The real problem with Canon sensor technology?

[traveller]

Everyone is raving about the BSI sensor on the A7r ii; whilst it is yet another visible step forwards in Sony sensor technology, I don't think that the much vaulted BSI is really such a game changer. It's been said by others before, but the fill factor advantage isn't nearly as important on full frame -certainly not the 2 stops Sony marketing would have you believe. Nevertheless, the chance to use a high-res Exmor sensor with decent AF on an EF mount adapter and IBIS (yet to be independently confirmed) is very tempting if you are already considering the 5DS(R).

We keep thinking that Canon will catch up with "the next EOS body" and getting disappointed when performance fall short of our hopes. My concern is that Canon will always be behind the curve because they simply don't produce enough sensors to justify the level of R&D and process updates that Sony (or even Samsung) can invest in. Last year Canon sold fewer than 6.5 million DSLRs1 (i.e. cameras that utilize their own sensors) compared to 74.5 million2 iPhones (using Sony sensors) in just the last quarter of 2014.

It is the needs of small sensors that are driving the R&D efforts of the chip makers these days and Canon simply isn't in that game.

1http://www.dpreview.com/articles/5928296460/canon-q4-earnings-report-shows-camera-sales-are-down
2http://www.businessinsider.com/apple-holiday-quarter-2014-iphone-sales-2015-1

 

[Mt Spokane Photography]

The market for image sensors is gigantic and growing rapidly. Smart phones as you said, but Sony believes every car will have not only a backup camera, but a lane camera on each side, a face recognition camera to unlock doors, another to unlock the ignition, automatic adjustment of the seat (done now by key code), the last I read was that they had identified seven areas to push for sensors in a car.

The same goes for homes and appliances. Face Recognition appliances will be sold as safety enhanced devices, since children can't start them, the list of potential uses is endless, some are frivolous, some seem practical. Thinking up the next big must-have use for one, and getting into business ahead of the competition will make a few more billionaires.

DSLR sensors by quantity are hardly a blip quantity wise, but profit wide, they still bring in $$$ as the small sensors sell for pennies.

 

[KBStudio]

We keep thinking that Canon will catch up with "the next EOS body" and getting disappointed when performance fall short of our hopes

My sentiments exactly! With as much as I have invested in Canon hardware, jumping to a new platform is almost ridiculous. However, I did purchase a A7r/Metabones rig. I stopped shooting with my Canon bodies and used the A7r exclusively for personal work. I created work arounds for the AF issues and found I actually enjoyed going back to the Manual focus days. The IQ is amazing and that is what I am truly after. The rest helps get there but without IQ what is the point? So now the A7r II. This might cause a liquidation of Canon bodies. If and do repeat IF, the Metabones adapter AF can perform close to the native Canon bodies I am sold, again. I held my breath that the 7DMII would be a game changer, nope. I had hoped the next body would have the IQ of the A7r, juries is still out but online postings do not impress. So will Canon disappoint with the 5DM4? I love and will keep my 5DM3, IQ issues or not. I believe that Canon has the ability but not the will to deliver a high DR and high IQ combination. I do not see that in the 5DSr. Just shoving a whole lot of pixels at the problem does not seem to compete. IMHO

 

[Marsu42]

So will Canon disappoint with the 5DM4? I love and will keep my 5DM3, IQ issues or not.

The 5d line is designed for all-round shooting up to pro level, and in the latter case "just works" beats and gadgets or difference in specs by far. If you're under time pressure, bump gear around or need it repaired you cannot care less about what the competition has, you simply want *your* gear to perform adequately. The 5d4 will sell no matter what Canon puts into it.

It's different for amateur-enthusiasts though having more time and money on their hands. They'll love what Sony rolls out next if you get used to their usability and evf.

I believe that Canon has the ability but not the will to deliver a high DR and high IQ combination.

That's the big question no one 'round here can answer, after all some sensor tech esp. for low iso dr is patented by Sony et al. And Canon doesn't seem to be willing to license core tech for their central "money making" products.

