Where the heck is the 70D or 7D mkII?

[wickidwombat]

I would only disagree that the 6D IQ will surprise people...unless those people actually expect it to be much better than any other Canon sensor. Canon has not yet demonstrated an improved manufacturing process, so it is doubtful that the 6D sensor will be radically changed in any way.

The Canon exec in the Photokina interview in some other thread already stated that the 6d sensor uses the same tech level as the 5d2/5d3 sensor, so there won't be any positive surprises here - it's really a 5d2 in a smaller 60d-like body updated to current manufacturing processes like digic5.

I find this perplexing. Comments on this site and others from 5DIII users have led me to believe that the 5DIII shows some significant improvements over the 5DII in noise levels at higher ISOs. So, when you say the 6D uses "the same tech level as the 5DII/5DIII sensor" which sensor are you talking about?

the 5dmk3 definately has more pleasant noise which has a highter tollerance to noise reduction
at face value the 5Dmk2 and mk3 files look not that much different in terms of quantity of noise however
the 5Dmk3 files have significantly more latitude in post processing both in terms of sharpening and noise reduction. While a completely untouched RAW file of the 5Dmk2 at iso 100 will apear a tiny bit sharper than the 5Dmk3 file when viewed at 100% the 5Dmk3 file can be edited beyond the boundarys that the 5Dmk2 files can
this is why shooting up to ISO 16000 and even 25600 (if converting to B&W) on the 5Dmk3 is perfectly fine and produced great images where as 6400 on the 5Dmk2 is about the limit

 

[gmrza]

So, no...the 6D sensor will not really bring any kind of major sensor fabrication improvements to the table. Canon has experimented with and prototyped sensors on a 180nm Cu wiring fabrication process. Their 50mp APS-H and the 120mp APS-H both used a 180nm process. They have prototyped 180nm sensors that make use of high refractive index lightpipe technology for higher Q.E. that approaches the performance of BSI sensor designs. Based on the 120mp press releases, it even sounds like they have some kind of CP-ADC technology. But they have not yet put any commercial-grade high-volume sensor fabrication on those processes yet (god only knows why...if they don't do so soon, they will really be in a competitive bind.) Regardless, it is highly, highly doubtful that the 6D will offer any kind of major IQ improvements over anything on the market today, and it most likely will use the same 500nm process as every other Canon sensor released in the past decade.

For these reasons, I will be intrigued to see what Canon's next APS-C sensor looks like. I have my doubts that Canon can get anything more out of the current 500nm process. I suspect that any significant improvement in Canon's APS-C sensors would require a move to a newer process.
I have my doubts that we will see anything being announced before February or March next year, so we probably still have a while to wait before we see Canon play its hand.

What I suspect would be a likely approach from Canon is to move its APS-C sensors to a new process - possibly next year, while it carries on using the 500nm process for full frame for another 3 years or so, until the 1DX and 5DIII are replaced. That would probably be done in order to achieve the required manufacturing costs.

 

[dlleno]

... I have my doubts that Canon can get anything more out of the current 500nm process. I suspect that any significant improvement in Canon's APS-C sensors would require a move to a newer process.
I have my doubts that we will see anything being announced before February or March next year, so we probably still have a while to wait before we see Canon play its hand.

What I suspect would be a likely approach from Canon is to move its APS-C sensors to a new process - possibly next year, while it carries on using the 500nm process for full frame for another 3 years or so, until the 1DX and 5DIII are replaced. That would probably be done in order to achieve the required manufacturing costs.

That theory does square, in my opinion, with the fact that 7D2 rumors are quiet, while the 7D1 ages mercilessly, and yet Canon has already introduced a new crop sensor in the t4i. What will be interesting to see, should this come to pass, is what IQ level can be acheived, how it compares with the current FF lineup, and what we might learn (by implication) regarding what Canon's future acheivements in future FF sensors.

on that topic, what if the FF 46mp monster and the new 7D2 crop sensor are based on the same process?

 

[wickidwombat]

on that topic, what if the FF 46mp monster and the new 7D2 crop sensor are based on the same process?

