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

[l_d_allan]

Really exciting at this point anything is a bonus! I will be glad to see Canon innovating again!

I'm looking forward to 7d2 technology finding its way to ## and ### series cameras.

 

[Lee Jay]

Really exciting at this point anything is a bonus! I will be glad to see Canon innovating again!

I'm looking forward to 7d2 technology finding its way to ## and ### series cameras.

I'm personally looking forward to a full-frame (5D) version of the 7D replacement, assuming it's as-rumored.

 

[docsmith]

Really exciting at this point anything is a bonus! I will be glad to see Canon innovating again!

I'm looking forward to 7d2 technology finding its way to ## and ### series cameras.

I'm personally looking forward to a full-frame (5D) version of the 7D replacement, assuming it's as-rumored.

+1. 7DII...Fall 2014, 5DIV/1DXII Fall of 2015/Spring 2016. That would be 4 years...about right, especially if the technology is truly "revolutionary" I can't see them waiting more than a year (+/-) to get it into their flagship bodies.

 

[jrista]

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.

I debunked your theory on this before. You are looking at the BACK side of the sensor, near the PERIPHERY, where readout connections and the like go. What you are looking at in that ULTRA TINY chipworks image is NOT the sensor. It is a stamp on the back side edge of the sensor...that's all! Canon does not have QPAF technology. You are wildly misinterpreting something you do not understand, and purpetrating a falsehood.

Canon has multiple patents for DPAF...they have ZERO patents for QPAF. As it stands, no one actually has a patent for any kind of quad pixel focal-plane AF system.

Further, for everyone else who continues to perpetrate the myth that somehow the two halves of the pixels, which are under not only one microlens, but also under one color filter block, could somehow magically be used to expand dynamic range "for free" are fooling themselves, and anyone who listens to them. Magic lantern either uses two FULL sensor reads (vs. half sensor reads), or they do line interpolation for half the resolution, to achieve their dynamic range. There is no free increase to dynamic range, and DPAF isn't going to somehow allow more dynamic range for free. The problem with the idea of using one half of the AF photodiodes for an ISO 100 read, and the other half for an ISO 800 read, is that is HALF the light! That is not the same as what ML does, which involves the FULL quantity of light, or else half the light AND half the resolution.

There is no magical dynamic range enhancement with Canon's DPAF. The name is even misleading, as it isn't dual "pixels"...it's dual photodiodes per pixel. That should tell you something about the true nature of DPAF right there.

 

[Mt Spokane Photography]

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

Does anyone have an example of what Canon call revolutionary?

Perhaps you do not remember when Canon introduced a FF CMOS sensor, but Nikon held on to their APS-C sensor! That was pretty revolutionary at the time.

 

[9VIII]

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

Right.
What would be really cool to see is some sort of hardware level binning process that maintains the integrity of the RAW file.

Half the reason I'm so anxious for super high resolution cameras is that I haven't been terribly impressed with the image quality off my 5D2. That nasty AA filter (which I'm pretty sure is especially bad on the 5D2) effectively cuts resolution in half. When I first saw my pictures on a decent 4MP monitor I was amazed at how little detail loss there was vs. looking at the image zoomed to 100%. My bet is that a good 4K (8MP) monitor is going to display your images with just as much detail as a high quality print... Because the detail actually isn't there in the first place.

One option is just quadrupling resolution and getting rid of the AA filter (which I'm actually fine with), but if they could bin the full per-pixel RGB signal on the sensor it should effectively deal with moire, and we get to keep our current file size, and it should produce an actual 20MP image instead of the blurred out fake we currently end up with.

The last thing I really want to see is the integration of clear microlenses. Even the heavily faded green pixels that we have right now still block a lot of light. Given how advanced interpolation is I doubt that eliminating the colour value for one of the pixels would have a significant impact on image quality.

 

[jrista]

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

Does anyone have an example of what Canon call revolutionary?

