.

Source?

 

[jrista]

"... an image sensor including pixels each having a pair of photoelectric conversion units (photodiodes) capable of outputting the pair of image signals obtained by independently receiving a pair of light beams...

Btw, the word 'photodiode' is not even mentioned in the patent. So, you basically forged this quote.

The patent talks about sub-pixels, not photodiodes.
Your entire stance is based on forged/misinterpreted information.

Pspehaps the whole mistery behind "subpixel" can be easily explained: subpixel = photodiode + microlense

As for 7dm2 iso range of 100-12800 I now remember DPAF. More circuits around the photodiodes for improved DPAF would explain low isk digits

300nm wafer!? Jrista you are quite optmistic really.

As for 180 process - most probably YES. 1Dx after all is using it already.
QE is my dream.... in time of development of 70 andeven some 80% QE CMOS it is about time to make some advancments... But I am sceptical about it.

Tablet writing sucks!

Umm...where in the world do you get that the 1D X is already using a 180nm process? Of ALL of Canon's sensors, the 1D X needs the smaller process the least. The 70D is the most likely to have moved to a 180nm process, however there is no evidence that such a move actually occurred, only speculation. As far as I know, based on analyses done by Chipworks, the 1D X, 5D III, 6D and all of Canon's older sensors still use a 500nm process.

Regarding the 300mm wafers...every other manufacturer except Canon already uses them. As far as I understand, Canon's 180nm fab uses them already. If Canon is winding down production on their 200mm fab where their larger sensors are being manufactured, to ramp up production of new APS-C and FF sensors on their newer fab...then 300mm wafers with a 180nm process are pretty much a given. There was even a rumor not long ago about Canon's plans to improve their production capacity. I think Don Haines has it nailed: Canon's P&S business has plummeted, meaning they aren't using the full capacity of their newer and more advanced fabs...meaning the capacity that is coming off of P&S cams is available for use by APS-C and FF manufacture. It seems most logical that Canon would aim to cut costs by reducing the number of operating fabs, and in particular by eliminating the far less efficient 200mm wafers.

As for Canon's DPAF pixel structure...it's two photodiodes embedded within the substrate underneath a SINGLE microlens, a SINGLE color filter, with a single combined set of readout/binning logic that happens to be capable of reading the charge in each photodiode independently and either binning those two charges or not. When a pixel is activated, both of it's photodiodes are read out simultaneouosly...whether they are binned depends on whether the read is an image read or an AF read.

 

[ULFULFSEN]

1D X:

On the process side, the 1D X is remarkable in that Canon continues to stay with the 0.5 µm process generation it has used for every APS-C and FF device analyzed

http://www.chipworks.com/en/technical-competitive-analysis/resources/blog/full-frame-dslr-cameras-canon-stays-the-course/

 

[Loswr]

These specs are largely identical with the spec list posted by CR, with a few differences. The source told me that:
•The EOS 7D Mark II sports a 20.2 MP sensor but it is not the same sensor as featured on the EOS 70D
•The AF has 65 points but only 32 are cross-type. Center point is dual cross. f/8 on center point
•The EOS 7D Mark II has a “pro build quality” (whatever this means in detail)
•Price in EU will be €1800 (that could mean $1,990 in the US)

http://www.canonwatch.com/another-mention-20mp-sensor-eos-7d-mark-ii/

We should know soon.

I'm not sure I buy the 32 cross-type out of 65 total AF point spec. Given the possible logical layouts of a 65-pt sensor, it's far more likely that a subset of cross-type points would be an odd number, not an even number.

 

[Lee Jay]

These specs are largely identical with the spec list posted by CR, with a few differences. The source told me that:
•The EOS 7D Mark II sports a 20.2 MP sensor but it is not the same sensor as featured on the EOS 70D
•The AF has 65 points but only 32 are cross-type. Center point is dual cross. f/8 on center point
•The EOS 7D Mark II has a “pro build quality” (whatever this means in detail)
•Price in EU will be €1800 (that could mean $1,990 in the US)

http://www.canonwatch.com/another-mention-20mp-sensor-eos-7d-mark-ii/

We should know soon.

I'm not sure I buy the 32 cross-type out of 65 total AF point spec. Given the possible logical layouts of a 65-pt sensor, it's far more likely that a subset of cross-type points would be an odd number, not an even number.

Even if you count the center "dual cross" separately?