I do not see that in the 5DSr. Just shoving a whole lot of pixels at the problem does not seem to compete. IMHO

Depends on the problem. If you don't need highest dr at low iso (or are ok with bracketing), the 5ds of course is a stellar camera body. That's esp. as it's based on Canon's designs of decades and will show no quirks unlike the latestest and greatestest from Sonykon. And Canon won't replace it with the next model next year, protecting your investment.

In comparison to a *real* tech advancement like a faveon sensor vs. old-school bayer, the differences are still minor. You have to be prepeared to pay Canon's prices though, but it seems many people are.

 

[KBStudio]

Depends on the problem. If you don't need highest dr at low iso (or are ok with bracketing), the 5ds of course is a stellar camera body. That's esp. as it's based on Canon's designs of decades and will show no quirks unlike the latestest and greatestest from Sonykon. And Canon won't replace it with the next model next year, protecting your investment.

Funny the no quirks comment. 7DMII AF issues? Light leaks on 5DMIII viewfinder.... All fixed but so are most problems with other makes. Sad to see the "Sonykon" reference. Only thing in common is the chip.

Unlike most, I have 22 years of shooting digitally as a studio photographer. I think, humbly, that I can see the difference between each chip's performance. The body may be a pain to work with, and many were, but again the bottom line was and is IQ. That is what the clients pay for, at least part of what they pay for.

Bracketing is a work around for low DR. When shooting dynamically, bracketing is not an option. Need to get it in one exposure. Static shots can have greater DR with bracketing but wouldn't be nice getting all in one?

As for the frequency of updates being a bad thing. Why is one losing on improvements that help create a better product for the client?

 

[Deleted member 91053]

I have not noted any "Problems" with current Canon sensors, though I have noticed problems with other systems that use other sensors. The sensors are not the problem it's the cameras and the lenses.
For my photography there are only 2 suitable systems, namely Canon and Nikon. I couldn't care less what the others are doing as they simply do not make the gear required for wildlife (small and often moving quickly) photography.
A little while ago I had the opportunity to play with some Nikon gear and having read how wonderful the Nikons were with their sensors that were years ahead I had to give them a go! So glad that I did as I am now even happier with my Canon Gear. Admittedly I only tried 2 lenses (current Nikon 300 F2.8 and 500 F4 VR models) on the D800E and D4 cameras. Very nice they were too - but still behind my 1DX and Canon lenses.
The sensor is only one part of the system and not always the most important.

 

[Loswr]

The sensor is only one part of the system and not always the most important.

Blasphemy! The Exmorites will brand you as a heretic and burn you at the stake...

EDIT: with the a7RII, they'll be able to capture detail in the flames and boost the shadows to see the expressions of glee on the onlookers' faces.

 

[Mt Spokane Photography]

Sometimes, people have to actually purchase a camera to learn that a camera is a different thing than a spec sheet written by a PR writer.

 

[alliumnsk]

Everyone is raving about the BSI sensor on the A7r ii; whilst it is yet another visible step forwards in Sony sensor technology

Probably the main "game changing" behind BSI sensor is that Sony can now make smaller lenses. Unfortunately this has yet to be seen.

 

[jrista]

Everyone is raving about the BSI sensor on the A7r ii; whilst it is yet another visible step forwards in Sony sensor technology, I don't think that the much vaulted BSI is really such a game changer. It's been said by others before, but the fill factor advantage isn't nearly as important on full frame -certainly not the 2 stops Sony marketing would have you believe.

Couple of things. First off, full frame or not, BSI has nothing to do with frame size. It has to do with pixel size. As pixels shrink, the value of BSI on large sensors will become increasingly apparent. At 42.4mp, BSI is going to bring some improvement to the table. I don't think two stops (not sure where Sony actually said that...), but it isn't a meaningless improvement either.

