Still no news about a Canon shift in sensor fabrication?

[pedro]

So, ehm, to sum this thread up so far:
- We have no solid facts that Canon has invested in new tech to make even better cameras.
- We have no solid facts that Canon has NOT invested in new tech to make even better cameras.

This. Is. Canon. Rumors.

Nothing new under the sun, guys, really, chillax

Personal conclusion of the OP: But we have "solid facts" that some of the folk here really engage in a mostly educated discussion on topics like these, therefore the thread imho was worth it. Thanks for any serious contribution to it, that really helped to clear some things up. So Canon, if you read us, go ahead and give us more reality stuff to chew on!

 

[jrista]

I know I'll regret this, I just Know, But.

Ankorwat, instead of angsting over Sensors and Sony Margins & DR and D800's etc, why don't you take a break, go get that iPhone 4s of yours, and practise taking Sunsets with a straight Horizon, once you get that down pat, progress to bigger Cameras (without a dial tone), with bigger sensors, and ultimately perhaps bigger discussions, and don't worry so much about Sony & their Healthiness, they don't care, they're Happily driving themselves into the Ground.

And Canon don't care what's happening at Sony, Canon are making Money selling all those Crappy cameras with Crappy Sensors with Crap DR, to People like me, and I'm Happy to be buying them.

And Apple don't care either, they're just Happy selling Boat Loads of iPhones for Boat Loads of Profit to Guys just like you & me, only I have the iPhone 5, I think it has a better Sensor than your iPhone 4s it takes Sunsets with a straight Horizon, time to upgrade.

straith horisont, you and was it Jrista? complain about the horisont, the horisont is not starith in this case, if so we have start building houses which is not very straight or in level here in Sweden, com one focus on some thing else and don't give me advise about the horisont

Straight & Horizon.

Not "Straith" and "Horizont". Sorry bub, but when words are used correctly in the very comment you are QUOTING, there is ABSOLUTELY ZERO reason to misspell them. You can't blame a translator here...that is just plain weird. Straight. Horizon. Straight. Horizon. Zero reason to misspell those.

Oh, and yes...the lack of a straight horizon was the most glaring aspect of your photo...it matters immensely if the point is to discuss how "good" the photo is. At the very least, if you want to brag...straighten your horizons!

Let us se when Canon starts to invest any money in new tech and sensor lines to keep up and how it will affects the camera division's finances

You mean like last year when they developed dual-pixel focus and still turned a profit?

And before someone say's that the technology is this year, it is the result of many year's work.....

dual pixel focus was nice, nothing real new, let us se how the accuracy is compared to the 2,8 AF module in 1dx and 5dmk3

Dual Pixel, at least according to the reviewing world, is a very solid evolution and a significant innovation. It is a very meaningful step forward, and an innovation (NEW TECHNOLOGY!!) made by CANON. You can downplay it all you want, but even though Canon is not on the forefront of modern cellphone sensor design where pixels are barely two microns in size and light sensitivity is EVERYTHING, they are still king of the high end camera world.

 

[insanitybeard]

Strait & Horizon.

Not "Straith" and "Horizont". Sorry bub, but when words are used correctly in the very comment you are QUOTING, there is ABSOLUTELY ZERO reason to misspell them. You can't blame a translator here...that is just plain weird. Strait. Horizon. Strait. Horizon. Zero reason to misspell those.

Unless you're English (a.k.a backwards ) like me, then you spell it 'straight' ! ;D

 

[jrista]

Strait & Horizon.

Not "Straith" and "Horizont". Sorry bub, but when words are used correctly in the very comment you are QUOTING, there is ABSOLUTELY ZERO reason to misspell them. You can't blame a translator here...that is just plain weird. Strait. Horizon. Strait. Horizon. Zero reason to misspell those.

Unless you're English (a.k.a backwards ) like me, then you spell it 'straight' ! ;D

Gah...tried to catch that before someone quoted it. Guess I missed my window of opportunity.

