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

[neech7]

I would be happy if this new sensor addresses the shadow noise problem at low ISO settings like 100 & 160.

Crossing my fingers... Not because I need to recover shadow details by 4 stops... Mostly for bragging rights...

And to finally shut those annoying Nikon and Sony fanboys up.

 

[carlosmeldano]

When 70D was announced after a long delay after circulating speculations on both a 20MP or a 24MP sensor or an existing 18MP sensor, I thought that this technology is not completely done yet. I think it was developed further and tested for a complete solution for 7D2 and the delay is because of this.

I also vote for an advanced Dual/Quad Pixel CMOS AF for 7D2 and the rumors from last year (before 70D) points to this.

But, I also think that 70D is capable of doing more. I think the tech applied in the 70D is a bit dumbed down by firmware to keep room for a bigger bang, the 7D2.

 

[tiger82]

Does anyone have an example of what Canon call revolutionary?

White bodies?

 

[Don Haines]

Does anyone have an example of what Canon call revolutionary?

White bodies?

I heard it will come out in midnight camouflage....

 

[LetTheRightLensIn]

Does it improve IQ or is it more of an ultra-enhanced dual-pixel AF type thing? I hope the former.

Will they finally catch up (and maybe even go beyond) for low ISO DR?

Using a new sensor tech can certainly explain why the 7D2 and high MP camera are long to arrive (a wise and well worth it decision IMO, so long as this really does get the improved DR and other things).

 

[LetTheRightLensIn]

Maybe it's compatibility with DPP 4.

Assuming it's a Bayer sensor with multiple pixels under each microlens (like the 70D), there's not a lot they can do to improve sensor performance that's outside the realm of read noise. There are several ways to attack that one, and some of them involve doing clever things with the multiple pixels per microlens, such as reading out each one at a different ISO and then combining them, sort of like what Magic Lantern has done to increase DR.

That has problems. Much better would be if this makes use of the patent where they read out every photosite at high and low ISO at the same time. A good way to boost DR up a lot at lower ISOs.

 

[LetTheRightLensIn]

Putting a few things together into PURE speculation...

It was mentioned before that the viewfinder would be pretty big - as big as the 5DIII. I pointed out that would make it pretty dim.

What if the "revolutionary sensor technology" is quad-pixel, for a cross-type AF sensor under every pixel, and that it works so well with a new processor that there's no need for a separate PDAF module in the bottom of the mirror box? That would enable the main mirror to be "fully silvered" instead of "partially silvered" which would mean a brighter viewfinder even at the same size.

I kind of doubt it, but it's a bit fun to speculate.

perhaps, i'd personally rather they fix up low ISO DR first though, if it's this quad pixel af supreme stuff we can maybe forget ever getting better DR for ages and ages I fear (although they might go different ways with high MP FF and 7D2 so we'd need to see the next FF to know for sure)

 

[LetTheRightLensIn]

I have wondered for a long time why the bayer filter has survived. Instead of breaking up a pixel into 4 squares, G-G-R-B, why can't it be made into 3 rectangles of R-G-B where the colours no go from 25 percent of the area to 33 percent of the area and you gain about a third of a stop?

Now insert DPAF and imagine each pixel made up of 6 subpixels, 3DPAF pairs, and alternate the orientation of adjacent pixels so you can do DPAF in both the vertical and the horizontal plane.

that would certainly be a logical growth from what is in the 70D....

green is more important overall

 

[LetTheRightLensIn]

Assuming it's a Bayer sensor with multiple pixels under each microlens (like the 70D), there's not a lot they can do to improve sensor performance that's outside the realm of read noise. There are several ways to attack that one, and some of them involve doing clever things with the multiple pixels per microlens, such as reading out each one at a different ISO and then combining them, sort of like what Magic Lantern has done to increase DR.

Either that - or, it might not be a Bayer sensor in the first place.

By the look of things, the so called dual-pixel tech is actually quad-pixel already.
See my previous post on the topic here.

With a quad-pixel design, rather than having a single color filter per pixel, it's theoretically possible to have individual color filters for each of the four sub-pixels.
These color filters don't need to be monochromatic R/G/B filters anymore.
Instead, these could be a combination of di/poly-chromatic filters, from which the full color of a pixel can be derived.
That's better than a Bayer sensor, where two of the pixel colors need to be interpolated from neighboring pixels.

So, you never know. The 7DII could have the first non-Bayer sensor in a DSLR.
If they use a combination of dichromatic filters for each sub-pixel, they could achieve maybe 1 stop of ISO improvement vs a Bayer sensor.
I think Canon will inevitably implement this sooner or later, given that they have gone the quad-pixel route already.
The question is, will the 7DII be the first camera to have it - or will we have to wait more for that.

does it make sense to even call them sub-pixels at that point
nah

 

[LetTheRightLensIn]

I have wondered for a long time why the bayer filter has survived. Instead of breaking up a pixel into 4 squares, G-G-R-B, why can't it be made into 3 rectangles of R-G-B where the colours no go from 25 percent of the area to 33 percent of the area and you gain about a third of a stop?