Perhaps you do not remember when Canon introduced a FF CMOS sensor, but Nikon held on to their APS-C sensor! That was pretty revolutionary at the time.

Diffractive optics. Everyone else thought it was literally impossible to make a lens with diffractive optics. Canon persisted, and they have the most compact 400mm FF DSLR lens in the world. Canon has had PLENTY of revolutionary technological advances and improvements to their technology.

Apparently, a mere two years since the release of the D800 is enough to forget the technological LEADERSHIP that Canon has demonstrated for decades. It's only been TWO YEARS, Dilbert...a camera generation is usually closer to FOUR years...so it's no surprise that Canon hasn't leapfrogged the competition yet.

 

[dufflover]

Considering what Canon has called "big leaps" in the past few years I am very skeptical LOL. Sure some of it was good like DPAF, but when it comes to sensor tech considering how old their general line up is (in the crop space) I would not be surprised one bit if their (r)evolutionary (whatever word you want) new sensor only ends up matching the competition ... welcome step nonetheless ofcourse!

 

[brad-man]

I think the new sensor will be a marked improvement simply because Canon probably feels like their reputation depends on it, and I think it does. I don't want to debate market share, profit margins or anything else of the sort. Canon needs to release a bad-ass sensor as a matter of pride and reputation, and I think they will. The 7Dll (or whatever they call it) needs to be a significant upgrade from the 70D (a fine camera in its own right). And not just in build quality, auto focus and frame rate, but Image Quality. As an aside, I have been waiting for the 5Dlll to come down to a price level that I'm comfortable with for quite some time. I shoot with a 6D and a 7D and would absolutely love the "all in one" beauty of the mark lll, but I'm just an enthusiast and follow the old adage of putting my money into the glass. Anyway, the 5Dlll is frequently available in the $2600 price range and this is approaching my price range, but I will absolutely wait to see if Canon's new generation of sensors are enough of an upgrade to pay what I consider to be a ridiculous price for. It's just a hobby, right? Well, thanks for listening to my subjective rant.

 

[x-vision]

You are wildly misinterpreting something you do not understand, and purpetrating a falsehood.

Relax, we are all just speculating here. Even if I'm wrong, so what ??
So, cool down.

 

[jrista]

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

Right.
What would be really cool to see is some sort of hardware level binning process that maintains the integrity of the RAW file.

Half the reason I'm so anxious for super high resolution cameras is that I haven't been terribly impressed with the image quality off my 5D2. That nasty AA filter (which I'm pretty sure is especially bad on the 5D2) effectively cuts resolution in half. When I first saw my pictures on a decent 4MP monitor I was amazed at how little detail loss there was vs. looking at the image zoomed to 100%. My bet is that a good 4K (8MP) monitor is going to display your images with just as much detail as a high quality print... Because the detail actually isn't there in the first place.

One option is just quadrupling resolution and getting rid of the AA filter (which I'm actually fine with), but if they could bin the full per-pixel RGB signal on the sensor it should effectively deal with moire, and we get to keep our current file size, and it should produce an actual 20MP image instead of the blurred out fake we currently end up with.

The last thing I really want to see is the integration of clear microlenses. Even the heavily faded green pixels that we have right now still block a lot of light. Given how advanced interpolation is I doubt that eliminating the colour value for one of the pixels would have a significant impact on image quality.

Sorry, but that (bolded) is such a ludicrous, laughable comment, I'm just flabbergasted. An AA filter DOES NOT cut resolution "in half". That is blowing things SO FAR out of proportion it may be one of the most ludicrous things I've read on these forums. OLPFs, optical low pass filters, are designed to affect high frequencies only, and only around the nyquist limit at that. You lose a TINY amount of resolution...but it doesn't matter, because the "resolution" your losing just contains nonsense anyway. OLPFs blur very high frequency data that nearly or exactly matches the spatial frequency of the sensor's pixels just enough such that they the information doesn't alias. That's it. Aliased information is a REAL loss of information. Technically speaking, OLPFs PRESERVE information...they save information that can be saved, and discard information that cannot be correctly interpreted by the sensor anyway. On top of that, a very light application of unsharp masking can effectively reverse the blurring, and improve the resolution of that high frequency data, without actually bringing back all the nonsense.