 

[jrista]

And please, I haven't say that Canons sensors are crappy, what kind of BS is that, Im saying that Canons research and sensors are not in level with others today and no new solutions are presented, and I do not mean improvements of a old sensor tech from 2004

And why does that matter? How, exactly, has Canon's continued use of 500nm caused any serious degradation of IQ for 99% of photographers? The only thing they have a problem with is low ISO read noise, and then, only when you are in a DR limited situation where you need more than a two stop shadow push. Canon sensors ONLY show their weakness RELATIVE to Sony Exmor when pushed MORE than two stops...something very few people actually do.

Canon "technology", which is really referring to their fabrication process and sensor design with 500nm transistors, is a non-issue in the grand scheme of things. You come here to demonize Canon every chance you get, and whether you directly state it or not, the implication you impose is extremely clear: You think Canon sucks, that everyone should move to Nikon, and that Canon is literally incapable of competing. When people try to debate you on that issue, you simply turn around and call all of us here on CANON Rumors a bunch of nutcase religious zealots, berate our membership, and otherwise light little canon-hate fires everywhere.

Then you proceed to act shocked and amazed that everyone turns against you, defends their preferred brand, or continues to argue that Canon makes excellent products DESPITE not yet having moved to a new sensor fabrication product (something that should be attributed to Canon's prowess as an efficient, financially savvy competitor in the marketplace, not some has-been dud that will be dead tomorrow.) The fact that everyone here turns against you when you berate them and call them religious nutcases shouldn't be surprising at this point, Mikael...you bring it on yourself.

 

[David Hull]

Sony are investing for the future which impress so much that Eric Fossum has comment their foreward spirit in competition with other Omnivision, Aptina etc. We are here discussing if Canon are using 180nm tech, Sony are at 45nm.

http://www.sony.net/SonyInfo/News/Press/201208/12-107E/index.html

Tell me, what signs are there that Canon has invested big money in new technology to meet the competition?
You should be more worried about Canon that have locked them selfs in to a corner like Apple did before they went over to Intel.

I wouldn't get so hung up on the geometry. For smartphones where the sensor is small and all of the rest of the phone electronics is implemented in 28nm and 45nm there is probably a lot of benefit to going to the newer process nodes (the electronics gets smaller, the power is lower and the voltage interfaces will be similar) but for APS-C and FF size chips, sitting in DSLR bodies with huge batteries this may not be as important.

It only makes since to move to the next process node if there is genuine benefit to be gained from doing so; otherwise the older nodes tend to be less expensive. What would be the driver for Canon to move to 45nm? It cannot be that the sensors are not implementable in 180nm, since Sony and others have demonstrated in the past that sensors with good DR and very low FPN can be implemented in that technology.

 

[David Hull]

Sony are investing for the future which impress so much that Eric Fossum has comment their foreward spirit in competition with other Omnivision, Aptina etc. We are here discussing if Canon are using 180nm tech, Sony are at 45nm.

http://www.sony.net/SonyInfo/News/Press/201208/12-107E/index.html

Tell me, what signs are there that Canon has invested big money in new technology to meet the competition?
You should be more worried about Canon that have locked them selfs in to a corner like Apple did before they went over to Intel.

I wouldn't get so hung up on the geometry. For smartphones where the sensor is small and all of the rest of the phone electronics is implemented in 28nm and 45nm there is probably a lot of benefit to going to the newer process nodes (the electronics gets smaller, the power is lower and the voltage interfaces will be similar) but for APS-C and FF size chips, sitting in DSLR bodies with huge batteries this may not be as important.

It only makes since to move to the next process node if there is genuine benefit to be gained from doing so; otherwise the older nodes tend to be less expensive. What would be the driver for Canon to move to 45nm? It cannot be that the sensors are not implementable in 180nm, since Sony and others have demonstrated in the past that sensors with good DR and very low FPN can be implemented in that technology.

Then I have one answer, where are the high megapixel cameras?