 

[Marsu42]

The EOS 7D Mark II sports a 20.2 MP sensor but it is not the same sensor as featured on the EOS 70D

Yeah, right, I'm sure it's a completely different sensor that just happens to have the same resolution :->

 

[Loswr]

These specs are largely identical with the spec list posted by CR, with a few differences. The source told me that:
•The EOS 7D Mark II sports a 20.2 MP sensor but it is not the same sensor as featured on the EOS 70D
•The AF has 65 points but only 32 are cross-type. Center point is dual cross. f/8 on center point
•The EOS 7D Mark II has a “pro build quality” (whatever this means in detail)
•Price in EU will be €1800 (that could mean $1,990 in the US)

http://www.canonwatch.com/another-mention-20mp-sensor-eos-7d-mark-ii/

We should know soon.

I'm not sure I buy the 32 cross-type out of 65 total AF point spec. Given the possible logical layouts of a 65-pt sensor, it's far more likely that a subset of cross-type points would be an odd number, not an even number.

Even if you count the center "dual cross" separately?

That's not how AF point count specs are listed, at least by Canon.

 

[ULFULFSEN]

The EOS 7D Mark II sports a 20.2 MP sensor but it is not the same sensor as featured on the EOS 70D

Yeah, right, I'm sure it's a completely different sensor that just happens to have the same resolution :->

i say it´s the middleway.

it´s not the same sensor it´s a 70D sensor but with improved DPAF.

 

[Lee Jay]

These specs are largely identical with the spec list posted by CR, with a few differences. The source told me that:
•The EOS 7D Mark II sports a 20.2 MP sensor but it is not the same sensor as featured on the EOS 70D
•The AF has 65 points but only 32 are cross-type. Center point is dual cross. f/8 on center point
•The EOS 7D Mark II has a “pro build quality” (whatever this means in detail)
•Price in EU will be €1800 (that could mean $1,990 in the US)

http://www.canonwatch.com/another-mention-20mp-sensor-eos-7d-mark-ii/

We should know soon.

I'm not sure I buy the 32 cross-type out of 65 total AF point spec. Given the possible logical layouts of a 65-pt sensor, it's far more likely that a subset of cross-type points would be an odd number, not an even number.

Even if you count the center "dual cross" separately?

That's not how AF point count specs are listed, at least by Canon.

Yeah, but this is a third-hand rumor, probably translated multiple times from the original ancient Greek!

 

[Marsu42]

it´s not the same sensor it´s a 70D sensor but with improved DPAF.

That's my guess, too - Canon has kept improving it since the introduction in the Rebels and will most likely continue to do so for the 5d4 release.

 

[NancyP]

well, they ought to be putting something seriously new in, considering the length of time it has taken to generate the 7D2. Or, did they just run out of old 7D stock recently...

 

[x-vision]

• The EOS 7D Mark II sports a 20.2 MP sensor but it is not the same sensor as featured on the EOS 70D
http://www.canonwatch.com/another-mention-20mp-sensor-eos-7d-mark-ii/

Well, I really hope so. Otherwise, the 7D2 is DOA for me personally.

As I said in another thread, Canon will be missing a golden opportunity if the 7DII has the same sensor as the 70D.

With better IQ than the rest of the crop (hehe), the 7DII will be in a class of its own.
But with the same IQ, it would be just a niche camera for a specific group of users.

My 2c.

 

[Lurker]

Yeah, but this is a third-hand rumor, probably translated multiple times from the original ancient Greek!

Even back then they were waiting for a 7D II?

 

[Loswr]

I'm not sure I buy the 32 cross-type out of 65 total AF point spec. Given the possible logical layouts of a 65-pt sensor, it's far more likely that a subset of cross-type points would be an odd number, not an even number.

Even if you count the center "dual cross" separately?

That's not how AF point count specs are listed, at least by Canon.

Yeah, but this is a third-hand rumor, probably translated multiple times from the original ancient Greek!

Yes, but of all things numbers actually translate quite well.

I'm going to go with CR on this one, 65-pt AF, all cross-type. I think it makes sense for Canon to go that route, really pushing the AF and fps specs of the 7DII/X. Consider the 7D vs. the then-current 5DII. The 7D had a (much) better AF and (much) faster frame rate. I think there were quite a few people who owned both the 5DII and the 7D, with the latter being much better suited to action. The 5DIII was a big step up in AF and fps, making it better than the 7D for action from a practical standpoint, so if Canon wants a repeat of the dual FF/APS-C ownership paradigm, they need to set the 7D replacement apart. 65 cross-type points and 10 fps would help do that.

 

[Don Haines]

Yeah, but this is a third-hand rumor, probably translated multiple times from the original ancient Greek!

Even back then they were waiting for a 7D II?

I hear that they found rumoured specs for a 7D2 in hieroglyphics in a pyramid in Egypt.........

 

[jthomson]

Yeah, but this is a third-hand rumor, probably translated multiple times from the original ancient Geek!

There fixed the typo.