Still no news about a Canon shift in sensor fabrication?

[northbyten]

We are going to sit here and argue back and forth for what?

Let's just wait until it comes out.

I've been using my Nokia Lumia 920 over my Canon 550D for personal shot landscapes because the colours are that much nicer and they retain shadows much better straight from the camera.

Yes I can shoot in RAW and grade it to come out nicer on my 550D but that's extra work on top of simply capturing.

If that's a tell tale sign then I don't know what is.

 

[jrista]

read what I write, the real improvements are around 1,1 to 1,4 um sensel size

and there are no APS or 24x36 from Canon or others yet= with that small pixel size

BSI cost about 30% more than FSI

Eric Fossum:

Improvements like BSI typically improve image quality mathematically and from a perception point of view, by increasing QE and reducing effects orginating from pixel stack height, when comparing two pixels of equal size. At 1.4 um pixel pitch the improvement offered by BSI is small. By 1.1 um pixel pitch, BSI offers a substantial advantage, unless some FSI breakthrough is made. BSI costs more to make so there is motivation for the FSI breakthough

It really depends on the photodiode size. A 7D has 4.3 micron pixels, but the actual photodiode is smaller than that. The entire pixel is surrounded by 500nm (.5 micron) transistors and wiring, which would mean the photodiode...the actual light sensitive area embedded in the silicon substrate, is only about 3.3 microns at best (and usually, the photodiode has a small margin around it...so closer to 3 microns). A 24.4mp sensor would have pixels in the range of 3.2 microns, however with a 500nm process, the actual photodiode pitch is closer to 2 microns.

Canon has already demonstrated that larger pixels can be huge for overall SNR (and therefor actual light sensitivity) with the 1D X. Despite the fact that the 1D X is a FF sensor, it benefits greatly from a larger pixel, and thus a larger photodiode size...as the gain is relative to the square of the pixel pitch. Production of a BSI APS-C 24.4mp sensor would mean that it could have 3.1 micron photodiodes that perform at least as well as the 7D's 18mp sensor, as total electron capacity is relative to photodiode area. A 24.4mp BSI 7D II could then be roughly as capable (~21,000 electrons charge FWC @ ISO 100) as an 18mp FSI 7D.

Personally, I find that to be quite a valuable thing. Especially given that the 7D currently performs about as poorly as one could expect by today's standards. A 2 micron photodiode in the 7D II would mean SNR suffers even more, which is going to have an impact on IQ, especially for croppers, so I can't imagine Canon doing that.

 

[Zv]

read what I write, the real improvements are around 1,1 to 1,4 um sensel size

and there are no APS or 24x36 from Canon or others yet= with that small pixel size

BSI cost about 30% more than FSI

Eric Fossum:

Improvements like BSI typically improve image quality mathematically and from a perception point of view, by increasing QE and reducing effects orginating from pixel stack height, when comparing two pixels of equal size. At 1.4 um pixel pitch the improvement offered by BSI is small. By 1.1 um pixel pitch, BSI offers a substantial advantage, unless some FSI breakthrough is made. BSI costs more to make so there is motivation for the FSI breakthough

It really depends on the photodiode size. A 7D has 4.3 micron pixels, but the actual photodiode is smaller than that. The entire pixel is surrounded by 500nm (.5 micron) transistors and wiring, which would mean the photodiode...the actual light sensitive area embedded in the silicon substrate, is only about 3.3 microns at best (and usually, the photodiode has a small margin around it...so closer to 3 microns). A 24.4mp sensor would have pixels in the range of 3.2 microns, however with a 500nm process, the actual photodiode pitch is closer to 2 microns.

Canon has already demonstrated that larger pixels can be huge for overall SNR (and therefor actual light sensitivity) with the 1D X. Despite the fact that the 1D X is a FF sensor, it benefits greatly from a larger pixel, and thus a larger photodiode size...as the gain is relative to the square of the pixel pitch. Production of a BSI APS-C 24.4mp sensor would mean that it could have 3.1 micron photodiodes that perform at least as well as the 7D's 18mp sensor, as total electron capacity is relative to photodiode area. A 24.4mp BSI 7D II could then be roughly as capable (~21,000 electrons charge FWC @ ISO 100) as an 18mp FSI 7D.