Quadrupling resolution and removing the AA filter is only an option if your lenses cannot resolve that much detail. With the resolving power of Canon's current lens lineup at faster apertures, I'm not so sure that cutting pixels into quarters is actually enough to avoid any kind of aliasing. At narrower apertures, like f/8, diffraction already blurs information enough that it can't alias, but that's a really narrow aperture for a lot of work, not everyone uses it. There are very few applications where removal of an AA filter will not cause aliasing of some kind, and pretty much anything artificial is going to have repeating patterns that, depending on distance to camera, can create interference patterns (moire).

This whole "Remove the AA filter" craze is just that...a craze. It's a "thing" Nikon started doing to be different, to get some "wows", and maybe bring in some more customers. Ironically, given that removal of an AA filter is really NOT a good thing...it's worked. Nikon's marketing tactics have sucked in a whole lot of gullibles who don't really know what an AA filter does or how it works, or how to work WITH it, and now we have a whole army of "photographers" who want AA filters removed from all cameras. Personally, I REALLY, TRULY, HONESTLY DO NOT want Canon to remove the AA filter. It is NECESSARY, it PRESERVES preservable data and eliminates useless data, and I LIKE THAT.

And anything that is lost? It's MINIMAL. In the grand scheme of how much resolution you have...you maybe lose a percent or two of really high frequency information...but you really don't have that information anyway because it is similar in frequency to noise...so again, moot.

 

[x-vision]

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.

Heh. You are right, of course.

 

[Lee Jay]

Further, for everyone else who continues to perpetrate the myth that somehow the two halves of the pixels, which are under not only one microlens, but also under one color filter block, could somehow magically be used to expand dynamic range "for free" are fooling themselves, and anyone who listens to them. Magic lantern either uses two FULL sensor reads (vs. half sensor reads), or they do line interpolation for half the resolution, to achieve their dynamic range. There is no free increase to dynamic range, and DPAF isn't going to somehow allow more dynamic range for free. The problem with the idea of using one half of the AF photodiodes for an ISO 100 read, and the other half for an ISO 800 read, is that is HALF the light! That is not the same as what ML does, which involves the FULL quantity of light, or else half the light AND half the resolution.

Huh? Please explain how reading both halves at the same gain gets you all the light but reading them at different gains gets you only half the light? How different do the gains have to be to cut the light in half? Is 1% enough?

What you said makes no sense to me.

 

[Don Haines]

Further, for everyone else who continues to perpetrate the myth that somehow the two halves of the pixels, which are under not only one microlens, but also under one color filter block, could somehow magically be used to expand dynamic range "for free" are fooling themselves, and anyone who listens to them. Magic lantern either uses two FULL sensor reads (vs. half sensor reads), or they do line interpolation for half the resolution, to achieve their dynamic range. There is no free increase to dynamic range, and DPAF isn't going to somehow allow more dynamic range for free. The problem with the idea of using one half of the AF photodiodes for an ISO 100 read, and the other half for an ISO 800 read, is that is HALF the light! That is not the same as what ML does, which involves the FULL quantity of light, or else half the light AND half the resolution.

Huh? Please explain how reading both halves at the same gain gets you all the light but reading them at different gains gets you only half the light? How different do the gains have to be to cut the light in half? Is 1% enough?

What you said makes no sense to me.

Jrista's right.

Think of it as taking two pictures at the same time. One picture is taken with one side of the pair at high gain, and the other picture is taken with the other side of the pair at low gain. Then the two pictures are combined for greater dynamic range. For the area where the ranges overlap, you are using all the light, but where it does not overlap you only have half of the light...... if you shoot with both halves at the same gain, there is 100% overlap and you use all of the light.

