"What Should Canon and Nikon Do?"

Marquee · Aug 14, 2014

Canon should depart from the idea that a DSLR is a finished finely honed product, but instead create a DSLR that is essentially a platform that can be customised and upgraded both from software and hardware perspectives. The camera should have an OS that allows apps in the form of specific photographic features to be uploaded to the camera, allowing the user to have just the features they want and much greater choice about what those features are.

Mercedes and BMW had for may years aftermarket customisers of their vehicles such as Alpina and AMG and eventually bought those companies and augmented their vehicle range. Canon should embrace the concept of groups like Magic Lantern and make it possible for features that they or others produce to be formally uploadable via necessary security processes. Canon via their software development contracts do not have the ingenuity or are constrained by their marketing department to develop features like the magic lantern people and the greater population worldwide of potential developers.

Taking the concept further, why not have a camera with a processing platform capable of operating at 150 Megapixels / sec and offer different plug in sensors tailored to particular types of photography (a bit like Ricoh a few years back). A low res sensor for high speed capture with high ISO for instance, or a high res low speed capture sensor operating only to 1600 ISO with greater DR and colour fidelity. Plus of course an all rounder sensor.

The point is, developing a new camera clearly takes a long time in a world where the demand for upgrades is insatiable. It is becoming increasingly difficult to offer a product that can cater for all users at the cutting edge of those users specific technology requirements. Therefore Canon should not try to do this but offer a platform with modular options and a more open approach to niche software solutions that clearly benefit specific needs of the end user.

Mark

meland · Aug 14, 2014

Marquee said:
Canon should depart from the idea that a DSLR is a finished finely honed product, but instead create a DSLR that is essentially a platform that can be customised and upgraded both from software and hardware perspectives. The camera should have an OS that allows apps in the form of specific photographic features to be uploaded to the camera, allowing the user to have just the features they want and much greater choice about what those features are.

Mercedes and BMW had for may years aftermarket customisers of their vehicles such as Alpina and AMG and eventually bought those companies and augmented their vehicle range. Canon should embrace the concept of groups like Magic Lantern and make it possible for features that they or others produce to be formally uploadable via necessary security processes. Canon via their software development contracts do not have the ingenuity or are constrained by their marketing department to develop features like the magic lantern people and the greater population worldwide of potential developers.

Taking the concept further, why not have a camera with a processing platform capable of operating at 150 Megapixels / sec and offer different plug in sensors tailored to particular types of photography (a bit like Ricoh a few years back). A low res sensor for high speed capture with high ISO for instance, or a high res low speed capture sensor operating only to 1600 ISO with greater DR and colour fidelity. Plus of course an all rounder sensor.

The point is, developing a new camera clearly takes a long time in a world where the demand for upgrades is insatiable. It is becoming increasingly difficult to offer a product that can cater for all users at the cutting edge of those users specific technology requirements. Therefore Canon should not try to do this but offer a platform with modular options and a more open approach to niche software solutions that clearly benefit specific needs of the end user.

Mark

Canon produced something along the lines of what you are suggesting back in 1981 with the New F-1. This was a modular professional SLR on which many components could be exchanged - motor drives, viewfinder heads, film backs, focussing screens, etc.

Of course at that stage the software / firmware was rather primitive by today's standards and there was certainly no provision for upgrading it.

It was a great product at the time but it had its disadvantages. It was heavy, could not be that well sealed against dust and moisture and crucially was expensive to build and service. The EOS-1 Series that followed were in practice better cameras and less expensive.

What you are suggesting sounds attractive but consider what allowing a sensor upgrade would involve in terms of the associated processing circuitry. Added to which cameras today are actually quite cheap and part of this is because they are manufactured very efficiently in large quantities. Potentially compromising the design to allow a few people to satisfy their niche interests / requirements would make the basic camera more expensive for the rest of the people who don't have those requirements. Unlike your Alpina and AMG examples, which have no impact on the factory cost of the basic doner vehicle, this would. And I'm not sure the majority of the market would be prepared to pay the cost.

SmoothGlass · Aug 14, 2014

rrccad said:
SmoothGlass said:

rrccad said:

Stephen787 said:

rrccad said:

Stephen787 said:

canon sensor is going downhill. They are limited by their lithography tool, which over the year became in-competitive compare to rivals.

Click to expand...

canon now has state of the art sub 10nm lithography equipment. not to mention canon does not even use any of their KrF process Lithography systems for their sensors (to date).

Member said:

Sony use an European build lithography tool.

Canon refuse to use the european build lithograpy tool, because canon also make their own tool, but now just outdated technology.

So you have sony, nikon, olympus, fujifilm using sony fab that use world most advance lithography tool, and canon camera using their own outdated lithography tool to make sensor.