Personally, I find that to be quite a valuable thing. Especially given that the 7D currently performs about as poorly as one could expect by today's standards. A 2 micron photodiode in the 7D II would mean SNR suffers even more, which is going to have an impact on IQ, especially for croppers, so I can't imagine Canon doing that.

I was never quite sure about this topic, it seemed very electrical engineer related and there was a lot of acronyms and stuff that confused me and made my brain hurt but this post by jrista is the first time I kinda understand what you guys are talking about! Thanks!

Rookie question - what does BSI and FSI stand for?

 

[Drizzt321]

read what I write, the real improvements are around 1,1 to 1,4 um sensel size

and there are no APS or 24x36 from Canon or others yet= with that small pixel size

BSI cost about 30% more than FSI

Eric Fossum:

Improvements like BSI typically improve image quality mathematically and from a perception point of view, by increasing QE and reducing effects orginating from pixel stack height, when comparing two pixels of equal size. At 1.4 um pixel pitch the improvement offered by BSI is small. By 1.1 um pixel pitch, BSI offers a substantial advantage, unless some FSI breakthrough is made. BSI costs more to make so there is motivation for the FSI breakthough

It really depends on the photodiode size. A 7D has 4.3 micron pixels, but the actual photodiode is smaller than that. The entire pixel is surrounded by 500nm (.5 micron) transistors and wiring, which would mean the photodiode...the actual light sensitive area embedded in the silicon substrate, is only about 3.3 microns at best (and usually, the photodiode has a small margin around it...so closer to 3 microns). A 24.4mp sensor would have pixels in the range of 3.2 microns, however with a 500nm process, the actual photodiode pitch is closer to 2 microns.

Canon has already demonstrated that larger pixels can be huge for overall SNR (and therefor actual light sensitivity) with the 1D X. Despite the fact that the 1D X is a FF sensor, it benefits greatly from a larger pixel, and thus a larger photodiode size...as the gain is relative to the square of the pixel pitch. Production of a BSI APS-C 24.4mp sensor would mean that it could have 3.1 micron photodiodes that perform at least as well as the 7D's 18mp sensor, as total electron capacity is relative to photodiode area. A 24.4mp BSI 7D II could then be roughly as capable (~21,000 electrons charge FWC @ ISO 100) as an 18mp FSI 7D.

Personally, I find that to be quite a valuable thing. Especially given that the 7D currently performs about as poorly as one could expect by today's standards. A 2 micron photodiode in the 7D II would mean SNR suffers even more, which is going to have an impact on IQ, especially for croppers, so I can't imagine Canon doing that.

I was never quite sure about this topic, it seemed very electrical engineer related and there was a lot of acronyms and stuff that confused me and made my brain hurt but this post by jrista is the first time I kinda understand what you guys are talking about! Thanks!

Rookie question - what does BSI and FSI stand for?

BSI stands for Backside Illumination
FSI stands for Frontside Illumiation

Basically, BSI is a way of creating a sensor which has better sensitivity (light gathering ability) which can enable better performance in lower amounts of light. However it can be more costly, especially for larger chips where one fault can cause an entire chip to have to be discarded.

EDIT: That's not to say that all faults are the same. Some, depending on the exactly issue, can be tolerated and are usually designed for to an extent while others are (hopefully) rare but will render an entire chip, or possibly the whole wafer as bad and must be discarded.