More importantly, Sony has stated on a few occasions that the primary reason they moved to BSI was not to gain sensitivity, but to reduce pixel-induced vignetting due to the short flange distance and high angle of incidence with the mirrorless design. With FSI designs, wiring and transistors stand off the sensor substrate, above the photodiodes, by a fairly significant (at that scale) amount. With mere millimeters from the back of the lens, the angle of incidence for light anywhere outside of the center of the sensor is high, and extremely high in the corners.

That causes an additional source of vignetting, induced by the pixels themselves, blocking light, rather than any lens characteristic. (And, it compounds with any lens vignetting). By moving to BSI for these large sensors, there is nothing to block light from reaching the photodiodes in each pixel. You have a layer of microlenses, layer of color filters, another layer of microlenses, and the photodiode. The overall height is very low (again, at that scale, a tiny fraction of the physical pixel depth that an FSI sensor has). No pixel induced shading.

That is huge for the corner and midframe performance of Sony cameras. That is the primary reason they moved to BSI.

 

[9VIII]

We keep thinking that Canon will catch up with "the next EOS body" and getting disappointed when performance fall short of our hopes.

I think a lot of people completely blacked out what this industry was like (or never learned it) before 2012.
(For my personal perspective, I didn't know what "SLR" meant until 2012, so I'm a newb, but it only takes a few minutes looking at Wikipedia to get an impression of what the market was like. And I remember news articles screaming bloody murder that the 1Ds3 has too many pixels).

-Nikon waited almost five years to release a full frame sensor after Canon did.
-Before 2008 the 5D was the only enthusiast level body on the market.
-Before 2012 the 5DMkII was the only enthusiast level full frame body with more than 20 Megapixels (that is, there were two enthusiast cameras: The D700 and the 5D2).

Big picture: Nikon had a head start in 1999 with the D1 and then from 2001-2012 they were playing catch-up. Not to mention the degree to which Canon is behind in technology is rather small compared to "APS-C vs. Full Frame" or "Not having an enthusiast body vs. Having an enthusiast body".
I think Canon has a little more wiggle room than people give them credit for.

 

[Hillsilly]

Luckily Canon will purchase Sigma soon, pump some money into R&D and we'll all be shooting with enhanced Foveon sensors. Those Sony chaps won't know what hit them.

 

[Don Haines]

We keep thinking that Canon will catch up with "the next EOS body" and getting disappointed when performance fall short of our hopes.

I think a lot of people completely blacked out what this industry was like (or never learned it) before 2012.
(For my personal perspective, I didn't know what "SLR" meant until 2012, so I'm a newb, but it only takes a few minutes looking at Wikipedia to get an impression of what the market was like. And I remember news articles screaming bloody murder that the 1Ds3 has too many pixels).

-Nikon waited almost five years to release a full frame sensor after Canon did.
-Before 2008 the 5D was the only enthusiast level body on the market.
-Before 2012 the 5DMkII was the only enthusiast level full frame body with more than 20 Megapixels (that is, there were two enthusiast cameras: The D700 and the 5D2).

Big picture: Nikon had a head start in 1999 with the D1 and then from 2001-2012 they were playing catch-up. Not to mention the degree to which Canon is behind in technology is rather small compared to "APS-C vs. Full Frame" or "Not having an enthusiast body vs. Having an enthusiast body".
I think Canon has a little more wiggle room than people give them credit for.

It takes a dozen things to make a good camera system. Canon is behind on one. People tend to forget that they are ahead on the other 11.....

 

[unfocused]

It takes a dozen things to make a good camera system. Canon is behind on one. People tend to forget that they are ahead on the other 11.....

But, are they really "behind" by any significant amount. I keep hearing about these magical Sony sensors, but have yet to see any magical game-changing pictures they produce. And, in fact, when I go to sites that test these things, I see only marginal, almost inconsequential differences at lower ISOs, and even those differences disappear very quickly as ISO goes up.