Isn't the 70D 40 MP on an APS-C chip? That is more pixel density than anything Sony has done regardless of what node they are operating in.

Incidentally, something I didn’t mention earlier is that if you look at the actual sensor performance which you can see when the ISO gain is cranked to max, the Canon 6D and the Nikon D800 perform about the same (actually the Nikon is worse 4e- vs. 3e-) which means from a pure sensor perspective the Canon 500nm technology is working fine (or at least as well as whatever Sony is using). It is not Canon’s sensor that is at issue, it is their system architectural choices. Canon is every bit as good at “sensor” design as Sony is.

If you take the time to study the available data and figure out what it is really saying, you will see the Canon actually does sensors quite well. I suspect that part of their issue is that they aren't about to arbitrarily "fix" something that they consider not to be "broke". Their challenge is to find a way to keep their already excellent sensor performance which is arguably the best in the business) and implement it in a way that ferries that performance all the way to the output.

The 70D shows that canon can clearly make a high MP camera if they want to. However, if they had one, I doubt that it would sell as well as the 5DIII. I see no evidence that the D800 is outselling the 5DIII particularly now that the prices have dropped to more reasonable levels.

 

[Zv]

And please, I haven't say that Canons sensors are crappy, what kind of BS is that, Im saying that Canons research and sensors are not in level with others today and no new solutions are presented, and I do not mean improvements of a old sensor tech from 2004

And why does that matter? How, exactly, has Canon's continued use of 500nm caused any serious degradation of IQ for 99% of photographers? The only thing they have a problem with is low ISO read noise, and then, only when you are in a DR limited situation where you need more than a two stop shadow push. Canon sensors ONLY show their weakness RELATIVE to Sony Exmor when pushed MORE than two stops...something very few people actually do.

Canon "technology", which is really referring to their fabrication process and sensor design with 500nm transistors, is a non-issue in the grand scheme of things. You come here to demonize Canon every chance you get, and whether you directly state it or not, the implication you impose is extremely clear: You think Canon sucks, that everyone should move to Nikon, and that Canon is literally incapable of competing. When people try to debate you on that issue, you simply turn around and call all of us here on CANON Rumors a bunch of nutcase religious zealots, berate our membership, and otherwise light little canon-hate fires everywhere.

Then you proceed to act shocked and amazed that everyone turns against you, defends their preferred brand, or continues to argue that Canon makes excellent products DESPITE not yet having moved to a new sensor fabrication product (something that should be attributed to Canon's prowess as an efficient, financially savvy competitor in the marketplace, not some has-been dud that will be dead tomorrow.) The fact that everyone here turns against you when you berate them and call them religious nutcases shouldn't be surprising at this point, Mikael...you bring it on yourself.

is it not better that we discuss facts about different sensors than sales , Im not chocked that some people are defending Canon. Some people seems chocked that Canon not are always best in everything they do.
I like to discuss facts, research and technical questions.
The big stumbling block is that Canon is no longer the best CMOS sensors manufacture and that is difficult to understand for some

Last I checked Canon were in the camera and imaging system making business not CMOS sensor making (though they do that too!). They make mighty fine cameras, no one can argue about that. Now why don't we all chill and have a nice wee cuppa tea and get on with our lives!

 

[jrista]

And please, I haven't say that Canons sensors are crappy, what kind of BS is that, Im saying that Canons research and sensors are not in level with others today and no new solutions are presented, and I do not mean improvements of a old sensor tech from 2004

And why does that matter? How, exactly, has Canon's continued use of 500nm caused any serious degradation of IQ for 99% of photographers? The only thing they have a problem with is low ISO read noise, and then, only when you are in a DR limited situation where you need more than a two stop shadow push. Canon sensors ONLY show their weakness RELATIVE to Sony Exmor when pushed MORE than two stops...something very few people actually do.