 

[jrista]

read what I write, the real improvements are around 1,1 to 1,4 um sensel size

and there are no APS or 24x36 from Canon or others yet= with that small pixel size

BSI cost about 30% more than FSI

Eric Fossum:

Improvements like BSI typically improve image quality mathematically and from a perception point of view, by increasing QE and reducing effects orginating from pixel stack height, when comparing two pixels of equal size. At 1.4 um pixel pitch the improvement offered by BSI is small. By 1.1 um pixel pitch, BSI offers a substantial advantage, unless some FSI breakthrough is made. BSI costs more to make so there is motivation for the FSI breakthough

It really depends on the photodiode size. A 7D has 4.3 micron pixels, but the actual photodiode is smaller than that. The entire pixel is surrounded by 500nm (.5 micron) transistors and wiring, which would mean the photodiode...the actual light sensitive area embedded in the silicon substrate, is only about 3.3 microns at best (and usually, the photodiode has a small margin around it...so closer to 3 microns). A 24.4mp sensor would have pixels in the range of 3.2 microns, however with a 500nm process, the actual photodiode pitch is closer to 2 microns.

Canon has already demonstrated that larger pixels can be huge for overall SNR (and therefor actual light sensitivity) with the 1D X. Despite the fact that the 1D X is a FF sensor, it benefits greatly from a larger pixel, and thus a larger photodiode size...as the gain is relative to the square of the pixel pitch. Production of a BSI APS-C 24.4mp sensor would mean that it could have 3.1 micron photodiodes that perform at least as well as the 7D's 18mp sensor, as total electron capacity is relative to photodiode area. A 24.4mp BSI 7D II could then be roughly as capable (~21,000 electrons charge FWC @ ISO 100) as an 18mp FSI 7D.

Personally, I find that to be quite a valuable thing. Especially given that the 7D currently performs about as poorly as one could expect by today's standards. A 2 micron photodiode in the 7D II would mean SNR suffers even more, which is going to have an impact on IQ, especially for croppers, so I can't imagine Canon doing that.

I was never quite sure about this topic, it seemed very electrical engineer related and there was a lot of acronyms and stuff that confused me and made my brain hurt but this post by jrista is the first time I kinda understand what you guys are talking about! Thanks!

Rookie question - what does BSI and FSI stand for?

Glad it was helpful. Any engineering stuff aside, an image sensor is really just a circuitboard with sensors that generate electric charge in response to light stimulus surrounded by a bunch of electronic logic (transitors, capacitors/resistors, and wiring) designed to make it possible to "read" out the charge of each pixel when told to do so. Generally, as a matter of physics, the larger the area of the sensor, the more light can be detected and converted into charge.

BTW, BSI stands for Backside Illiminated, it has to do with the specifics of how the sensor is manufactured. These nano-scale circuit boards are "etched" onto the surface of highly polished, high grade silicon wafers. Etching occurs via light, which is beamed through a much larger scale "circuit board template" and onto the surface of the silicon (its a lot more complicated than that, as etching a CMOS device is usually done in layers, with depositions of various material for each layer, and further etchings with different templates...but that's the gist). The "front" side is the side that is etched. Usually, all the logic is etched onto the front side, and the photodiode itself is simply appropriately doped silicon in a grid at the bottom of the "well" created by all the transistors and wiring. Sensors etched in such a way are FSI, or Front Side Illuminated.

Fig 1: You can see the photosite well in this image. The "pixel cathode" is the photodiode. Various wiring surrounds the photodiode. Above the pixel is a color filter and a microlens.

Fig 2: You can see the grid layout of pixels in this image.

A newer technique originally designed to support the increasingly small photodiode area left available in small form factor sensors (such as the ones that are a fraction of a fingernail in size) for cell phone cameras, cheap point & shoots, etc. put the photodiode on the back of the silicon wafer, then etched the wiring on the front side, connected to the previously etched photodiodes. There are also usually color filters and micro lenses etched into the back side as well, above the photodiode itself. The process is more expensive as usually, only one side of the wafer needs to be etched or doped. The back side is usually just part of the "substrate", and the number of defects (stratches, pits, or other marks or even particulate embedded into the surface) do not matter. Since both sides of the wafer are important in a BSI design, both sides of the silicon wafer must be not only polished, but defects must be kept to a minimum. Hence it is more expensive and harder to manufacture.