I also keep reading about how Canon sensors aren't improving. Yet, I read comments from reviewers and real-live buyers of cameras saying they are shocked at how good the 5Ds is at even higher ISOs. Then, I bought a 7DII to try it out for sports and have been stunned myself at how much better the high ISO performance is on the 7DII compared to the 7DI and how close it is to my 5DIII.

Invariably, when people claim Canon is "behind" they are talking about one metric and only one metric – Dynamic range at low ISO. Would I like a little more dynamic range. Yes. In fact, it would help me professionally because my work often requires that I shoot in less than ideal conditions.

I'm not one who argues that more dynamic range is only needed by those who don't know how to expose (although there is a fair amount of that going on). I am often in situations where I can't control the light and have to take what I can get. So, yes, more dynamic range would be nice. But, one of the marks of being a professional is being able to come back with usable images regardless of the conditions and a situation where the range of light exceeds the capability of any camera's sensor is only one example of the challenges one might face and in fact, it's one of the least significant challenges I tend to encounter.

Everyone is raving about the BSI sensor on the A7r ii;

Who is everyone? I'm not. I could not care less what Sony does.

We keep thinking that Canon will catch up with "the next EOS body" and getting disappointed when performance fall short of our hopes.

That's utter baloney. Canon cameras consistently perform above their specs.

People whined about the 6D. Until it got into buyers' hands. Then, you began reading comments from owners about how much better the camera was than expected.

I can personally attest to how the 7DII outperforms expectations.

The 5DIII continues to be a true workhorse for pros who buy their own equipment and need an all around performer at a reasonable price.

If Canon was so disappointing, they wouldn't sell as many cameras as they do.

You may be disappointed, but you need to accept that you are in a tiny, tiny minority. And, you might ask yourself why you are disappointed when so many others are not.

My concern is that Canon will always be behind the curve because they simply don't produce enough sensors to justify the level of R&D and process updates that Sony (or even Samsung) can invest in.

Volume is only important if it translates into profit and investment. Sony has struggled to be profitable. Canon has consistently earned profits. Sony claims to be making a significant investment in sensor development, but we don't know how much of that is aimed at cell phone sensors and other specialty items.

Canon's recent announcements regarding sensor development focused on extremely high ISO performance and sensors with extremely high resolution would indicate they are investing a substantial portion of their revenue into research and development. Canon's game changing DPAF also demonstrates that the company not only invests in sensor research and development, but that they are capable of bringing those improvements to market.

 

[jeffa4444]

Before the darts fly I've constantly upgraded my Canon equipment and have no intention of changing.
However Sony are definitely leading the field in sensor development and contrary to statements here there sensor business is very profitable.
BSI is definitely the future for all the reasons Jirsta states and more but the one area Sony needs to work on is the color science of processing their images they are renown for issues with Reds & flesh tones. Canon are much better at processing the image signals as are Arri in cinematography. But the most common mistake too many people make is treating cameras & lenses as something entirely different to optimise performance they should be matched for optimising resolution and color rendition through coatings and glass types again Canon gets this right more times than wrong and the new 35mm prime with closer attention to lateral cromatic aberrations is a point in question and plays directly to the higher MP sensors and more demanding lens performance.

 

[Don Haines]

It takes a dozen things to make a good camera system. Canon is behind on one. People tend to forget that they are ahead on the other 11.....

But, are they really "behind" by any significant amount.

And to really be fair, with the things they are ahead on, are they really ahead by any significant amount?

and concerning sensors and quantum efficiency, the 7D2 at 59% is HIGHER than any other Canon DSLR, HIGHER than ALL the current Nikon DSLRs, and Sony only beats it with the A6000 (61%) and the A7s at 65% (Sorry A7 and A7r)..... but the read noise is worse almost across the board....

We are headed towards convergence. The differences between brands are shrinking.....

 

[benperrin]

BSI is definitely the future for all the reasons Jirsta states and more but the one area Sony needs to work on is the color science of processing their images they are renown for issues with Reds & flesh tones. Canon are much better at processing the image signals as are Arri in cinematography.