Canon "technology", which is really referring to their fabrication process and sensor design with 500nm transistors, is a non-issue in the grand scheme of things. You come here to demonize Canon every chance you get, and whether you directly state it or not, the implication you impose is extremely clear: You think Canon sucks, that everyone should move to Nikon, and that Canon is literally incapable of competing. When people try to debate you on that issue, you simply turn around and call all of us here on CANON Rumors a bunch of nutcase religious zealots, berate our membership, and otherwise light little canon-hate fires everywhere.

Then you proceed to act shocked and amazed that everyone turns against you, defends their preferred brand, or continues to argue that Canon makes excellent products DESPITE not yet having moved to a new sensor fabrication product (something that should be attributed to Canon's prowess as an efficient, financially savvy competitor in the marketplace, not some has-been dud that will be dead tomorrow.) The fact that everyone here turns against you when you berate them and call them religious nutcases shouldn't be surprising at this point, Mikael...you bring it on yourself.

is it not better that we discuss facts about different sensors than sales , Im not chocked that some people are defending Canon. Some people seems chocked that Canon not are always best in everything they do.
I like to discuss facts, research and technical questions.
The big stumbling block is that Canon is no longer the best CMOS sensors manufacture and that is difficult to understand for some

Proclaiming the members here are "religious" and berating them for their opinions has nothing to do with facts, yet it is something you do on a regular basis. That is another predictable trait of yours...when the real truth starts to come out, you feign a fallback to "facts", and try to play yourself as an objective voice.

As for Canon's "big stumbling block", that is 100% purely your misguided opinion. It has absolutely zero basis in fact. If sensor technology was the SOLE factor that made a company successful, Canon would have gone bankrupt a couple years ago. As the *facts* would have it...Canon is the most successful digital camera company in the world. Given the actual facts...I guess by "stumbling block" you mean "cash cow"...as sticking to their guns has allowed Canon to be immensely profitable with their very popular photography brand. They are successful because outside of a few nuts like ourselves on the net, no one really gives a crap what actual technology or technological advancements a company is making on a nanoscopic scale. The only thing the very vast majority of photographers give a crap about is the actual quality of the images produced by the camera
they USE. Canon cameras produce some of the best IQ in the world in almost every situation imaginable, so their customers are quite happy.

Sony are investing for the future which impress so much that Eric Fossum has comment their foreward spirit in competition with other Omnivision, Aptina etc. We are here discussing if Canon are using 180nm tech, Sony are at 45nm.

http://www.sony.net/SonyInfo/News/Press/201208/12-107E/index.html

Tell me, what signs are there that Canon has invested big money in new technology to meet the competition?
You should be more worried about Canon that have locked them selfs in to a corner like Apple did before they went over to Intel.

I wouldn't get so hung up on the geometry. For smartphones where the sensor is small and all of the rest of the phone electronics is implemented in 28nm and 45nm there is probably a lot of benefit to going to the newer process nodes (the electronics gets smaller, the power is lower and the voltage interfaces will be similar) but for APS-C and FF size chips, sitting in DSLR bodies with huge batteries this may not be as important.

It only makes since to move to the next process node if there is genuine benefit to be gained from doing so; otherwise the older nodes tend to be less expensive. What would be the driver for Canon to move to 45nm? It cannot be that the sensors are not implementable in 180nm, since Sony and others have demonstrated in the past that sensors with good DR and very low FPN can be implemented in that technology.

Then I have one answer, where are the high megapixel cameras?

The 70D has 40.4 million independent pixels. Each full bayer pixel is 4 microns in size, however each half pixel, which include independent readout, is a mere 2 microns in size. Is that not high enough in terms of megapixels, pixel density, and readout wiring complexity for you?

 

[insanitybeard]

Unless you're English (a.k.a backwards ) like me, then you spell it 'straight' ! ;D

well use your imagination, I have dyslexia so even Swedish can be tuff to spell

F.Y.I, it was only myself that I was attempting to make fun of, just trying to inject a little humour humor and dare I say, light into the thread, which has become the regular DR etc etc 'discussion'.