Fig 3: A sony BSI sensor design. You can see all of the logic on top (front side), and microlenses, color filters, and photodiode on the bottom (back side). You can see where the photodiode for each pixel is connected to its logic in the middle.

An alternative to BSI design is LightPipe design. Canon also has patents as well as prototype (and possibly production...not sure) designs for a 180nm Cu (copper wiring) LightPipe sensor design with a double layer of microlenses. LightPipes make use of a high refractive index material to fill in the well. Normally, any light not directly incident on the photodiode itself will convert to heat or possibly reflect. That results in a loss of light energy, reducing the sensitivity of the sensor.

Fig 4: Canon's 180nm Cu LightPipe sensor cross section. This is for a very small sensor, possibly with pixels less than 2 microns in size (as evidenced by the very large wiring blocks next to each pixel, which on a 180nm process, means these pixels are quite small.)

 

[Zv]

Thanks jrista and Driz for the info. I couldn't quite picture a BSI sensor so I wikipediaded it and found some links that were helpful. I learned something today! This is why I love CR!

Let me see if I have this right -

So FSI is cheaper as only one side need to be treated in the manufacturing process, it's more common and what Canon uses. However light can be reflected by the metal layer which sits in front of the photodiode. One way to get around that would be to make the transistors and metal logic parts smaller, right? Or just have less pixels. See 1DX.

And BSI is more expensive to make due to both sides of the wafer being treated however it essentially captures more light and is better for low light photography as light hits the silicon layer directly. So this has up until recently only been used in very small sensors, right? I read Sony were putting a 1 inch sensor in the RX-200.

Some conflicting info though. Have Sony found a way to reduce the cost of producing a BSI sensor then? And are there any other disadvantages to BSI?

I would imagine that the equipment that is used to make BSI sensors also costs more than FSI and that for Canon to switch they would have to spend a boat load of money which in turn would mean more expensive cameras? Or can it be done relatively easily and Canon are working on this for the big megapixel body next year?

 

[jrista]

Thanks jrista and Driz for the info. I couldn't quite picture a BSI sensor so I wikipediaded it and found some links that were helpful. I learned something today! This is why I love CR!

Let me see if I have this right -

So FSI is cheaper as only one side need to be treated in the manufacturing process, it's more common and what Canon uses. However light can be reflected by the metal layer which sits in front of the photodiode. One way to get around that would be to make the transistors and metal logic parts smaller, right? Or just have less pixels. See 1DX.

And BSI is more expensive to make due to both sides of the wafer being treated however it essentially captures more light and is better for low light photography as light hits the silicon layer directly. So this has up until recently only been used in very small sensors, right? I read Sony were putting a 1 inch sensor in the RX-200.

Some conflicting info though. Have Sony found a way to reduce the cost of producing a BSI sensor then? And are there any other disadvantages to BSI?

I would imagine that the equipment that is used to make BSI sensors also costs more than FSI and that for Canon to switch they would have to spend a boat load of money which in turn would mean more expensive cameras? Or can it be done relatively easily and Canon are working on this for the big megapixel body next year?

I think Sony quite simply just adds more debt in order to manufacture their sensors. They have tens of billions in debt, in no small part due to the creation of their highly modern fabs. Sony does bring in revenue, but last I heard, their operating expenses were higher, so they are loosing money to the tune of several hundred billion yen a year. I can't say whether they have found ways to make BSI fabrication cheaper or not...although I suspect they can certainly refine the process over time.

Canon is capable of producing sensors using more advanced processes. Currently, they use 8" wafers for fabricating smaller CMOS devices, sensors for small cameras. An 8" wafer doesn't offer as much surface area, so it is more expensive to fabricate larger sensors, like APS-C and FF, on them. They build their own fabs, so I see no reason they couldn't build a fab capable of 180nm on 12" wafers.

