New Sensor Technology Coming From Canon? [CR1]

[Loswr]

I agree. I've never understood people's fascination with using a FF sensor in an M-mount camera. It always seemed more reasonable to just shorten the flange-sensor distance and use the EF mount. Just getting rid of the mirror box will allow significant size and weight reductions. I don't see how the M-mount would make that much of a difference.

EF (and EF-S) lenses are designed with a 44mm flange focal distance. If Canon makes a FF mirrorless with that same flange focal distance, they'll use the same mount. If they make one with a shorter flange focal distance (it's 18mm for EF-M lenses, for example), they'll make a new mount for the same reason they designed the system so EF-S lenses don't mount on FF bodies - to avoid confusion and unexpected results. They might try squeezing the FF mount into the EF-M size, so that the new FF-mirrorless lenses could be used directly on EOS M or other APS-C mirrorless, in the same way that EF lenses can be used on APS-C dSLRs. In particular, it the whole ecosystem does shift to mirrorless, longer lenses don't really benefit from a smaller image circle, so having a mount compatible with larger and smaller sensors makes sense.

 

[traveller]

So with the Sony a7r, do the clipped corners affect the image in anyway? Surely not since no one has reported black corners. How does that work then? Is the entire sensor area not used then? That would mean in reality a sensor size slightly smaller than FF, prob negligible though overall?

If that's the case then perhaps a FF sensor could be squeezed into the M mount then with a tiny bit of cropping. Or Canon could make a completely new sensor that is almost FF in size and fits perfectly (seems unlikely in terms of maximizing profits).

The clipped corners aren't a problem because of the way light travels when leaving the lens - think of it as an expanding cone, so the image circle is physically smaller at the lens mount than when it hits the sensor. Just look at the back of the EF 40mm f/2.8, the rear element is significantly smaller than a FF sensor:

OTOH, there may be issues with some lenses with a large aperture and an exit pupil close to the image plane (similar to the 'clipped' bokeh of the 85L wide open with close subjects).

Interesting points. Could this explain why Sony/Zeiss have so far steered clear of large aperture wide angle and telephoto primes?

 

[jrista]

I agree. I've never understood people's fascination with using a FF sensor in an M-mount camera. It always seemed more reasonable to just shorten the flange-sensor distance and use the EF mount. Just getting rid of the mirror box will allow significant size and weight reductions. I don't see how the M-mount would make that much of a difference.

EF (and EF-S) lenses are designed with a 44mm flange focal distance. If Canon makes a FF mirrorless with that same flange focal distance, they'll use the same mount. If they make one with a shorter flange focal distance (it's 18mm for EF-M lenses, for example), they'll make a new mount for the same reason they designed the system so EF-S lenses don't mount on FF bodies - to avoid confusion and unexpected results. They might try squeezing the FF mount into the EF-M size, so that the new FF-mirrorless lenses could be used directly on EOS M or other APS-C mirrorless, in the same way that EF lenses can be used on APS-C dSLRs. In particular, it the whole ecosystem does shift to mirrorless, longer lenses don't really benefit from a smaller image circle, so having a mount compatible with larger and smaller sensors makes sense.

Totally agree.

 

[pierlux]

Interesting observations on lens mounts, but back on topic: no need to bother unicorns or flying pigs, Canon very likely will deliver something new in the imaging sensor compartment this turn. They already have, with DPAF; little advance for stills shooters, big one for videographers.

Whether this rumor is a hoax or not I don't know, I can only say I'm pretty sure something new is coming in the sensor tech area. It's not gambling to think so at this point since it's not a matter of "IF", but "WHEN" it'll come, presumably sooner than later. Smaller sensors first, then bigger ones. As usual.

If I remember correctly, there was another tiny bit of information in this CR1 rumor as soon as it appeared, an acronym or something similar, relative to this presumptive new sensor tech, which was soon removed: does any early reader of the rumor remember what it was exactly? Or it's me going nuts?

Tis true. The 7D2 has been reported many times it will have a new sensor.

... now where did my flying pig fly off too...

LOL! But, seriously, the 7D2 will. At least DPAF will be there, new to the 7D line. It's always safe to say a new tech is coming, the risk lies in guessing when it's coming, and what exactly it is...

 

[AvTvM]

it is evident, that Canon [and Nikon and anybody else] will migrate to mirrorless.
First, APS-C - EOS-M + EF-M mount and lenses
Second, FF, + new lens mount an dnew lenses
No need to have the mount compatible. The Sony feature of E-mount and FE-lenses is useless in practice. While it may be ok to use a crop-lens on an FF sensor in a pinch, it is no long-term solution. And full-frame image circles will always be unneccarily large and heavy on for use on an APS-C sensor.

Let's face it: EF will be superseded by EF-X or whatever its called, FF short flange-back lenses for mirrorles FF cameras (which will supersede DSLRs at some point further in the future).