 

[J.R.]

The big stumbling block is that Canon is no longer the best CMOS sensors manufacture and that is difficult to understand for some

I doubt that. It's easy enough to understand but no-one around here cares in the slightest.

 

[Don Haines]

Strait & Horizon.

Not "Straith" and "Horizont". Sorry bub, but when words are used correctly in the very comment you are QUOTING, there is ABSOLUTELY ZERO reason to misspell them. You can't blame a translator here...that is just plain weird. Strait. Horizon. Strait. Horizon. Zero reason to misspell those.

Unless you're English (a.k.a backwards ) like me, then you spell it 'straight' ! ;D

eye sink ewe wood bee moor write whiff thee ewes off spill chick

 

[insanitybeard]

eye sink ewe wood bee moor write whiff thee ewes off spill chick

;D Oi was too bizzy suppin' moi bottle 'o cyder moi dear!

 

[jrista]

Then I have one answer, where are the high megapixel cameras?

The 70D has 40.4 million independent pixels. Each full bayer pixel is 4 microns in size, however each half pixel, which include independent readout, is a mere 2 microns in size. Is that not high enough in terms of megapixels, pixel density, and readout wiring complexity for you?

nope
you have no data sheet about the read out noise etc from the sensor yet, it works in one way during AF and empty 2 channels/pixel regarding the read out S/N

Ignoring whatever the noise or S/N might be (I suspect it would be on part with the prior 18mp APS-C), that wasn't your argument...you were stating Canon hadn't demonstrated an ability to make small pixels. My point is that if Canon has produced a sensor with dual pixel FP-PDAF, then they have 40.4 million separate pixels, each with independent readout logic. That puts the height of each of those pixels at 4 microns, and the width at 2 microns. At 2 microns, that is smaller than any other APS-C sensor on the market so far. That demonstrates a fairly significant leap forward...over a factor of two smaller than Canon's previous smallest DSLR pixel size.

 

[David Hull]

And please, I haven't say that Canons sensors are crappy, what kind of BS is that, Im saying that Canons research and sensors are not in level with others today and no new solutions are presented, and I do not mean improvements of a old sensor tech from 2004

And why does that matter? How, exactly, has Canon's continued use of 500nm caused any serious degradation of IQ for 99% of photographers? The only thing they have a problem with is low ISO read noise, and then, only when you are in a DR limited situation where you need more than a two stop shadow push. Canon sensors ONLY show their weakness RELATIVE to Sony Exmor when pushed MORE than two stops...something very few people actually do.

Canon "technology", which is really referring to their fabrication process and sensor design with 500nm transistors, is a non-issue in the grand scheme of things. You come here to demonize Canon every chance you get, and whether you directly state it or not, the implication you impose is extremely clear: You think Canon sucks, that everyone should move to Nikon, and that Canon is literally incapable of competing. When people try to debate you on that issue, you simply turn around and call all of us here on CANON Rumors a bunch of nutcase religious zealots, berate our membership, and otherwise light little canon-hate fires everywhere.

Then you proceed to act shocked and amazed that everyone turns against you, defends their preferred brand, or continues to argue that Canon makes excellent products DESPITE not yet having moved to a new sensor fabrication product (something that should be attributed to Canon's prowess as an efficient, financially savvy competitor in the marketplace, not some has-been dud that will be dead tomorrow.) The fact that everyone here turns against you when you berate them and call them religious nutcases shouldn't be surprising at this point, Mikael...you bring it on yourself.

is it not better that we discuss facts about different sensors than sales , Im not chocked that some people are defending Canon. Some people seems chocked that Canon not are always best in everything they do.
I like to discuss facts, research and technical questions.
The big stumbling block is that Canon is no longer the best CMOS sensors manufacture and that is difficult to understand for some

Proclaiming the members here are "religious" and berating them for their opinions has nothing to do with facts, yet it is something you do on a regular basis. That is another predictable trait of yours...when the real truth starts to come out, you feign a fallback to "facts", and try to play yourself as an objective voice.