Click to expand...

hmm i suspect you know absolutely nothing about what you are talking about.

Member said:

It is downhill trend.

Time to move on.

Click to expand...

maybe you should.

Click to expand...

no one for sensor fab is using top of the line latest and greatest lithography systems for sensors.

What a load of BS.

Make me LOL.

Click to expand...

really? so let's see how many fabs are using 14nm processes? 20nm? 40nm? oh right. NO ONE.

I believe sony is JUST starting to use 90nm for cellphone sensors - that's like 6-8 years old now? 180nm is more common - that's 10 to 15 years old?

canon's current lithography is 90nm - which is far beyond anything used in APS-C or FF sensors to date.

LOL indeed.

Click to expand...

Compared to CPUs and even GPUs, image sensors are very simple and do not have as pressing of a need for smaller nodes. That said, image sensors have been at 90nm for years now. For instance the Sony RX100 is 90nm copper BEOL: http://www.imagesensors.org/Past Workshops/2013 Workshop/2013 Papers/01-1_006_Fontaine.pdf

Click to expand...

90nm is relatively new for image sensors. no full frame sensor right now in production uses anything less than 180nm.

as stated in that pdf: "The manufacturing trend for FF devices is to move off the mature 0.35 µm and 0.25 µm technology generations down to 0.18 µm design rules for Sony"

the D800 36Mp sensor is 180nm.

design rules have gone down to 45nm for smaller sensors (panasonic and sony uses 65nm i think) but none of them are within this forum or even the SLR / ILC landscape. 1" sensors and below.

which invalidates the comment the latest and greatest of lithography systems are used for sensors.

even 90nm is 5 years old, 45nm even is a full generation behind. 95nm is three geneartions? 180nm which is leading full frame sensor tech is what? 4 to 5 generations back?

as they say:

It has been the good fortune of the image sensor industry to have lagged the state-of-the-art of semiconductor device manufacturing by more than a generation.

If anyone said image sensors use the latest and greatest that is not true. I certainly did not make any such claim. I don't think anyone is seriously arguing that image sensors are at 14nm or anything.

The article I cited to is a little out of date btw. Not sure what A7 series uses, probably still at 180nm is my guess. Full frame simply doesn't benefit as much since their pixels are so much bigger. APS-C is down to 65nm in some cases already. Canon's non-DualPixel APS-C is still at 500nm AFAIK. Smartphone cameras' image sensors get priority for smaller node sizes since their pixels are so small to begin with. They also get stuff like BSI since it makes more a difference for smaller sensor sizes.

Image processing also matters.. even if image sensor hardware stayed exactly the same, the processing engines have improved. A combination of hardware and processing has given modern APS-C sensors an image quality comparable to, or even better than, the Canon 5D. Compare the Nikon D5100/7000 samples to the Canon 5D samples for instance, they aren't that far apart. Take the image quality of the very best full frame today, and wait 5-10 years and you get it in APS-C thanks to node shrinks and better processing. Up to a (quantum) limit, of course.

rrccad · Aug 14, 2014

SmoothGlass said:
rrccad said:

SmoothGlass said:

rrccad said:

Stephen787 said:

rrccad said:

Stephen787 said:

canon sensor is going downhill. They are limited by their lithography tool, which over the year became in-competitive compare to rivals.

Click to expand...

canon now has state of the art sub 10nm lithography equipment. not to mention canon does not even use any of their KrF process Lithography systems for their sensors (to date).

SmoothGlass said:

Sony use an European build lithography tool.

Canon refuse to use the european build lithograpy tool, because canon also make their own tool, but now just outdated technology.

So you have sony, nikon, olympus, fujifilm using sony fab that use world most advance lithography tool, and canon camera using their own outdated lithography tool to make sensor.

Click to expand...

hmm i suspect you know absolutely nothing about what you are talking about.

SmoothGlass said:

It is downhill trend.

Time to move on.

Click to expand...

maybe you should.

Click to expand...

no one for sensor fab is using top of the line latest and greatest lithography systems for sensors.

What a load of BS.

Make me LOL.

Click to expand...

really? so let's see how many fabs are using 14nm processes? 20nm? 40nm? oh right. NO ONE.

I believe sony is JUST starting to use 90nm for cellphone sensors - that's like 6-8 years old now? 180nm is more common - that's 10 to 15 years old?

canon's current lithography is 90nm - which is far beyond anything used in APS-C or FF sensors to date.

LOL indeed.

Click to expand...

Compared to CPUs and even GPUs, image sensors are very simple and do not have as pressing of a need for smaller nodes. That said, image sensors have been at 90nm for years now. For instance the Sony RX100 is 90nm copper BEOL: http://www.imagesensors.org/Past Workshops/2013 Workshop/2013 Papers/01-1_006_Fontaine.pdf

Click to expand...