There is less drama tah in the transition from Canon FD to EF, because of the shoreter flange back this time round. So all EF lenses remain fully usable by means of a simple, glass-less adapter [extension tube].

Canon will be happy to develop and sell us a new set of (FF) lenses over many years to come. And we will buy theam and transition, since they will be miore compact (without adapter) and still higher image quality - lens design still gets better every year and these lenses will meet the reuirements of a short flange back.

I am confident, that Canon again has the necessary foresight to make the new mirrorless FF-mount as wide as possible to facilitate lens development. Sony made a mistake by chosing to go with the E-mount (which like EF-M is really suitable only to APS-C; I bet there will never be Sony ZE f/1.2 lenses for that very reason].
Sony made a mistake with the narrow mount and it severly restricts and compilicates construction options for new lenses - as a top Sony executive has admitted in an interview some time back (maybe I can dig it out).

Looking forward to mirrorless times.

 

[pierlux]

If I remember correctly, there was another tiny bit of information in this CR1 rumor as soon as it appeared, an acronym or something similar, relative to this presumptive new sensor tech, which was soon removed: does any early reader of the rumor remember what it was exactly? Or it's me going nuts?

Anyone? I haven't got a cached copy of the very first version of this rumor, my browser clears everything when I close it, but I do remember this supposedly new tech was given a name, someone please confirm that it's not schizophrenia riseup on my side... wait! A bevy of flying quadrupeds out of my window, not sure if unicorns or pigs, I must be quick, this could be the first post of a new thread, "PIGS IN FLIGHT ONLY -- share your PIF photos here"...

 

[Don Haines]

Thus either this rumor is a hoax (why would Canon not want to reduce the cost of sensors made for the top end?)...

Can I flip this around: why would the top end be the priority for reducing production costs? Surely the margins are tighter at the bottom?

I believe that you're thinking it wrong: ANY reduced manufacturing costs goes straight to the bottom line.

Sure, the lower end has a higher volume, but sometimes it is easier to reduce costs at the high end simply because people didn't bother too much about cost, with the argument that "it's high end, so our focus is quality, not cost", which ends up in a circular argument resulting in high cost.

Believe me, I speak from experience (sigh).

1. What yield improvement were you thinking of that is of no benefit to APS-C sized sensors?

2. If it is of benefit to APS-C sized sensors, why apply it only to full frame sensors? Surely you apply the technology that improves yield to the production line that has the highest production levels (i.e. APS-C), not the one with the lowest?

EXACTLY!

Sell 100,000,000 APSC cameras and save $10 each and thats a billion dollars....
Sell 5,000,000 FF cameras and save $40 each and thats 200 million dollars....

Which pile of money do you think Canon would go for first

 

[dafrank]

The clipped corners aren't a problem because of the way light travels when leaving the lens - think of it as an expanding cone, so the image circle is physically smaller at the lens mount than when it hits the sensor. Just look at the back of the EF 40mm f/2.8, the rear element is significantly smaller than a FF sensor:

OTOH, there may be issues with some lenses with a large aperture and an exit pupil close to the image plane (similar to the 'clipped' bokeh of the 85L wide open with close subjects).
[/quote]

Even simpler to explain how full frame could work, with unclipped corners, using the M mount: the imaging light is projected from the lens to the sensor from the last element at the back of the lens, which is, I think, always situated slightly behind the plane of the lens mount, not at or in front of the plane of the lens mount. Simple. All other explanations are surely true, but none, other than the above, is necessary.

Regards,
David

 

[ewg963]

Now we're talking Canon too bad it's a CR1 only.... I hope something comes of this...fingers crossed!!!

 

[ewg963]

Is it April Fool's Day? No!
But I almost feel like, reading this rumor.

Too much contradictions in it.
Especially the FF mirrorless. :
Foveon like technology and cheaper? Hard to believe.
And just making the sensor cheaper means increasing Canons profit because this will not show in sales price.

So I am about to carry my bucket of salt back home.

+1000000

 

[ewg963]

Well there you go! The reason the 7D2 has been delayed so long is that it will be a full frame mirrorless dual pixel quad pixel fovenon big megapixel camera with a 1DX build in an EOS-M package.... that will shoot at ISO 819,200 and take 8K video.....

…and cost $1399.

Cute....

 

[jrista]

Even simpler to explain how full frame could work, with unclipped corners, using the M mount: the imaging light is projected from the lens to the sensor from the last element at the back of the lens, which is, I think, always situated slightly behind the plane of the lens mount, not at or in front of the plane of the lens mount. Simple. All other explanations are surely true, but none, other than the above, is necessary.