As for Canon's "big stumbling block", that is 100% purely your misguided opinion. It has absolutely zero basis in fact. If sensor technology was the SOLE factor that made a company successful, Canon would have gone bankrupt a couple years ago. As the *facts* would have it...Canon is the most successful digital camera company in the world. Given the actual facts...I guess by "stumbling block" you mean "cash cow"...as sticking to their guns has allowed Canon to be immensely profitable with their very popular photography brand. They are successful because outside of a few nuts like ourselves on the net, no one really gives a crap what actual technology or technological advancements a company is making on a nanoscopic scale. The only thing the very vast majority of photographers give a crap about is the actual quality of the images produced by the camera
they USE. Canon cameras produce some of the best IQ in the world in almost every situation imaginable, so their customers are quite happy.

Sony are investing for the future which impress so much that Eric Fossum has comment their foreward spirit in competition with other Omnivision, Aptina etc. We are here discussing if Canon are using 180nm tech, Sony are at 45nm.

http://www.sony.net/SonyInfo/News/Press/201208/12-107E/index.html

Tell me, what signs are there that Canon has invested big money in new technology to meet the competition?
You should be more worried about Canon that have locked them selfs in to a corner like Apple did before they went over to Intel.

I wouldn't get so hung up on the geometry. For smartphones where the sensor is small and all of the rest of the phone electronics is implemented in 28nm and 45nm there is probably a lot of benefit to going to the newer process nodes (the electronics gets smaller, the power is lower and the voltage interfaces will be similar) but for APS-C and FF size chips, sitting in DSLR bodies with huge batteries this may not be as important.

It only makes since to move to the next process node if there is genuine benefit to be gained from doing so; otherwise the older nodes tend to be less expensive. What would be the driver for Canon to move to 45nm? It cannot be that the sensors are not implementable in 180nm, since Sony and others have demonstrated in the past that sensors with good DR and very low FPN can be implemented in that technology.

Then I have one answer, where are the high megapixel cameras?

The 70D has 40.4 million independent pixels. Each full bayer pixel is 4 microns in size, however each half pixel, which include independent readout, is a mere 2 microns in size. Is that not high enough in terms of megapixels, pixel density, and readout wiring complexity for you?

nope
you have no data sheet about the read out noise etc from the sensor yet, it works in one way during AF and empty 2 channels/pixel regarding the read out S/N
This sensor is made from canon line 2 , APS line and compact camera line, nothing difficult with that

Grasping for straws now -- LOL.

 

[David Hull]

Sony are investing for the future which impress so much that Eric Fossum has comment their foreward spirit in competition with other Omnivision, Aptina etc. We are here discussing if Canon are using 180nm tech, Sony are at 45nm.

http://www.sony.net/SonyInfo/News/Press/201208/12-107E/index.html

Tell me, what signs are there that Canon has invested big money in new technology to meet the competition?
You should be more worried about Canon that have locked them selfs in to a corner like Apple did before they went over to Intel.

I wouldn't get so hung up on the geometry. For smartphones where the sensor is small and all of the rest of the phone electronics is implemented in 28nm and 45nm there is probably a lot of benefit to going to the newer process nodes (the electronics gets smaller, the power is lower and the voltage interfaces will be similar) but for APS-C and FF size chips, sitting in DSLR bodies with huge batteries this may not be as important.

It only makes since to move to the next process node if there is genuine benefit to be gained from doing so; otherwise the older nodes tend to be less expensive. What would be the driver for Canon to move to 45nm? It cannot be that the sensors are not implementable in 180nm, since Sony and others have demonstrated in the past that sensors with good DR and very low FPN can be implemented in that technology.

Then I have one answer, where are the high megapixel cameras?

Isn't the 70D 40 MP on an APS-C chip? That is more pixel density than anything Sony has done regardless of what node they are operating in.