90nm is relatively new for image sensors. no full frame sensor right now in production uses anything less than 180nm.

as stated in that pdf: "The manufacturing trend for FF devices is to move off the mature 0.35 µm and 0.25 µm technology generations down to 0.18 µm design rules for Sony"

the D800 36Mp sensor is 180nm.

design rules have gone down to 45nm for smaller sensors (panasonic and sony uses 65nm i think) but none of them are within this forum or even the SLR / ILC landscape. 1" sensors and below.

which invalidates the comment the latest and greatest of lithography systems are used for sensors.

even 90nm is 5 years old, 45nm even is a full generation behind. 95nm is three geneartions? 180nm which is leading full frame sensor tech is what? 4 to 5 generations back?

as they say:

It has been the good fortune of the image sensor industry to have lagged the state-of-the-art of semiconductor device manufacturing by more than a generation.

Click to expand...

If anyone said image sensors use the latest and greatest that is not true. I certainly did not make any such claim. I don't think anyone is seriously arguing that image sensors are at 14nm or anything.

yea someone did .. stephen back a page. that was where this went off on a tangent

see the quoted text "So you have sony, nikon, olympus, fujifilm using sony fab that use world most advance lithography tool, and canon camera using their own outdated lithography tool to make sensor." even canon's "outdated" KrF processes run at 90nm which would be fine and dandy and pretty much leading edge for aps-c and ff image sensors. (only one sensor to date made at the 65nm process)

SmoothGlass said:
The article I cited to is a little out of date btw. Not sure what A7 series uses, probably still at 180nm is my guess. Full frame simply doesn't benefit as much since their pixels are so much bigger. APS-C is down to 65nm in some cases already. Canon's non-DualPixel APS-C is still at 500nm AFAIK.

highly unlikely. canon trailed 2um pixels on APS-C/H sized sensors on 180nm processes. it's doubtful they are using 500nm. they were using it for full frame though as up to the 5D series.

however to be fair .. i believe sony was still using for 24Mp FF senor the 250nm process which also includes the D4 and A7 and A900 sensors.

the difference isnt' that vast as some like to make it.

if canon nanotechnologies can get working with image sensors (I think they are focusing on next generation memory though) then it would blow the doors of current image sensor design and costs - as canon could make an image sensor in one pass - of any size including a full 60mm x 45mm medium format sensor as the entire wafer is done on a single pass for lithography. of course there's more needed to that, but it would certainly be a credible step in the right direction.

Jonathan Brady · Aug 14, 2014

Agreed. Fun in theory. But completely impractical in terms of cost.

macky patalinghug · Aug 14, 2014

rrccad said:
macky patalinghug said:

Drew83076 said:

Hi folks,

With many of you that own both DSLRs and mirrorless systems, what would you like to see in future camera development and technology?

Click to expand...

I think they will continue to co-exist.

Member said:

I have absolutely no affiliation with thecamerastoretv. I'm just a guy that's been struggling with the decision to maintain or sell my wonderful (but heavy) DSLR system or fully comment to mirrorless. I've got about 15 years with a camera brand (brand not important) and I'm more excited with the mirrorless offerings than traditional DSLRs despite their capabilities (but I am tempted).

Click to expand...

My 6D and D90 are still about 2 notches above in responsiveness compared to X-M1.

Member said:

I know some of you won't make the switch (and that's perfectly fine), but what would you like to see from the top 2 camera manufactures?

Click to expand...

Many things but only for me not for other buyers. Among them are:

1. Nikon to come up with an entry level DSLR s that will meter with AI lenses.

2. Canon to come up with new versions of 6D. One that will be smaller and cheaper still than the current one. Another one that will be pretty similar with the current model but with the 5dmk3's AF.

Click to expand...

a full frame SL1 would be pretty sweet actually.

Full frame SL1 would be awesome.

If I were a film crazy guy who would want to recapture that old shooting experience of say the 60s and the 70s I would be a bit disapointed with DF hype. They didn't cripple it enough. For me to get a real high w/ the DF it should not have an AF and an LCD screen but I might add a wi-fi so I can see the capture on my smart phone in case if I had strong doubts that I didn't get it right and know if I have to take another shot with the proper adjustments.

rwbaron · Aug 14, 2014

SmoothGlass said:
rwbaron said:

Unexpresivecanvas said:

Stephen787 said:

canon sensor is going downhill. They are limited by their lithography tool, which over the year became in-competitive compare to rivals.

Sony use an European build lithography tool.

Canon refuse to use the european build lithograpy tool, because canon also make their own tool, but now just outdated technology.

