What will be coming from Canon and when ?

What will be  coming from Canon?
The sensor from Canon is almost good as from Sony/Toshiba etc. Canon are little bit behind in QE with 50% compare to the best Toshiba 65% Sony 56%.
The DR problem starts when Canon reads out the signal from the sensor ,  Canon have long analog signal path way. And this shows at base iso with high read out noise, pattern noise banding and therefore 11-11,7 stops DR compared to others like Sony with 14 stops and even little more.
More Mp-when?

To use the latest APS line and make a 24x36mm sensor with the same structure as the 18Mp sensor in 7d will be expensive and time consuming because APS line will be occupied, Canon has no steppers, lenses to expose a 24x36mm area in one time with smaller geometry/scale as its needs for a new sensor tech as Sony, Toshiba, Panasonic with for example column wise ADC on-board the chip. Canon can stitch the sensors but also that is time consuming and costly
Canon has neither the whole assembly in house, the turn themeselves to Fujitsu
Compared to Sony who has 5-7 lines and down to 90nm (and even smaller) Canon has two older lines.
It is no coincidence that Canon tell us that it is enough with 20-22Mp when Canon has no equipment to go down in the scale/ geometry which is required if they are going to compete with new tech and higher resolution in larger sensors

--
Member of Swedish Photographers Association since 1984
Canon, Hasselblad, Leica,Nikon, Linhoff, Sinar
President of IARNA International anti-banding and read out noise Association

Huh???

--
Colin Smith

Canon uses old, obsolete technologies for their sensors. Read this comment by Fazal Majid

Until a couple of years ago, roughly up to the 5DmkII, Canon sensors were better (the D3 had better low-light performance, at the cost of far fewer pixels). They rested on their laurels and opted not to update their fab and are still building their sensors on 0.5 micron technology, when Sony is using 0.18µ technology. This means the transistors used to read photon data take more surface area, space that cannot be used for actually capturing pixels and thus improving SNR.

For more details, see:
http://www.chipworks.com/blog/technologyblog/2012/10/24/full-frame-dslr-cameras-canon-stays-the-course/

This comment was in response to a blog post by Philip Greenspun (creator of Photo.net) that discussed this issue (Philip owns Canon equipment and wasn't too thrilled when he learned how poorly Canon sensors rate on DxOMark.) Here is Philip's blog post:

http://blogs.law.harvard.edu/philg/2013/01/18/independent-analysis-of-dxomark-sensor-tests/

Back to the Chipworks teardown. Canon is an using old .5 µm process, while Sony and Toshiba have advanced to .25 µm and .18 µm processes. This is what Fazal is talking about. And what Mikael is referring to.

Wayne

All that you say may be true. Sensor technology is continuing to evolve, and the sensors we built in our own lab showed the same improvements, sometimes dramatic, with each new generation using better equipment. Before we stopped doing this, we reached QE of above 90% throughout much of the wavelength regions of greatest interest- near UV to NIR- and read noise of below 2 electrons, approaching the ultimate of what is possible. Sensors used in consumer cameras throw away a lot of light (the color filters are one noteable place) and could be improved a fair amount more in actual performance, but they are already quite spectacular compared to film. People in the high tech industry don't like to play catch-up, but prefer to jump over what others are using in their advances. This inevetably leads to alternating between being followers and leaders (if you are good at it.) Will Canon modernize-advance- their own equipment or start buying sensors elesewhere if they feel the need to jump forward again? Are they losing customers because of their current tachnology. Of course I can't speak for others, but I recently went through a lengthy comaprison of the Nikon D800 and the Canon 5D III and picked the canon as the better camera for me inspite of the older sensor technology.

The question is how much that the difference between the "old" Canon technology from those  made by Sony and others affects a photographer's ability to get the images he or she wants. If that extra stop or two of dynamic range and lower read noise is essential or important for what you do while actually taking pictures for their own sake, not for "laboratory" anaylsis, don't buy Canon. I have been unable to detect any pattern noise or banding in my last two Canon cameras. It may be there, but if it is, it's below the level of being equivalent to 2-3 detected photons, and I simply never use such low S/N images taken with my camera that this is of any significance. So the question for the buyer realy is not what technology was used for making the sensor, but is its performace satisfactory for the buyer's needs. Each buyer has to decide that individualy.