I think it is probably more likely that Canon is using some kind of BSI 500nm process for their high density APS-C and FF sensors. They actually have a patent for such a thing, and it wouldn't require them to build a new fab...and it would really be the only way to continue using a 500nm process and still make sensors with even smaller pixels produce IQ that is on par with their past and current generation sensors. I haven't heard even a rumor of anything indicating they have created new fabs or anything like that (although I certainly hope they have...I don't see how Canon can remain competitive moving forward without jumping to a 180nm process, while the rest of the world is already there or even moving beyond. Canon has certainly been able to remain competitive with 500nm...but they have to be well into the realm of diminishing returns now.)

 

[Zv]

Yeah i saw the info regarding the patent. Seems like they have the know how or even have known for some time. I guess they are just waiting for the right time. Seems they can keep up with current market trends just fine. If things change drastically then they'll prob step it up. I have faith. And in the meantime theres always Magic Lantern! Hey hey!

 

[jrista]

Yeah i saw the info regarding the patent. Seems like they have the know how or even have known for some time. I guess they are just waiting for the right time. Seems they can keep up with current market trends just fine. If things change drastically then they'll prob step it up. I have faith. And in the meantime theres always Magic Lantern! Hey hey!

The Magic Lantern 14stop Dr thing is interesting. Certainly not the same as what you get with a D800 and its Exmor...you lose vertical resolution. To me, the point of having additional native hardware DR is the ability to recover shadow DETAIL. You can always downsample, which will improve image DR, but at the cost of detail...so to me that is kind of a net zero tradeoff (at least, when printing...doesn't matter if your uploading online.)

I guess for web publishers, the trick will be quite handy, and will certainly be better than the banding you get now on a Canon sensor.

 

[Drizzt321]

Yeah i saw the info regarding the patent. Seems like they have the know how or even have known for some time. I guess they are just waiting for the right time. Seems they can keep up with current market trends just fine. If things change drastically then they'll prob step it up. I have faith. And in the meantime theres always Magic Lantern! Hey hey!

The Magic Lantern 14stop Dr thing is interesting. Certainly not the same as what you get with a D800 and its Exmor...you lose vertical resolution. To me, the point of having additional native hardware DR is the ability to recover shadow DETAIL. You can always downsample, which will improve image DR, but at the cost of detail...so to me that is kind of a net zero tradeoff (at least, when printing...doesn't matter if your uploading online.)

I guess for web publishers, the trick will be quite handy, and will certainly be better than the banding you get now on a Canon sensor.

Yea, it'd be great to be able to pull some more detail out of the shadows. Once this makes it into a somewhat stable alpha I might play around with this. Might use it for stills, as it might not be as easy to see the moire/aliasing as it is with video since with video you can see it moving around. Plus most of my output is for web, so I'm downsampling much of the time.

As others have said, it'll be really interesting to see if the new 70D dual-photosite per pixel has 2 read-out chips, and if they read out the separate photosites at each pixel. If they do, that could make this really interesting.

 

[jrista]

read what I write, the real improvements are around 1,1 to 1,4 um sensel size

and there are no APS or 24x36 from Canon or others yet= with that small pixel size

BSI cost about 30% more than FSI

Eric Fossum:

Improvements like BSI typically improve image quality mathematically and from a perception point of view, by increasing QE and reducing effects orginating from pixel stack height, when comparing two pixels of equal size. At 1.4 um pixel pitch the improvement offered by BSI is small. By 1.1 um pixel pitch, BSI offers a substantial advantage, unless some FSI breakthrough is made. BSI costs more to make so there is motivation for the FSI breakthough

It really depends on the photodiode size. A 7D has 4.3 micron pixels, but the actual photodiode is smaller than that. The entire pixel is surrounded by 500nm (.5 micron) transistors and wiring, which would mean the photodiode...the actual light sensitive area embedded in the silicon substrate, is only about 3.3 microns at best (and usually, the photodiode has a small margin around it...so closer to 3 microns). A 24.4mp sensor would have pixels in the range of 3.2 microns, however with a 500nm process, the actual photodiode pitch is closer to 2 microns.