So you have sony, nikon, olympus, fujifilm using sony fab that use world most advance lithography tool, and canon camera using their own outdated lithography tool to make sensor.

It is downhill trend.

Time to move on.

Click to expand...

Sensor technology is only one aspect of the camera technology: there are autofocus and image processing engines, which canon is still is among the most advanced.

Also sensor development is a two horse race. One moment Sony will be ahead and then another company will come with a breakthrough and will keep the lead until the competitor comes with something else.

I don't see a downhill trend, as despite the criticism, Canon sensors of 4 years ago still perform very well. Just look at the results from the Canon 6D, 5D III and 1Dx. Sooner or later Canon will release the new technologies they have been working on for the last 4 years. It is not a static world.

And what kind of litography tool is Pentax using for their own sensors?

Click to expand...

Pretty certain that Pentax sources their sensors from Sony too.

There are several things at play here, the sensor and the ADC which is important to differentiate and also RAW files vs JPEG's. In very basic form the sensor is the device that collects photons and converts their value to an analog signal and the ADC is the circuitry that converts the analog signal to digital. Think of RAW files as being like negative film that need to be processed to obtain a satisfactory image and JPEG's as slide film that are pretty much used as is out of camera.

For the vast majority of images captured with DSLRS Canon's IQ is every bit as good as the competition. The pro market consisting of PJ's and sports shooters is dominated by people shooting JPEG's and Canon's JPEG's are excellent so this group has little to no issue with Canon. There is another group that shoots RAW but doesn't do a lot of heavy processing to their files and they too are fine with Canon's IQ. It's the RAW shooters that like to push the limits of their RAW files where Canon's ADC design (not sensor) shows some warts.

Canon's base sensor (the silicon) is from what I understand some of the best available but it's their off-chip ADC implementation that becomes an issue at low ISO's as far as read noise. Sony moved to an on sensor column-parallel ADC implementation years ago and that affords them very low read noise of which the benefit is realized at low ISO's. At mid to high ISO where read noise is not an issue Canon's better sensor design evens the score and even takes a slight lead in some cases.

Point being if you shoot only JPEG's it doesn't matter. If you do shoot RAW but rarely push your files in the shadow areas it doesn't matter. If you shoot RAW and push the limits of the capabilities of your RAW files it matters and can matter a lot at low ISO's. Certainly the last category is the smallest group of people shooting with DSLR's overall but for them Canon has a serious weakness.

Bob

--
http://www.pbase.com/rwbaron

Click to expand...

You were doing great in the post above right up until the end. In-camera HDR and dynamic range boosters do take advantage of more DR, even for JPEGs. That said, photojournalists/sports photographers often shoot at higher ISOs, where Canon and Sony sensors are basically tied. The catch-up point varies depending on the cameras in question but IIRC it's somewhere around 1600 or 3200 ISO.

Not sure I understand your point. I've worked with multi-frame HDR with Canon's DPP with my 7D but admit I don't have a camera with the function built in. I don't see how that would make a difference for JPEG's as the frame used for the shadows is the one with the hottest exposure so the shadow noise and banding are not an issue. The highlights are used from the frame with the lowest EV but the shadows are then clipped and not seen. I've done many 3 frame blends with DPP and never does the ugly shadow noise of my 7D show up in the final result as there's no boosting of any of the frames exposure in the process. When I do this and then take only the highlight frame (lowest EV) and boost the shadows in LR they're pretty ugly. I also have a Fuji XT1 with in-camera DR boost but I've never played with it. The Fuji's shadows are pretty clean anyway so I've never found a need to do so.

I agree that for PJ's and sports shooters at higher ISO the Canon files are just fine whether OOC or RAW.

Bob

--
http://www.pbase.com/rwbaron

rwbaron · Aug 14, 2014

meland said:
Marquee said:

Canon should depart from the idea that a DSLR is a finished finely honed product, but instead create a DSLR that is essentially a platform that can be customised and upgraded both from software and hardware perspectives. The camera should have an OS that allows apps in the form of specific photographic features to be uploaded to the camera, allowing the user to have just the features they want and much greater choice about what those features are.

Mercedes and BMW had for may years aftermarket customisers of their vehicles such as Alpina and AMG and eventually bought those companies and augmented their vehicle range. Canon should embrace the concept of groups like Magic Lantern and make it possible for features that they or others produce to be formally uploadable via necessary security processes. Canon via their software development contracts do not have the ingenuity or are constrained by their marketing department to develop features like the magic lantern people and the greater population worldwide of potential developers.

Taking the concept further, why not have a camera with a processing platform capable of operating at 150 Megapixels / sec and offer different plug in sensors tailored to particular types of photography (a bit like Ricoh a few years back). A low res sensor for high speed capture with high ISO for instance, or a high res low speed capture sensor operating only to 1600 ISO with greater DR and colour fidelity. Plus of course an all rounder sensor.