Now imagine each pixel made up of 6 subpixels, 3DPAF pairs, and alternate the orientation of adjacent pixels so you can do DPAF in both the vertical and the horizontal plane.

that would certainly be a logical growth from what is in the 70D....

I think if you have quad, each pixel can do horizontal, vertical and diagonal in each direction phase measurements. So, no need for six.

The idea of six subpixels is to have pairs for DPAF, and the three pairs gets rid of the current bayer sensor with half the real estate devoted to green. This improves the sensitivity of red and blue by a third sixth of a stop.

I did a quick drawing of the idea....

wouldn't that make color aliasing and all sorts of other interpolations awfully tricky

 

[LetTheRightLensIn]

I would be happy if this new sensor addresses the shadow noise problem at low ISO settings like 100 & 160.

Crossing my fingers... Not because I need to recover shadow details by 4 stops... Mostly for bragging rights...

And to finally shut those annoying Nikon and Sony fanboys up.

Or how about mostly so we as Canon users can be free to tackle more types of shots very well?
You know it's not about this fanboy nonsense, it's about getting better performance, for US, for Canon users.

 

[Tugela]

If it is new technology it would be patented, and based on the delays to the 7D2 release, that patent application would have already been published by now (publication happens a year after filing).

So, just go through their relatively recent sensor patent applications and it will be one of those.

 

[pknight]

If it is new technology it would be patented, and based on the delays to the 7D2 release, that patent application would have already been published by now (publication happens a year after filing).

So, just go through their relatively recent sensor patent applications and it will be one of those.

Or, some combination of features included in those patents, which might make it more difficult for anyone to predict.

 

[memoriaphoto]

If it is new technology it would be patented, and based on the delays to the 7D2 release, that patent application would have already been published by now (publication happens a year after filing).

So, just go through their relatively recent sensor patent applications and it will be one of those.

Could have been stamped as a trade secret instead? Not sure if that's normal in this business (and for a sensor) but it would keep it hush-hush at least...

 

[sengineer]

Here is a new sensor tech that would revolutionize cameras. http://spectrum.ieee.org/tech-talk/semiconductors/devices/sony-creates-curved-cmos-sensors-that-mimic-the-eye/?utm_source=techalert&utm_medium=email&utm_campaign=061914
It is a curved sensor like the eye.

 

[rs]

So, you never know. The 7DII could have the first non-Bayer sensor in a DSLR.

Sigma beat them to it back in 2002 with the SD9 and it's foveon sensor. And the many models which have superseded it. But even they were beaten to market by the Fuji S1 Pro of 2000 with its Super CCD arrangement.

 

[Tugela]

If it is new technology it would be patented, and based on the delays to the 7D2 release, that patent application would have already been published by now (publication happens a year after filing).

So, just go through their relatively recent sensor patent applications and it will be one of those.

Or, some combination of features included in those patents, which might make it more difficult for anyone to predict.

They would have patented those combinations as well, to avoid the possibility that someone else might do it before they released their product.

Whatever the technology is, it will be largely described in their existing patent literature, it will not be something out of the blue.

 

[jrista]

This may be one of Canon’s best kept secrets as it’s apparently going to be more than an “evolutionary” technology.

Reminds me of the newly developed sensor for the 6d (inc. the newly-developed 11-point af system )... which is a certainly nice, but it's all the same general sensor generation for a long time.

My bet: They won't release a "revolutionary" iq technology in a crop camera, but would target the high-end ff market first. Much more likely it's in the direction of on-sensor af, evf/ovf hybrid and video-stills combination for ultra-high fps.

None of those other technologies were ever rumored to be more than evolutionary, though. And "new" is what every brand tacks onto all their "evolved" technologies...that's par for the course. Given how old the original 7D is, Canon has to know they can't spit out some mediocre evolutionary improvements, especially with everyone in Canon's camp scrambling for more DR, after such a long wait.

Canon has a lot of good technology, and a lot of patents for really good technology that I haven't seen implemented in any of their sensors (not even their video sensors, which is what many of the patents are for.) I hope that the 7D II will be the camera that they finally actually EMPLOY some of their cool sensor technology with.

 

[Sabaki]

Question 1: Regardless of brand...which camera is the current King of Crop?

Question 2: What does Canon need to deliver with the 7Dii in order to put it in a league above every other crop body out there?

 

[Loswr]

You mean your previous post that was bogus and immediately discredited, because your conclusion was based on erroneous interpretation? :

It's all a matter of interpretation, I guess 8).
The arguments against my previous post were extremely weak.

Lol. The argument was that you weren't looking at the active imaging area of the sensor. Unless you paid Chipworks for the full analysis, your conclusions are bogus.