I bet it is

 

[jrista]

Noise quality at high ISO is also determined by physics. The random "grainy" nature of 5D III ISO is primarily driven by the physical nature of light. It has far less to do with the electronic makeup of the sensor itself. Lower read noise might help the nature of noise at ISO 800, maybe ISO 1600 (MAYBE), but at high ISO, statistically speaking, the 5D II, 5D III, 1D X, D800, D600, etc. should all pretty much exhibit THE SAME kind of noise for an identical scene...as the hardware at ISO 1600+ really has very little to do with noise characteristics.

Thanks for the great explanation and insight, jrista! The only remark I have is that despite your theory that @iso1600+ these sensors should produce the same noise the raw samples I looked at show the more film-like pattern of the 5d3 vs. 5d2, an observation not only I have made?

But they have not yet put any commercial-grade high-volume sensor fabrication on those processes yet (god only knows why...if they don't do so soon, they will really be in a competitive bind.)

God might not know why, but marketing does - it's called "planned obsolescence" and means that you should time and stretch innovations so that users always find a reason to get a new product, either because the new one is better in some way (5d2->5d3: body, 5d3->5d4: sensor) or the old one simply breaks and repair is almost as expensive as a new product (most other electronics like lcd displays). Only fierce competition can prevent this method from getting too impudent - go Nikon, go!

Well, factually speaking planned obsolescence is really only an assumption and in some respects more of a myth (I don't know of any actual evidence that companies truly follow the concept of "planned obsolescence"...I've only ever known it to be more of a "conspiracy theory" kind of thing.) A company can also only really apply the notion of planned obsolescence in a market relatively free of competition. In a highly competitive environment, such as the digital camera market, conforming to the business ideal of planned obsolescence is more likely to make your involvement in that market segment obsolete, rather than simply your products. Canon is currently still the top DSLR dog, and in general the top digital camera dog as well, from a pure sales standpoint so they still have some wiggle room left. From a technological standpoint, almost EVERY SINGLE ONE of Canon's camera releases this year (except the 1D X) has been rather dull and lackluster, garnering a considerable amount low enthusiasm responses from their actual or potential customers, while competitors are wowing and wooing with some very impressive technology across the board (technical defects and issues, like the D800 AF and yellow LCD problems aside.)

Soon enough, though (few years probably at most), external competitive forces are going to do one of two things to Canon: Either force them to innovate more and get ALL of the technology used in their product offerings "up to snuff", or cost them significant market share due to a generally inferior product line. The kinds of improvements, such as low read noise, that have found their way into Sony's CMOS sensors are unlikely to stay there...they could be applied to, say, AF sensors, metering sensors, etc. (possibly allowing operation in EXTREMELY LOW light...say EV -5, -7?) It is also unlikely that we have seen the last of that scale of improvement in CMOS image sensor technology. BSI has been relegated to P&S cameras, but it has the potential of allowing near-micron pixel pitches even in FF sensors. High Refractive Index LightPipe technology can extend the life of FSI sensors down to around 2 micron pixel pitches. CP-ADC combined with active cooling could reduce read noise to fractional electron levels opening an even larger door for extreme DR (especially when combined with 16-bit ADC, we might see 15.9 stops of real-world photographic DR.)

There are a lot of improvements still to be made to digital image sensor technology. Some would say Canon is simply incapable of using a smaller fabrication process, and are stuck at 500nm without choice. I believe Canon has the ability to move off of a 500nm process to a modern 180nm process, although there are certainly logistical hurdles to overcome. I do not believe Canon can survive and try to follow a "planned obsolescence" model in the face of increasing and progressively intensifying competition from their competitors, though...so they will either have to stop prototyping and start developing technology, or eventually fade into oblivion. (Of course, the entire market segment might fade into oblivion if the worlds economic problems can't be reversed...and there doesn't seem to be any sign of hope on the horizon for the EU, China, nor the US.)

 

[dlleno]

on that topic, what if the FF 46mp monster and the new 7D2 crop sensor are based on the same process?

I bet it is

and the natives are restless for want of information!