The point is, developing a new camera clearly takes a long time in a world where the demand for upgrades is insatiable. It is becoming increasingly difficult to offer a product that can cater for all users at the cutting edge of those users specific technology requirements. Therefore Canon should not try to do this but offer a platform with modular options and a more open approach to niche software solutions that clearly benefit specific needs of the end user.

Mark

Click to expand...

Canon produced something along the lines of what you are suggesting back in 1981 with the New F-1. This was a modular professional SLR on which many components could be exchanged - motor drives, viewfinder heads, film backs, focussing screens, etc.

Of course at that stage the software / firmware was rather primitive by today's standards and there was certainly no provision for upgrading it.

It was a great product at the time but it had its disadvantages. It was heavy, could not be that well sealed against dust and moisture and crucially was expensive to build and service. The EOS-1 Series that followed were in practice better cameras and less expensive.

What you are suggesting sounds attractive but consider what allowing a sensor upgrade would involve in terms of the associated processing circuitry. Added to which cameras today are actually quite cheap and part of this is because they are manufactured very efficiently in large quantities. Potentially compromising the design to allow a few people to satisfy their niche interests / requirements would make the basic camera more expensive for the rest of the people who don't have those requirements. Unlike your Alpina and AMG examples, which have no impact on the factory cost of the basic doner vehicle, this would. And I'm not sure the majority of the market would be prepared to pay the cost.

I remember too that Canon did something unusual with their super tele's in I believe the FL lenses prior to FD. They had a focusing unit where different focal length modules could be attached. You could take one focusing unit and then 2 or 3 different FL's and supposedly save cost, weight and bulk if memory serves me. I don't think it was well received though.

Bob

--

Galleries by Robert W. Baron

www.pbase.com

David Hull · Aug 14, 2014

rrccad said:
Stephen787 said:

rrccad said:

Stephen787 said:

canon sensor is going downhill. They are limited by their lithography tool, which over the year became in-competitive compare to rivals.

Click to expand...

canon now has state of the art sub 10nm lithography equipment. not to mention canon does not even use any of their KrF process Lithography systems for their sensors (to date).

Member said:

Sony use an European build lithography tool.

Canon refuse to use the european build lithograpy tool, because canon also make their own tool, but now just outdated technology.

So you have sony, nikon, olympus, fujifilm using sony fab that use world most advance lithography tool, and canon camera using their own outdated lithography tool to make sensor.

Click to expand...

hmm i suspect you know absolutely nothing about what you are talking about.

Member said:

It is downhill trend.

Time to move on.

Click to expand...

maybe you should.

Click to expand...

no one for sensor fab is using top of the line latest and greatest lithography systems for sensors.

What a load of BS.

Make me LOL.

Click to expand...

really? so let's see how many fabs are using 14nm processes? 20nm? 40nm? oh right. NO ONE.

I believe sony is JUST starting to use 90nm for cellphone sensors - that's like 6-8 years old now? 180nm is more common - that's 10 to 15 years old?

canon's current lithography is 90nm - which is far beyond anything used in APS-C or FF sensors to date.

LOL indeed.

What are you talking about? My company and many others are routinely making SoC's in 28nm, 40nm is considered routine and the next generation Cable Modems (for example) will be built on 14nm (the DSP anyway), the RF probably will remain at 28nm. INTC has 14 up and running. Nobody has anything running any volume at 10nm as far as I know (maybe the memory guys have that up and running -- they are generally on the bleeding edge). However, there are some big downsides to pushing the node down and no one will do it if they don't need to.

So you want a list of fabs running those nodes? TSMC, UMC, Global, Silterra, Intel, TI,..... All of these have at least 28nm on-line and producing high volume production.

Drew83076 · Aug 14, 2014

Marquee said:
Canon should depart from the idea that a DSLR is a finished finely honed product, but instead create a DSLR that is essentially a platform that can be customised and upgraded both from software and hardware perspectives. The camera should have an OS that allows apps in the form of specific photographic features to be uploaded to the camera, allowing the user to have just the features they want and much greater choice about what those features are.

Mercedes and BMW had for may years aftermarket customisers of their vehicles such as Alpina and AMG and eventually bought those companies and augmented their vehicle range. Canon should embrace the concept of groups like Magic Lantern and make it possible for features that they or others produce to be formally uploadable via necessary security processes. Canon via their software development contracts do not have the ingenuity or are constrained by their marketing department to develop features like the magic lantern people and the greater population worldwide of potential developers.