Canon has already demonstrated that larger pixels can be huge for overall SNR (and therefor actual light sensitivity) with the 1D X. Despite the fact that the 1D X is a FF sensor, it benefits greatly from a larger pixel, and thus a larger photodiode size...as the gain is relative to the square of the pixel pitch. Production of a BSI APS-C 24.4mp sensor would mean that it could have 3.1 micron photodiodes that perform at least as well as the 7D's 18mp sensor, as total electron capacity is relative to photodiode area. A 24.4mp BSI 7D II could then be roughly as capable (~21,000 electrons charge FWC @ ISO 100) as an 18mp FSI 7D.

Personally, I find that to be quite a valuable thing. Especially given that the 7D currently performs about as poorly as one could expect by today's standards. A 2 micron photodiode in the 7D II would mean SNR suffers even more, which is going to have an impact on IQ, especially for croppers, so I can't imagine Canon doing that.

you are mixing up things, why do you think Im saying that Canon needs 180 or smaller tech?

The real benefits of BSI you find in very small sensel, and I do not think it is a good idea to talk to much what you believe or think when Eric Fossum have shown when the benefits starts of a BSI construction.
And that is around 1,4 micron and smaller
A tipping point for BSI will be the 1.1 micron pixel node where FSI will likely be unable to achieve the market-required performance – necessitating a transition to BSI for applications that require this smaller pixel."

There are some benefits of BSI and larger pixels and that is with wide angle lenses and corners, as for example SLR+ wide angel lens and incident light angle

I am not mixing anything up. The primary benefit of 180nm is that you have more area per pixel to dedicate to the photodiode. In the case of 1.4 micron pixels, use of a 500nm process is already a non-option...you would have already passed the limit you claim would be reached with 1.1 micron pixels on a 180nm process...the photodiode of a 1.4 micron pixel on a 500nm process would be maybe .3 microns (300nm). You have to translate from a 180nm 1.4 micron pixel to a 500nm 3.2 micron pixel. The wiring and transistors in a 500nm process take up a lot of space. That space could be put to better use...and assuming one does not change from a 500nm process....well, then BSI DOES have value.

Instead of taking up ~1 micron of pixel pitch for wiring and other logic, you take up a quarter of a micron if you moved to a 180nm process on APS-C. That means, for a 4.3 micron pixel pitch, the actual photodiode could be ~3.95 microns, rather than 2.1 microns. That increase in area is where you gain the greatest potential for an improvement in IQ. Now, with 180nm transistors, you can pack more of them in. Canon could stick with a 2.1 micron photodiode, and have a lot more logic circuitry around it with a 180nm process. That would allow them to add more sophisticated noise reduction logic, maybe drop in some on-die ADC, etc....simply because each transistor and all the wiring consumes less space. But fundamentally, photodiode area is the key thing from an SNR standpoint, and a higher SNR leads to less noisy images.

When it comes to Canon's read noise, the primary issue there is high frequency components and binned pixel processing on an off-die component. The longer the signal remains analog, and the closer any pixel processing is to a high frequency component (a DIGIC processor is a CPU...the whole thing is a high frequency component), the greater the chance that read noise will interfere with shadow detail. It doesn't matter what the fabrication process is...Canon could move to 180nm, and keep using their Digic processors with off-die ADC. They will continue to have shadow noise problems, despite the move to a better process. If they move the ADCs on-die, and do something akin to what Exmor does, by moving the PLL, Clock, and other high frequency components to an isolated area away from those ADC units, then Canon could reduce their shadow noise.

That only affects low ISO, however, and a lot of Canon users care more about high ISO. Using a BSI design, even in APS-C, allows photodiode area to remain large. Canon could also still add more advanced per-pixel logic in a BSI design even if they stay on a 500nm process, as they would have the full photodiode area on the front side to utilize for logic (i.e. additional noise reduction circuitry...one of their patents described a power-source free CDS system that decoupled the power input while performing CDS, as keeping the power coupled continued to add dark current noise.)