This has changed with the a7r2 and a7s2. Both have much more accurate colour than their predecessors. Sony are certainly making some good strides forward with their sensor technology but like Don says they are still behind on many things.

 

[Aglet]

The real problem with Canon's sensor tech is that it is good enough for the large majority of people who use it. There's little to complain about regarding other aspects of their system .. tho I'd like to see someone list 11 of those key points. (Don, up to the challenge?)

If people are buying the product in the numbers that they do, there's little to warrant the investment in improving that last aspect of it because it'll cost them.
It's taken them years to produce the latest line of bodies that no longer exhibit excesssive FPN. They had a very low FPN character back in the days of Digic 2 and 3 bodies and likely only required a better power supply, shielding and board design to improve over the stripey mess of the Digic 4 products.

The company is, like any other major corp, all about generating profit. Max return on investment. They ARE very good at that in their camera game.

Seems like every other mfr decided to prioritize image quality as the main thing and that's where we find relatively better sensor performance. There are those who value better image quality above the few (not necessarily 11) other points which Canon are good at, after all, image quality is what a camera is about.

Everything is a pile of trade-offs, pick the balance that works for you.
For many of us there are better options than Canon's. And there's nothing magical about Canon lenses, other than they have a lot to choose from. (As do Nikon & Pentax since they maintained high mount compatibility for many decades)

So what is Canon really good at, other than convincing people to buy their products?..
IMO, only 2 related things; camera ergonomics and system user interface. (earlier flash controls were horrid). And maybe service & support for those who regularly break their toys.
That doesn't sound like much of a technical leader to me, just a market leader that's riding their momentum and still capable of bringing in many new customers because they have built a nice intuitive and easy to learn user interface... Altho Pentax and Panasonic are very good in that area too.

Canon. Nuthin' special. Good enough for the masses. (The K-cars of the camera world?)
/mild_rant

 

[scottkinfw]

I have and love my 5DIII, and gaggle of L lenses.

I am waiting to update to the next (hopefully 5DV).

I read comments, opinions, spec sheets, and look at sample pics, etc.

It seems to me that there are a lot of strong opinions, even propaganda flying around right now. It serves, imo, to just confuse my upgrade path. It becomes difficult to sort out opinion from fact.

For me, give me a bit better iq, better focusing, and a few other things, and I 'll be happy. How much more of these will it take- good question, I don't know.

For people who are sure that the future of sensors or cameras are somehow fixed, I say, my crystal ball is broken and I don't see that at all.

I think this is an exciting time for cameras, though a bit scary too.

I eagerly await Canon's next 5DIV and 1DXII offerings. For financial reasons, I hope that the IV I will be awesome enough to meet my dreams, or I will likely go for the 1DXII.

Sony may be in some way "the future of sensors" as it is, perhaps bought out, or who knows. Who also knows what new sensors are in the pipeline but are "top secret. The future we seem to be so sure of may not look anything at all like we expect.

Just a reality check.

sek

 

[Deleted member 91053]

Canon. Nuthin' special. Good enough for the masses. (The K-cars of the camera world?)
/mild_rant

Good enough for the masses? So, by implication, Canon's pro gear is only good enough for the masses too?
Having used some of the best that Nikon can offer (no others make comparable gear) I thought they were quite good for non serious use. Unfortunately the owners of the Nikon Superteles and "PRO?" bodies I was trying were using my Canon gear in the meantime, oh dear they were FAR from happy! What use is the wonderful sensor of the D810 if it can't focus until the subject has moved? What use is the better high ISO of the D4/D4S when you have clunky AF tracking and sub Canon lenses?
The mid range Nikon bodies definitely have advantages over some Canons, but when you hit the 7D2/5D3 level or higher then things start to alter quite a bit. As to Nikon long lenses? Well I hope the, just released 500 & 600 lenses, are comparable to Canon equivalents as their predecessors were mediocre at best. Having used Nikon gear I feel for their customers who shoot anything other than fairly static subjects with short lenses.
Just my experience - but what do I know? I have only used the gear.