Incidentally, something I didn’t mention earlier is that if you look at the actual sensor performance which you can see when the ISO gain is cranked to max, the Canon 6D and the Nikon D800 perform about the same (actually the Nikon is worse 4e- vs. 3e-) which means from a pure sensor perspective the Canon 500nm technology is working fine (or at least as well as whatever Sony is using). It is not Canon’s sensor that is at issue, it is their system architectural choices. Canon is every bit as good at “sensor” design as Sony is.

If you take the time to study the available data and figure out what it is really saying, you will see the Canon actually does sensors quite well. I suspect that part of their issue is that they aren't about to arbitrarily "fix" something that they consider not to be "broke". Their challenge is to find a way to keep their already excellent sensor performance which is arguably the best in the business) and implement it in a way that ferries that performance all the way to the output.

The 70D shows that canon can clearly make a high MP camera if they want to. However, if they had one, I doubt that it would sell as well as the 5DIII. I see no evidence that the D800 is outselling the 5DIII particularly now that the prices have dropped to more reasonable levels.

nope, it shows that canon can make a APS sensor with their own tech regarding AF , nothing else
and you are going back to sales figures, thats have nothing to do with the new tech from others as Sony, Aptina, Omnivision and smaller Sensel
what about pattern noise; Canons have pretty high random read noise at low ISOs, too.

That is the ADC not the sensor, the noise at max gain would indicate that the Canon sensor implementation is as good as (if not better than) anything else out there.

 

[x-vision]

This sensor is made from canon line 2 , APS line and compact camera line, nothing difficult with that

At the CMOS/electronics level, the 70D sensor is a 40mp sensor. You'd better accept that.

It's hard to believe that Canon has managed to make a 40mp sensor on their old 500nm process.
But there are no clear clues at this time to confirm whether Canon has indeed switched to a new process.

We'll surely find out, as I'm sure Chipworks is eager to put this new sensor under their microscopes.

 

[jrista]

This sensor is made from canon line 2 , APS line and compact camera line, nothing difficult with that

At the CMOS/electronics level, the 70D sensor is a 40mp sensor. You'd better accept that.

It's hard to believe that Canon has managed to make a 40mp sensor on their old 500nm process.
But there are no clear clues at this time to confirm whether Canon has indeed switched to a new process.

We'll surely find out, as I'm sure Chipworks is eager to put this new sensor under their microscopes.

If Canon has used some kind of BSI process, I guess it's possible they stuck with 500nm. Even if they did that, I think it's still impressive...I don't think BSI has been used in a sensor as large as APS-C before. I do know that they actually have a patent for such a thing, however:

http://thenewcamera.com/canon-patent-back-illuminated-cmos-sensor/

 

[jrista]

This sensor is made from canon line 2 , APS line and compact camera line, nothing difficult with that

At the CMOS/electronics level, the 70D sensor is a 40mp sensor. You'd better accept that.

It's hard to believe that Canon has managed to make a 40mp sensor on their old 500nm process.
But there are no clear clues at this time to confirm whether Canon has indeed switched to a new process.

We'll surely find out, as I'm sure Chipworks is eager to put this new sensor under their microscopes.

If Canon has used some kind of BSI process, I guess it's possible they stuck with 500nm. Even if they did that, I think it's still impressive...I don't think BSI has been used in a sensor as large as APS-C before. I do know that they actually have a patent for such a thing, however:

http://thenewcamera.com/canon-patent-back-illuminated-cmos-sensor/

BSI does not improve the sensel size we are talking about, source Eric Fossum

Sure it does. That is the entire point. To expose a greater photodiode surface area by burying transistors and wiring on the opposite side (non light side) of the sensor. In normal sensor manufacture, the photodiode is light sensitive silicon surrounded by those transistors and readout wires. In other words, in an FSI sensor, logic circuitry intrudes on surface area that could otherwise be dedicated to photosensitive diode area. If that wasn't the case, then there wouldn't be any point whatsoever in having BSI technology in the first place!

 

[Malte_P]

yawn.....