It is not NECESSARY for Canon to move to a 180nm process, or only use BSI with small form factor sensors having 1.4 micron pixels or smaller, in order to continue innovating and improving IQ. As far as I am concerned, for the kind of high ISO work I do, I would LOVE to see Canon produce a FF BSI sensor. That would allow them to increase photodiode area, particularly in a shared pixel architecture, by another micron. Right now, in the 1D X, photodiode pitch is around 5.8 microns, while the actual pixel pitch is 6.95. I think it would be awesome to see a 1D XI with a BSI design that had 6.95 micron photodiodes. That is a 43% increase in total photodiode area, an increase that would have a measurable improvement in high ISO performance (imagine an actual usable ISO 25600 and maybe 51200 for wildlife and birds.) Again, Canon could move to a 180nm process, and either pack more logic into each pixel and improve readout NR (i.e. CDS), or reduce the logic, increase photodiode area, and move the ADC on-die, which at the very least should increase the maximum readout rate and possibly improve read noise performance. There are a whole lot of options...Eric Fossum isn't the only source of CIS innovation, nor the bible of what is and is not possible with CIS devices. Eric Fossum has done a lot of research in the area, however so has Canon (remember, it wasn't that long ago that Canon had the best sensors in the digital camera arena...they certainly have the knowledge and knowhow...I think their current reliance on 500nm is more of a business and financial matter than a lack of ability.)

I think moving to BSI, even if Canon sticks to 500nm, is a better option. It frees up the entire front side for logic, and the entire back side to light sensitive photodiodes. It is something Canon could do with their current process, potentially freeing up a billion dollars for other purposes (R&D, greater production capacity, whatever.)

 

[jrista]

Im not very interested of what you think when I have a dialog with Eric Fossum, Emil Martinec, BOBn2, John Sheehy and several others about the benefits of BSI at Dpreview years back and also private

Well...good to see your keeping the culture of obfuscation and misinformation alive. : Good day, Mikael.

 

[Skulker]

Im not very interested of what you think when I have a dialog with Eric Fossum, Emil Martinec, BOBn2, John Sheehy and several others about the benefits of BSI at Dpreview years back and also private

Well...good to see your keeping the culture of obfuscation and misinformation alive. : Good day, Mikael.

At least he is very consistent. He always goes on and on and then makes unsupported statements and assertions often claiming to have years of inside knowledge. I've got to the point were if a post says ankorwatt at the top then I probably won't read it.

 

[jrista]

Im not very interested of what you think when I have a dialog with Eric Fossum, Emil Martinec, BOBn2, John Sheehy and several others about the benefits of BSI at Dpreview years back and also private

Well...good to see your keeping the culture of obfuscation and misinformation alive. : Good day, Mikael.

At least he is very consistent. He always goes on and on and then makes unsupported statements and assertions often claiming to have years of inside knowledge. I've got to the point were if a post says ankorwatt at the top then I probably won't read it.

I only respond so that other readers don't take his information at face value. It's always twisted in some way or another...I think people should be privy to at least some of the facts.

 

[BozillaNZ]

Sensor Dynamic Range vs. Camera Dynamic Range

http://theory.uchicago.edu/~ejm/pix/20d/tests/noise/noise-p3a.html

 

[Skulker]

Im not very interested of what you think when I have a dialog with Eric Fossum, Emil Martinec, BOBn2, John Sheehy and several others about the benefits of BSI at Dpreview years back and also private

Well...good to see your keeping the culture of obfuscation and misinformation alive. : Good day, Mikael.

At least he is very consistent. He always goes on and on and then makes unsupported statements and assertions often claiming to have years of inside knowledge. I've got to the point were if a post says ankorwatt at the top then I probably won't read it.

you are insulting me as a person, mention a factual error

no insult intended ankorwatt, just saying you are consistent. In my opinion you are usually wrong, misguided, ill judged or unjustified to the point were I don't bother reading your posts as a rule. I suspect you just like to argue. And that's not an insult some people are just like that.