 

[Marsu42]

Well, factually speaking planned obsolescence is really only an assumption and in some respects more of a myth (I don't know of any actual evidence that companies truly follow the concept of "planned obsolescence"...I've only ever known it to be more of a "conspiracy theory" kind of thing.) A company can also only really apply the notion of planned obsolescence in a market relatively free of competition.

This is only true if the lifespan of a product is a factor in the buyer's purchase decision - and for cheaper electronics, it isn't. Only very few people will ask "Will it be repairable after 3 years" when buying an lcd display, it's not even about power consumption (= hidden costs), it's really 90% of the time about the stickers on the front of it like xyz-ready.

I recently read an article about these tv lcd products, it's not just the features that are obsoleted by new standards, but these things are build so that parts that *will* break at prolonged use are needlessly so tightly integrated that you can only replace the whole circuit board - if that is available as a repair part at all. And have a look at your electronics @home - often they aren't designed to be repairable, not even to be opened at all.

Planned obsolescence is no conspiracy theory, but an economical concept from the 50s by reputable scientists to keep the economy running. And it does however positive or negative one thinks this is, though at the cost of higher drain on natural resources because recycling doesn't really work and needs energy that is limited atm.

Dslrs are a borderline case because they aren't cheap, but if I'd run a company I'd make sure my marketing people would have new features available for some time in the future instead of putting all eggs in one basket.

 

[jrista]

Well, factually speaking planned obsolescence is really only an assumption and in some respects more of a myth (I don't know of any actual evidence that companies truly follow the concept of "planned obsolescence"...I've only ever known it to be more of a "conspiracy theory" kind of thing.) A company can also only really apply the notion of planned obsolescence in a market relatively free of competition.

This is only true if the lifespan of a product is a factor in the buyer's purchase decision - and for cheaper electronics, it isn't. Only very few people will ask "Will it be repairable after 3 years" when buying an lcd display, it's not even about power consumption (= hidden costs), it's really 90% of the time about the stickers on the front of it like xyz-ready.

I recently read an article about these tv lcd products, it's not just the features that are obsoleted by new standards, but these things are build so that parts that *will* break at prolonged use are needlessly so tightly integrated that you can only replace the whole circuit board - if that is available as a repair part at all. And have a look at your electronics @home - often they aren't designed to be repairable, not even to be opened at all.

Planned obsolescence is no conspiracy theory, but an economical concept from the 50s by reputable scientists to keep the economy running. And it does however positive or negative one thinks this is, though at the cost of higher drain on natural resources because recycling doesn't really work and needs energy that is limited atm.

Dslrs are a borderline case because they aren't cheap, but if I'd run a company I'd make sure my marketing people would have new features available for some time in the future instead of putting all eggs in one basket.

Well, if it was an economic concept from the 50's, I'm not sure it still applies, at least not broadly, today. Just about every device and appliance in my home can be opened in the event I want to repair them. My TV, a Samsung, came with a fairly long warranty, and even outside the warranty I can have a tech come to my house for an on-site repair. I've had the TV for...going on six years now? Thing still operates beautifully, it has never once had even a glitch, it's color is as vibrant as ever. I keep it clean, regularly dusting and vacuuming its vents.

All the other appliances in my home are original...they were installed in 1997 and 1998. I've only had ONE repaired...the drum fan of my AC unit seized up, and it only cost $230 (including labor) to have it replaced. The thing should function for another decade at this point, and it was also tuned up to maximum efficiency (so I can avoid wasting additional time, money, energy, and other resources buying a new-fangled and supposedly more "energy efficient" model that would actually have a large carbon footprint (new materials for the new unit + old materials for my old unit that would need to be disposed of) requiring multi-year carbon amortization to "pay off" and finally result in a lower overall carbon footprint due to the supposed improvement in efficiency.)