Of course all of the above is just about sensors, but there is a lot more to a camera's performance than its sensor. Considerations of ergonomics, lens quality, focus accuracy, quickness of response, etc., all are important in considering which camera to buy.

Joe

My guess is that the reason for the comment is that Mikael's stuff can be hard to read sometimes if you don't already know what he is trying to say.  Un like many of us he is not thinking in the same language he is writing in. The first paragraph, though, is an accurate presentation of the current situation (I guess that means: I agree with it). Canon's sensors are good, probably as good as any of the competition, but their system implementation (sensor + readout circuitry) is no longer up to snuff compared to the competition.  This puts them at a performance disadvantage at the low ISO end for those to whom that is important.

Thanks for those two links; I hadn’t seen the second one.

--
Flickr: http://www.flickr.com/photos/26158506@N07/

They are already competing quite well.

Whilst there are some who may care, many of us don't as we get brilliant images from the existing sensors.

I'm sure Canon have their plans - I'm also sure no-one here who knows them will be allowed, nor would they bother, sharing the information with you. In fact, it's pretty pointless and slightly thick of you at ask. Or are you simply attempting to stir the pot (ie. trolling)?

I think you are a little out of line here schmegg!!!!!!

In responce to Mikael Risedal though, the natural disasters that hit Japan did impact upon Canon and have set them back.... But they are working on getting a new fabrication plant up and running stay tuned i am sure they will bounce back... after all they have upgraded many a fine lens to take advantage of some future improvements.

--
With regards
Shane
http://www.australianbirds.net.au

Not to mention quality control and general reliability, both areas where Canon handily bests the competition.  Now that I have a remedial understanding of Mikael's post (sorry Mikael - it is hard enough for me to have a technical discussion in my own native language), the most important point for photographers is does the performance meet their expectations?  My 5D III more than meets my needs.  Comparing camera brands on barely discernable sensor differences or technology is a really poor way to make a brand selection.  At least for me.

--
Colin Smith

Once Canon starts losing significant sales to competition, they'll start worrying about it.

For years Nikon's high speed sports camera was the D2h which was noisier than Canon's original D30, even at ISO 400. When I run marathons, most of the photographers on the route are still using this terrible camera (and the slightly better D2hs) and making money with it selling us painfully noisy images that are barely usable for postcards. Apparently being behind the competition for years isn't that big of a deal in this industry.

Not fewer pixels if you compare 1dmk3 and the signal noise was better than both 1dmk3 and 1dmk4

--
Member of Swedish Photographers Association since 1984
Canon, Hasselblad, Leica,Nikon, Linhoff, Sinar
President of IARNA International anti-banding and read out noise Association

Well, this is not 2004 any longer and  canon can not hide  that they are behind regarding sensors developments and  what is the probability that Canon would have better research  than Sony, Aptina, Omnivision, Panasonic, Renesas, Toshiba  etc etc?

NONE

So where are my next  high resolution Canon camera? I have many L lenses waiting.

--
Member of Swedish Photographers Association since 1984
Canon, Hasselblad, Leica,Nikon, Linhoff, Sinar
President of IARNA International anti-banding and read out noise Association

Well, first you need to prove that the Canon's .5 µm process produces sensors inferior to those made with .25 µm or .18 µm processes.

In computer chips, such as CPUs,  decreasing the width of the line (=transistor gate) ptinted equates to more transisotrs per square mm and therefore more, and faster, processing options.

Show me some (any..?) direct correlation between the process used in manufacturing of CMOS sensors and their photographic "quality" (note the quotes.)

go to http://www.sensorgen.infoor DXO sensor rankings http://www.dxomark.com/index.php/Cameras/Camera-Sensor-Ratings

or here http://home.comcast.net/~nikond70/Charts/PDR.htm

--
Member of Swedish Photographers Association since 1984
Canon, Hasselblad, Leica,Nikon, Linhoff, Sinar
President of IARNA International anti-banding and read out noise Association

I have read it.  Have you?