There are problems with designing lenses this way, though. The closer to the sensor plane the backmost elements are (or, for that matter, the exit pupil is), the more angled the light has to be to reach the periphery of the sensor. The larger the sensor, greater that angle is. Highly angled light doesn't flow into the pixel wells (for FSI designs), and it is difficult to create microlenses with a great enough power to bend the light back into the well. For BSI designs, the high angle of light results in a significantly greater amount of reflection rather than refraction, so the light is simply lost. This increases vignetting in the corners. The Sony FF mirrorless options have this problem. Sony has tried to mitigate the issue by using differently designed microlenses in the periphery, however it is only a mitigation, not a solution to the problem.

Another problem with lens elements being mounted so close to the sensor plane is ghosting. A lot of ghosted light that reflects off the sensor is so dim that the inverse square falloff law results in it being invisible, for all intents and purposes, once it reflects off the back lens elements and back onto the sensor. With a much shorter sensor to back element distance, ghosting becomes a much greater problem. This actually occurs with most mirrorless designs today, including the EOS-M and Sony A7 series.

As much as everyone seems to want smaller and smaller and more compact cameras, making cameras that way has it's tradeoffs, it's cons. There isn't anything simple about creating pancake lenses that could work ideally for full-frame sensors in a mirrorless design. The benefits of using larger camera bodies with larger flange-to-sensor distances is you don't have these problems. A large flange distance, such as 44mm for Canon DSLRs, means light, even for a FF sensor, never has to reach significant angles, making microlensing on the sensor far more effective at guiding light down to the photodiodes. The greater distance results in a longer distance for reflected light to fall off and not cause ghosting.

I think it will be interesting to see how a FF Canon Mirrorless fares with purpose-built lenses. I suspect we'll see many of the same problems that the Sony FF mirrorless cameras experience. Canon has superior lens design capability vs. Sony, so in the long run I think they could build better lenses for a FF mirrorless system...but there are physical limitations for lenses just as much as there are physical limitations for sensors.

 

[LetTheRightLensIn]

I think this long absence of interesting new products from Canon means that they are making something groundbreaking. Better than us they know that their sensors are outdated

One can hope.

I hope it doesn't end up being ground-breaking simply because it ends up with very high yield and cheap productions costs, but same old or worse performance.

 

[LetTheRightLensIn]

Is it April Fool's Day? No!
Too much contradictions in it.
Especially the FF mirrorless. :

Why roll your eyes at that comment of all comments when Canon's very own chart showed an empty spot for an upcoming FF high-end mirrorless??? I mean Canon's very own slide clearly had a spot in it for that very thing.

 

[tron]

Finally an interesting rumor! Too bad it's only CR1... Hoping there's more to come on this!

That's what the next years are for... ;D

 

[tron]

…and cost $1399.

ok, now you're just being silly.

True, he should have said $1499 ;D ;D ;D

 

[Don Haines]

The clipped corners aren't a problem because of the way light travels when leaving the lens - think of it as an expanding cone, so the image circle is physically smaller at the lens mount than when it hits the sensor. Just look at the back of the EF 40mm f/2.8, the rear element is significantly smaller than a FF sensor:

OTOH, there may be issues with some lenses with a large aperture and an exit pupil close to the image plane (similar to the 'clipped' bokeh of the 85L wide open with close subjects).

Even simpler to explain how full frame could work, with unclipped corners, using the M mount: the imaging light is projected from the lens to the sensor from the last element at the back of the lens, which is, I think, always situated slightly behind the plane of the lens mount, not at or in front of the plane of the lens mount. Simple. All other explanations are surely true, but none, other than the above, is necessary.

Regards,
David
[/quote]
This may be true for a wide angle lens.... but look at the size of the last element on a telephoto lens.... the cone of light is a lot more like a tube....

 

[CarlTN]

Well there you go! The reason the 7D2 has been delayed so long is that it will be a full frame mirrorless dual pixel quad pixel fovenon big megapixel camera with a 1DX build in an EOS-M package.... that will shoot at ISO 819,200 and take 8K video.....

+1 !! The best part is it will feature a camera and computer monitor built into eyeglasses, since nobody has ever thought of doing that before! Even harder to believe, but the sensor will be 4x5 inches! You wear it on your belt, the light is transferred to it via fiber optics that are one trillionth the diameter of a human hair!

 

[thedman]

Maybe 2015 will be the 'Year of the Sensor' like this year is the 'Year of the Lens'!

 

[Don Haines]

Well there you go! The reason the 7D2 has been delayed so long is that it will be a full frame mirrorless dual pixel quad pixel fovenon big megapixel camera with a 1DX build in an EOS-M package.... that will shoot at ISO 819,200 and take 8K video.....

+1 !! The best part is it will feature a camera and computer monitor built into eyeglasses, since nobody has ever thought of doing that before! Even harder to believe, but the sensor will be 4x5 inches! You wear it on your belt, the light is transferred to it via fiber optics that are one trillionth the diameter of a human hair!

but on a serious (somewhat) note, we now have the technology to make the "Dick Tracey radio wristwatch" with video....