I have never really experienced this whole "planned obsolescence". The only realistic story I'd ever heard of it involved light bulbs. Supposedly bulbs with a tungsten filament are only supposed to last about two years. The only time I've ever had a tungsten burn out is when it was jostled too much. When I purchased my house three years go, all of the lighting was original except for two flood lamps in the ceiling. The rest were about 11 years old. Only last year did I replace all of them, however that was more to move to CFL and LED bulbs with much cooler color temperatures (I AM a photographer after all, and one who prints his own work...always hated the deep orange color of tungsten...4100K lighting is so much better for viewing photography.) Same deal goes for my father, who has owned his home for about 15 years. Aside from one flood light in one of his ceilings, every tungsten bulb is original and by modern rating standards "ancient". I have a hard time believing planned obsolescence, even if it was a real thing in the past, is still today. Of course, I don't generally guy bottom of the barrel "cheap" either...I invest money in quality products with the expectation that my money will be well spent over a very long product lifetime (i.e. over decades).

Rather than "planned obsolescence", I just figure on "you get what you pay for".

 

[Marsu42]

Of course, I don't generally guy bottom of the barrel "cheap" either...I invest money in quality products with the expectation that my money will be well spent over a very long product lifetime (i.e. over decades).

Then you're indeed not affected by products with built-in "planned obsolescence", these only affect products with the big stickers like "best price"... but this is a high-volume market like cheap mobile phones (I once tried to get a working one out of two broken phones, forget it, they are carefully build to be non-user serviceable and all parts are integrated for no apparent reason other than to save a few cents).

 

[jrista]

...they are carefully build to be non-user serviceable and all parts are integrated for no apparent reason other than to save a few cents).

Other than to potentially save hundreds of thousands or even millions of dollars. If you sell fifty million phones, and save five cents a phone by using smaller parts that can be integrated more efficiently, you just saved yourself 2.5 million dollars. Like I said, its not so much "planned obsolescence" these days as it is "you get what you pay for". Businesses, by definition, are designed to make money. The more money a "company" makes, the more benefit the people working for them. Companies are simply that..."people in company", and they do what they do to fuel the needs and sometimes the wants of their lives. Saving money on your products gives you the opportunity to improve the quality of your own life as well as the lives of the people you employ, or even better, capitalize business growth, which in turn increases the number of people you can employ, the salaries you can pay them, the benefits you can offer them.

I'll grant that every once in a while a corporation comes along run by truly evil people who have no interest in anything but lining their own pockets. (i.e. Enron comes to mind, as does US West Telco/Qwest a number of years ago, AT&T in decades past, etc.) But that is the rarer occurrence, and in general the above holds true for most companies in most business sectors.

Saving a few pennies per phone is actually a critically important factor in a competitive world. The "cheap" is not as intentional as it is a necessity. On the flip side, buying something cheap is quite explicitly intentional and a matter of choice. If you don't like the rapid obsolescence of a cheap product, you always have the option of buying something better...better built, evaluated with better quality assurance, and usually priced higher...but, you get what you pay for. Quality and longevity cost. For that matter, if you are concerned about the environment and truly have the desire to reduce your carbon footprint, you consciously decide that and your spending on manufactured products reflects as much. Instead of saving money instantly at the cost of carbon, you amortize your cost and save carbon.

 

[dlleno]

getting back to the original topic: I suspect one reason we haven't heard more about the 7D2 is that Canon is trying to protect holiday sales, and may announce something soon into 2013. They've telegraphed the big MP FF (to keep people from jumping to Nikon I suppose) but they have not telegraphed anything re: the 7D2

 

[x-vision]

They've telegraphed the big MP FF (to keep people from jumping to Nikon I suppose) ...

Canon hasn't telegraphed anything.

The 46mp figure is derived by scaling the resolution of the 7D/60D sensor to FF:

• 18mp * 1.6 * 1.6 = 46.08mp

Not sure who thought that this was a good idea but it looks like wishful thinking to me.

40mp would be much more palatable, for example.
A 40mp sensor will be able to achieve UHD video resolution (3840 × 2160) with 2x2 pixel binning.
Canon is already doing 2x2 pixel binning on the 5DIII for HD video (hence the magic number 22mp).
And it would only make sense if they do the exact same thing on a high-MP camera.
This would require a 40mp sensor, though, not a 46mp sensor.
So, 40mp is actually more likely than 46mp for the high-MP camera.

The 46mp figure is not only not telegraphed by Canon but it's also a very weak [CR0] rumor.