Where does it say that these sensors are better becasue of the manufacturing process?

they have higher QE , Sony 56% , Toshiba 65% compared to Canons 50%

they have better read out, lower read out noise and better DR.

this is little  fun, the DX crop in a d800 compared to 7d  and DR

--
Member of Swedish Photographers Association since 1984
Canon, Hasselblad, Leica,Nikon, Linhoff, Sinar
President of IARNA International anti-banding and read out noise Association

You can read that out FWC , QE and read out noise.  DR

--
Member of Swedish Photographers Association since 1984
Canon, Hasselblad, Leica,Nikon, Linhoff, Sinar
President of IARNA International anti-banding and read out noise Association

That's true but there are absolutely no reasons why a 50 nm process chip cannot deliver the DR, readuot noise, etc.  of an 18nm process chip:  it is all in the design and I tend to agree that in the design department Canon has been busily shooting itself in the foot with a variety of high-power weapons.

As for the process itself, Canon provides components for 20 nm lines so the fact they it has stuck to the 50 nm process for its own lines must have reasons other than pure manufacturing technology.

I think I agree with Joe, Colin and Schmegg. I've personally evolved from the 20D through all three of the 5Ds -- each of the 5d versions as soon as they started the market. I like to see progress, but on the other hand, we've reached a range in camera technology where we're arguing over inches or millimeters, not feet or meters.

I shoot pictures, not test charts or other things to establish things like the Dynamic Range. Not as much as I used to when I was more capable of shooting everyday without thinking about it. Now I  have to think about how I feel. Which is not to say I don't stay relatively current with things like HDR, etc.  That's quite a stretch for someone who grew up on Tri-X, and films that while capable of producing brilliant images, just didn't have the technical range of today's digital gear. Today's 5DIII far exceeds the abilities of the 5D or even the 20D,yet I have no complaint about the image quality.

As far as that goes, I find myself using an s100, a Fuji x-100, a Leica M-9P and assorted other gear, not at the same time obviously. The s-100 is a go anywhere camera, it's also unobtrusive as is the Fuji X-100. The Leica is a fully manual hunk with a rather old sensor that produces absolutely gorgeous, sharp images. (I collect Leica film cameras, among others).

It was a Canon ~21 megapixel camera that was first considered to have exceeded the quality of film. There were probably others around the same time, but generally, most of the major products today are far exceeding film capability in most ways. Just not having to haggle at airport security before they fog the film is a bonus.

Canon Sensors? They've redesigned each generation to maximize the technology. There's nothing wrong with the 5D2 (now my backup) but the Mark 3 is a serious improvement in multitudes of ways. Canon doesn't boast of it, but they have used Sony sensors for the s90-s110 series (I can't be sure which).  Leica, which is a little kinky at times, used a Kodak designed sensor for their M-8 camera, the one for the M-9 was designed especially for the camera (but by who?). The M9 has a relatively limited ISO range etc., but damn it makes fine images.

I sometimes drag out some of the old film gear in my collection, in particular plate cameras (using sheet film), and find satisfaction in those rare images that are such a pain to process and then scan.

Having worked as a pro a few decades back, I have to wonder how many working now actually benefit substantially from some of the "great advances" we see people chattering about. I don't denigrate those advances. But as one one example, going from 4fps (roughly the second generation Nikon film drives) to 10 fps for sports still leaves you (shooting at a mere 1/1000, not the routine 1/4000) still leaves you 990/1000s of a second in which you could be missing the action peak. This isn't a joke. It's a serious conversation in some quarters about when to start the motor, my view is anticipate the peak and go, but not before.

Right now, I'm looking for refinement, good menus simplified for advances, handling and, yes, weight. I'd be glad to see wider DR and other improvements, but it's time we stopped pretending that the advances (whether by Canon, Nikon or Sony - name it) are somehow lagging. They're targeting markets, not specs. the 5D became the wedding camera for a reason and what's funny is that it might not have been entirely planned.

What I would like to do is to stop spending x number of marks or dollars ever 30 months -- I'd like to see a plateau reached because they're limited for the time being. As it is, it's become a bit like throwing a camera out because it only handles plus x, not tri x.

And the majority of cameras and lenses at any world sporting event are what? Canon? I don't know, but they're doing something right.

and yet canon continues to outsell nikon and gain market share..canon will be fine...i'm nikon guy

--
nikonshooter