 

[m8547]

Does anyone have an example of what Canon call revolutionary?

T5i

 

[jrista]

Further, for everyone else who continues to perpetrate the myth that somehow the two halves of the pixels, which are under not only one microlens, but also under one color filter block, could somehow magically be used to expand dynamic range "for free" are fooling themselves, and anyone who listens to them. Magic lantern either uses two FULL sensor reads (vs. half sensor reads), or they do line interpolation for half the resolution, to achieve their dynamic range. There is no free increase to dynamic range, and DPAF isn't going to somehow allow more dynamic range for free. The problem with the idea of using one half of the AF photodiodes for an ISO 100 read, and the other half for an ISO 800 read, is that is HALF the light! That is not the same as what ML does, which involves the FULL quantity of light, or else half the light AND half the resolution.

Huh? Please explain how reading both halves at the same gain gets you all the light but reading them at different gains gets you only half the light? How different do the gains have to be to cut the light in half? Is 1% enough?

What you said makes no sense to me.

The photodiodes are SPLIT. Each half gets half the light coming through the lens. It doesn't matter what ISO you read them at...if you read "half"...it's half the light. So your reading half the light at ISO 100, and half the light at ISO 800...well, you really aren't gaining anything. The only way to increase dynamic range by any meaningful amount is to either gather MORE light IN TOTAL...or reduce read noise by a significant degree (i.e. drop it from ~35e- to 3e-). Assuming it ever even becomes possible to read the photodiodes for image purposes like that, you might gain an extremely marginal improvement...but overall, there really isn't any point. It isn't the same as what ML is doing. They are either reading alternate lines of the sensor at two different ISOs, then combining them at HALF THE RESOLUTION, or they are doing two full reads of the sensor. Either way, for the given output size, they double the quantity of light. Reading two HALVES of a SPLIT photodiode gets you...ONE full quantity of light.

 

[tayassu]

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?

1: I think it's pretty much a tie. The Nikon D7100 and Pentax K-3 have the better IQ, but the 70D is the better allround package. It depends on the lens selection, so Canon wins here.

2: Sort of a mini 1DX with perfect AF, layout, WiFi etc. plus a new sensor with better IQ that rivals the Nikon D7200 (no, this is not a typo ) the problem is that this will cost...

 

[9VIII]

Right.
What would be really cool to see is some sort of hardware level binning process that maintains the integrity of the RAW file.

Half the reason I'm so anxious for super high resolution cameras is that I haven't been terribly impressed with the image quality off my 5D2. That nasty AA filter (which I'm pretty sure is especially bad on the 5D2) effectively cuts resolution in half. When I first saw my pictures on a decent 4MP monitor I was amazed at how little detail loss there was vs. looking at the image zoomed to 100%. My bet is that a good 4K (8MP) monitor is going to display your images with just as much detail as a high quality print... Because the detail actually isn't there in the first place.

One option is just quadrupling resolution and getting rid of the AA filter (which I'm actually fine with), but if they could bin the full per-pixel RGB signal on the sensor it should effectively deal with moire, and we get to keep our current file size, and it should produce an actual 20MP image instead of the blurred out fake we currently end up with.

The last thing I really want to see is the integration of clear microlenses. Even the heavily faded green pixels that we have right now still block a lot of light. Given how advanced interpolation is I doubt that eliminating the colour value for one of the pixels would have a significant impact on image quality.

Sorry, but that (bolded) is such a ludicrous, laughable comment, I'm just flabbergasted. An AA filter DOES NOT cut resolution "in half". That is blowing things SO FAR out of proportion it may be one of the most ludicrous things I've read on these forums. OLPFs, optical low pass filters, are designed to affect high frequencies only, and only around the nyquist limit at that. You lose a TINY amount of resolution...but it doesn't matter, because the "resolution" your losing just contains nonsense anyway. OLPFs blur very high frequency data that nearly or exactly matches the spatial frequency of the sensor's pixels just enough such that they the information doesn't alias. That's it. Aliased information is a REAL loss of information. Technically speaking, OLPFs PRESERVE information...they save information that can be saved, and discard information that cannot be correctly interpreted by the sensor anyway. On top of that, a very light application of unsharp masking can effectively reverse the blurring, and improve the resolution of that high frequency data, without actually bringing back all the nonsense.