Taking the concept further, why not have a camera with a processing platform capable of operating at 150 Megapixels / sec and offer different plug in sensors tailored to particular types of photography (a bit like Ricoh a few years back). A low res sensor for high speed capture with high ISO for instance, or a high res low speed capture sensor operating only to 1600 ISO with greater DR and colour fidelity. Plus of course an all rounder sensor.

The point is, developing a new camera clearly takes a long time in a world where the demand for upgrades is insatiable. It is becoming increasingly difficult to offer a product that can cater for all users at the cutting edge of those users specific technology requirements. Therefore Canon should not try to do this but offer a platform with modular options and a more open approach to niche software solutions that clearly benefit specific needs of the end user.

Mark

Maquee,

I can't begin to tell you how much I've learned in all the discussions thus far. A lot of amazing ideas have been generated and that includes yours. I like the idea of a modular interchangeable sensor system. I didn't know Canon created and sold a system very similar to what you described in the '80s. That was enlightening. A lot has changed since then and I'd say a refresh of an old concept is worth considering. Someone mentioned the challenges of the processing power that's needed for a sensor swap. Maybe the processor could be included with the plug and play sensor unit. I know all of this may sound far fetched, but the possibilities seem limitless with todays tech. Anyway, I really enjoyed your (and everyone's) input. Very interesting, thanks!

Happy shooting,

Drew83076 · Aug 14, 2014

Bob,

Great find. I had no idea Canon produced such a modular system. That was very innovative for the '80s. Thanks for sharing, very cool!

Stephen787 · Aug 15, 2014

Hold on a minute, i never mention 14nm.

I said the european lithography system used to make sensor is more advanced than canon own system. Therefore Sony able to make better sensor.

It is the person who disagree with that, throw 14nm around.

Basically i said, Sony a japanese company use a european system, which is more advance than japanese tool to be able to make a better sensor. That all.

And CD width is not only parameter of a good lithography system. There are other parameters for chip maker.

Canon refusal of using a european tool, will make their future sensor incompetitive.

meland · Aug 15, 2014

rwbaron said:
I remember too that Canon did something unusual with their super tele's in I believe the FL lenses prior to FD. They had a focusing unit where different focal length modules could be attached. You could take one focusing unit and then 2 or 3 different FL's and supposedly save cost, weight and bulk if memory serves me. I don't think it was well received though.

Bob

aftab · Aug 15, 2014

Unexpresivecanvas said:
aftab said:

What should Canon and Nikon do? This is a hard one to answer. I am sure clever brains in Canon and Nikon HQ with much better knowledge (market trends, technology etc.) than we posses are scratching their heads and pondering the same question.

Lets have a look at this.

Its not quite a doomsday scenario for Camera manufacturers, but it is not too far.

Some people here suggested that Canon and Nikon should invest more in mirrorless because that's the future. That's what a lot of people thought back in 2010 and they made some predictions (Graph at right upper corner). See how miserably they failed. I am sure there are many reasons why people didn't adopt mirrorless as was expected. One of them would be that Canon and Nikon wasn't too serious about it (for obvious reasons). After all, Canon and Nikon still decide what majority of the people buy when they are buying a serious camera. Other brands are either too small or just video game and TV makers, not a camera company. For now at least mirrorless is a niche market and without Japan it would be dead by now.

Canon and Nikon have two major problems to overcome.

1. Poor worldwide economy

2. Smartphone

They can't do much about #1

They can try doing something about #2. At the moment their (and other companies) approach seems like making small fixed lens cameras which have features smartphone can't match, such as better IQ with larger sensor, better zoom, waterproofing etc.

Canon and Nikon know that their DSLR sales are down not because of mirrorless or smartphone, but because of world economy and the maturity of their products. Think about it, lots of people with D700 or 5DII have no incentive to upgrade. For them higher pixel count or improved DR don't mean much. They can still make excellent pictures with their current cameras.

At the end it is not going to be Fuji or Sony who will determine the future of camera market and its survival and relevance in the changing world of photography in the age of internet, facebook and instagram; it is going to be Canon and Nikon, at least for foreseeable future. Their market will always be those who want more than what smartphone can deliver. For them they will have to introduce some revolutionary technology with regard to sensor, lens, flash and connectivity. Before that they need to do enough to keep existing users happy with incremental upgrades.

--
https://www.flickr.com/photos/catch45/

Click to expand...

Nice colorful charts but they just show what happened in the past.

Thanks, but chart is not mine.

Past is not something to ignore, right conclusion or lesson should be drawn and that maybe the hard part.

Unexpresivecanvas said:
I tend to disagree with the notion of a "cameralyptic". so many pundits were wrong when they dismissed the american car industry. Is easy to show stats during the crisis and stick with current situations.