 

[jrista]

Im not very interested of what you think when I have a dialog with Eric Fossum, Emil Martinec, BOBn2, John Sheehy and several others about the benefits of BSI at Dpreview years back and also private

Well...good to see your keeping the culture of obfuscation and misinformation alive. : Good day, Mikael.

At least he is very consistent. He always goes on and on and then makes unsupported statements and assertions often claiming to have years of inside knowledge. I've got to the point were if a post says ankorwatt at the top then I probably won't read it.

you are insulting me as a person, mention a factual error

It wasn't an insult, I think it was more a statement of exasperation.

Maybe there is a cultural barrier here...I'll concede the possibility, however given how long you've been around these forums, I would have expected you to pick up some English grammar and a bit more insight into how Americans think. I am not really sure how you expect a statement like the one quoted above to be taken, but it comes off as superior, haughty, antagonistic, and braggish. In terms of interpretation, it is more likely your statement will be received as follows than anything else:

"Hahaha, I (but not you) have been privy to and participated in very important, and PRIVATE (hahaha, you can't verify this) discussions about high level stuff you guys wouldn't understand. So there, you HAVE to trust me, I know more stuff than you!"

Personally, I don't really care how you intend to come off, the simple fact that you refer to secret discussions that supposedly contain important information that is apparently critical to the basis of your position in a debate, but are unwilling to share the information, immediately makes me think you are intentionally obfuscating. I think it weakens your argument every time you do it, and I think it strengthens the opposing arguments (mine or anyone elses)...and to be frank, I'm quite ok with that. Still, I have no problem debating, and if you present a cohesive argument backed up by verifiable fact, I'm happy to change my opinion (TheSuede has succeeded in changing my opinion on a critical debte we had a number of months ago in 2012.)

The simple fact of the matter is, you don't present a cohesive, factual, or verifiable argument most of the time...so, people simply get exasperated by your persistent insistence that Canon sucks, has sucked, and always will suck, and everyone should go out and buy a D800 because DXO says its the best. I think people would really like you to take the hint and stop pushing a camera they don't want (and, at this point, don't even want to hear a single thing about, especially from you) at every single opportunity.

 

[sjprg]

Back on topic, I am amazed that Canon and I suppose Nikon and Sony also are still using 500nm technology when the rest of the computer world is down to 22 nm. Talking about milking the consumers.

 

[Skulker]

Back on topic, I am amazed that Canon and I suppose Nikon and Sony also are still using 500nm technology when the rest of the computer world is down to 22 nm. Talking about milking the consumers.

Why do you think that using 500nm is milking the consumers?

 

[jrista]

Back on topic, I am amazed that Canon and I suppose Nikon and Sony also are still using 500nm technology when the rest of the computer world is down to 22 nm. Talking about milking the consumers.

Canon is the last company that I know of to still use 500nm. Prior to the D800 and the DSLR's released since that, Nikon was on 350nm and 250nm processes. Sony moved to a 180nm with Exmor, and I believe they may have even moved past 180nm with some of their latest small form factor stuff.

I don't think Canon's continued use of 500nm has anything to do with "milking the consumer". It costs a tremendous amount of money to move to a new, smaller fabrication process. If Canon doesn't see that they actually need to do that, for whatever reason, and could put that billion or several billion to use on other endeavors, that is a matter of business. At the moment, Canon owns the majority of the market, and their lead is not being threatened in any way by either Sony or Nikon. Their cameras still produce excellent IQ...they simply have slightly less editing latitude in a few specific circumstances, so a decision to continue using an existing process and bank their money towards more useful endeavors makes logical sense.

To be frank, Canon really did do exactly what the majority of their vocal customers before the release of the 5D III and 1D X asked for: Fewer pixels, bigger pixels, better pixels at higher ISO. At high ISO, Canon delivered every single one of those requests.

Now, the most vocal group of Canon users seems to be those calling for a process shrink, and better pixels at LOWER ISO. If Canon continues to respond to their customers requests, I foresee them delivering on those requests within the next refresh cycle.