Quadrupling resolution and removing the AA filter is only an option if your lenses cannot resolve that much detail. With the resolving power of Canon's current lens lineup at faster apertures, I'm not so sure that cutting pixels into quarters is actually enough to avoid any kind of aliasing. At narrower apertures, like f/8, diffraction already blurs information enough that it can't alias, but that's a really narrow aperture for a lot of work, not everyone uses it. There are very few applications where removal of an AA filter will not cause aliasing of some kind, and pretty much anything artificial is going to have repeating patterns that, depending on distance to camera, can create interference patterns (moire).

This whole "Remove the AA filter" craze is just that...a craze. It's a "thing" Nikon started doing to be different, to get some "wows", and maybe bring in some more customers. Ironically, given that removal of an AA filter is really NOT a good thing...it's worked. Nikon's marketing tactics have sucked in a whole lot of gullibles who don't really know what an AA filter does or how it works, or how to work WITH it, and now we have a whole army of "photographers" who want AA filters removed from all cameras. Personally, I REALLY, TRULY, HONESTLY DO NOT want Canon to remove the AA filter. It is NECESSARY, it PRESERVES preservable data and eliminates useless data, and I LIKE THAT.

And anything that is lost? It's MINIMAL. In the grand scheme of how much resolution you have...you maybe lose a percent or two of really high frequency information...but you really don't have that information anyway because it is similar in frequency to noise...so again, moot.

Given that the filter makes it physically impossible to have a repeating pattern of stripes the same frequency as the pixel grid, so that you cannot have a perfect transition of black pixels to white, I'd say that is cutting resolution in half. That is, compared to some magical thing that accurately reads the full RGB spectrum on each pixel.

You are right about the necessity of the AA filter though.
I was thinking that if the interpolation algorithm only sampled each pixel within a specific cluster of four pixels and not every pixel around it that it would solve the moire problem. Really that would just give you different colour banding instead.
Now, if we added a second layer of microlenses on top of the first to direct light only at individual groups of pixels, that would guarantee the full RGB read on each cluster, and allow hard transitions...

On second thought I guess that sounds a little excessive just to gain the ability to have large pixels with a hard transition instead of twice as many pixels with a row of grey pixels that's half as big. You can bin the smaller pixels with a normal AA filter just the same, we just need a way of doing that without destroying the flexibility of RAW (otherwise I assume people would have been using compressed formats a long time ago).

 

[Marsu42]

It isn't the same as what ML is doing. They are either reading alternate lines of the sensor at two different ISOs, then combining them at HALF THE RESOLUTION, or they are doing two full reads of the sensor.

ML dual_iso is interlacing the frame with another iso at each other line.

What's really amazing is that the postprocessing program ("cr2hdr") does such a great job at reconstruction because you'd think you loose a lot of resolution. But since in the real world few people are shooting test charts or scenes that contain such fine detail to cover only one horizontal scanline, ML knows what "probably would have been there" if it wouldn't have been clipped.

It's only in completely black or white areas that are only constructed from half of the scanlines you see the loss of resolution, but after shooting ~3000 dual_iso shots I can say you have to really look closely and the benefits outweigh the drawbacks by far.

Looking back, a huge amount of my vanilla daytime shots on 60d w/o dual_iso or brackting have clipped sky somewhere, now with (higher dr) + dual iso you see it's actually still often blue even if you think it's white. It would be great if Canon would do this in-camera and output 16bit raw files like ML does.

 

[Stuart]

Were they not limited to a wafer resolution, have they now hot a finer resolution fab. Can they offer more MP's with this.
Or better still - curve the sensors?