Notion is not cameralyptic. Notion is that current camera and sensor technology are pretty much mature. This and the fact that world economy and cellphone are working against cameras (we are talking about camera in general, not just ILC) has made life extremely difficult for cameras. Digital age brought cameras to the mass and now the same mass has turned to cellphone for taking and sharing pictures. Monkey faced selfie is thousand times more popular and cooler than a well conceived portrait. Have a look at this:

https://www.flickr.com/cameras/

Only camera that is putting up any fight is venerable Rebel T3i

Unexpresivecanvas said:
But the market for high end cameras to me it seems it may expand. I am shocked about the huge number of very young people in my photography groups using high end Nikon, Canon and the new E-mount Sony cameras. And I am talking about amateur photographers using Canon 1Dx, Nikon D4s, Sony A7r.

There is no reason to believe that market for cameras like 1Dx or D4s will expand. Their market is fixed and limited. There maybe few amateurs who use these cameras, but their number would be extremely small (both hold positions below #20 in their respective lineups). For this reason Canon and Nikon don't make money on them.

Unexpresivecanvas said:
Then, there are at least six potential sources for growth:

1. technological replacement. People moving up from current cameras. In this scenario, manufacturers can growth through innovation.

I don't think we have discounted innovation. We are just saying that incremental upgrade won't be enough. This year so far both Canon and Nikon have sold less cameras than they did last year in the same period and last year already was a bad year in the sense that for the first time in many years DSLR sales dropped in 2013.

Unexpresivecanvas said:
2. Demographics. The world population continues to expand at 1.9% a year. This is the natural growth for each market: entry level, medium level, high end or advanced level.

How do we know this 1.9% won't become selfie generation?

Unexpresivecanvas said:
3. More disposable income in the BRIc countries: Brazil, Rusia, India, China and other emerging markets where the new middle class can afford luxury items the previous generations never heard about.

This is camera companies' best hope short of some new and fresh direction to lure people to cameras and make them upgrade regularly.

Unexpresivecanvas said:
4. despite the whole communications industry changing and evolving, there is a growing need for images and documentary. The information society is also an image society.

Camera companies need to put cameras in the hands of masses, not imaging industry, to remain profitable and relevant as they were few years ago.

Unexpresivecanvas said:
5. replacement due to obsolescence: people that needs to replace the gear: specialty professional photographers and news agenciesécorporations.

D90 is 6 years old and 5DII is 5 years old. They are Nikon and Canon's #2 cameras.

https://www.flickr.com/cameras/nikon/

Loading…

www.flickr.com

How many more years it will take them to become obsolete? Most people don't 'need' to replace gears. In last 10 years or so camera companies made people believe that they did, but it is becoming harder and harder to sell this concept. To remain profitable camera companies need people to replace gears every 2-3 years and that is not happening. More than 3 years after its release and despite multiple upgrades T3i is still Canon's best selling camera. And 4 years after its release most D7000 users think there is no need to upgrade, it remains Nikon's most popular camera.

Unexpresivecanvas said:
6. New markets and micro segments: MILC will become a segment per se, with its own dynamics. Full Frame dslr may continue to advance, not as fast as in the past but it wil innovate: wi-fi, geo-tracking and geo-coding, wider DR, better focus capabilities, low light performance, etc.

Both DSLR and MILC will have to change direction dramatically as well as innovate. Hope it happens.

Unexpresivecanvas said:
The advancements in entry level models and cell phones won't impact the industry significantly in the long run. People with no time, little interest in photography that gets satisfied with a cell phone never will buy a DSLR anyways. Then, this is a market that never existed for dslr. It is the same for example for me: I hate mostly everything related with water. i never will buy a sailboat , a kayak or even a vest life Does it matter for the nautical industry? not at all, I am not part of that market. For example, in my family all my siblings love photography, except my younger sister. There is nothing in the world that will make her buy a dslr or even a P&S. There are so many DSLR models lying around our places and she never touches a complex camera. Does it matter for the whole industry that people like her only enjoys using a cell phone for snapshots? I don't think so.

I also believe that there will always be people who will look beyond Cellphone, GoPro and Google Glass to take pictures. But the fear is that their number is shrinking rapidly. Unless there are fresh ideas cameras will never enjoy the popularity they did 5 years ago.

Unexpresivecanvas said:
Then, all this thing about the cameralyptic I think is getting overstated. The industry goes over adjustment cycles, as any other industry, but I believe there is potential for growth in new markets, new segments, new applications, and the population growth and income growth in developing economies.

--

Catch45

Explore Catch45’s 200 photos on Flickr!

www.flickr.com

rrccad · Aug 15, 2014

David Hull said:
rrccad said:

Stephen787 said:

rrccad said:

Stephen787 said:

canon sensor is going downhill. They are limited by their lithography tool, which over the year became in-competitive compare to rivals.

Click to expand...

canon now has state of the art sub 10nm lithography equipment. not to mention canon does not even use any of their KrF process Lithography systems for their sensors (to date).

David Hull said:

Sony use an European build lithography tool.

Canon refuse to use the european build lithograpy tool, because canon also make their own tool, but now just outdated technology.

So you have sony, nikon, olympus, fujifilm using sony fab that use world most advance lithography tool, and canon camera using their own outdated lithography tool to make sensor.

Click to expand...

hmm i suspect you know absolutely nothing about what you are talking about.

David Hull said:

It is downhill trend.

Time to move on.

Click to expand...

maybe you should.

Click to expand...

no one for sensor fab is using top of the line latest and greatest lithography systems for sensors.

What a load of BS.

Make me LOL.

Click to expand...

really? so let's see how many fabs are using 14nm processes? 20nm? 40nm? oh right. NO ONE.

I believe sony is JUST starting to use 90nm for cellphone sensors - that's like 6-8 years old now? 180nm is more common - that's 10 to 15 years old?

canon's current lithography is 90nm - which is far beyond anything used in APS-C or FF sensors to date.

LOL indeed.

Click to expand...

What are you talking about? My company and many others are routinely making SoC's in 28nm, 40nm is considered routine and the next generation Cable Modems (for example) will be built on 14nm (the DSP anyway), the RF probably will remain at 28nm. INTC has 14 up and running. Nobody has anything running any volume at 10nm as far as I know (maybe the memory guys have that up and running -- they are generally on the bleeding edge). However, there are some big downsides to pushing the node down and no one will do it if they don't need to.

So you want a list of fabs running those nodes? TSMC, UMC, Global, Silterra, Intel, TI,..... All of these have at least 28nm on-line and producing high volume production.

image sensors my friend..sensors. someone was saying that sony is using the latest / advanced lithography systems for their image sensors - i guess they felt 180nm was latest and greatest.

rrccad · Aug 15, 2014

Stephen787 said:
Hold on a minute, i never mention 14nm.

I said the european lithography system used to make sensor is more advanced than canon own system. Therefore Sony able to make better sensor.

It is the person who disagree with that, throw 14nm around.

Basically i said, Sony a japanese company use a european system, which is more advance than japanese tool to be able to make a better sensor. That all.

And CD width is not only parameter of a good lithography system. There are other parameters for chip maker.

Canon refusal of using a european tool, will make their future sensor incompetitive.

no sony patented the on chip column parallel ADC - that's why they make right now better image capturing pipelines.

as far as needing the lastest and greatest chip manufacturing? you've been proven wrong on that - go try again somewhere else.

unless you think 180nm is latest and greatest because that's what is in the A7R and D800 sensors.

David Hull · Aug 15, 2014

rrccad said:
David Hull said:

rrccad said:

Stephen787 said:

rrccad said:

Stephen787 said:

canon sensor is going downhill. They are limited by their lithography tool, which over the year became in-competitive compare to rivals.

Click to expand...

canon now has state of the art sub 10nm lithography equipment. not to mention canon does not even use any of their KrF process Lithography systems for their sensors (to date).

Member said:

Sony use an European build lithography tool.

Canon refuse to use the european build lithograpy tool, because canon also make their own tool, but now just outdated technology.

So you have sony, nikon, olympus, fujifilm using sony fab that use world most advance lithography tool, and canon camera using their own outdated lithography tool to make sensor.

Click to expand...

hmm i suspect you know absolutely nothing about what you are talking about.

Member said:

It is downhill trend.

Time to move on.

Click to expand...

maybe you should.

Click to expand...

no one for sensor fab is using top of the line latest and greatest lithography systems for sensors.

What a load of BS.

Make me LOL.

Click to expand...

really? so let's see how many fabs are using 14nm processes? 20nm? 40nm? oh right. NO ONE.

I believe sony is JUST starting to use 90nm for cellphone sensors - that's like 6-8 years old now? 180nm is more common - that's 10 to 15 years old?

canon's current lithography is 90nm - which is far beyond anything used in APS-C or FF sensors to date.

LOL indeed.

Click to expand...

What are you talking about? My company and many others are routinely making SoC's in 28nm, 40nm is considered routine and the next generation Cable Modems (for example) will be built on 14nm (the DSP anyway), the RF probably will remain at 28nm. INTC has 14 up and running. Nobody has anything running any volume at 10nm as far as I know (maybe the memory guys have that up and running -- they are generally on the bleeding edge). However, there are some big downsides to pushing the node down and no one will do it if they don't need to.

So you want a list of fabs running those nodes? TSMC, UMC, Global, Silterra, Intel, TI,..... All of these have at least 28nm on-line and producing high volume production.

Click to expand...

image sensors my friend..sensors. someone was saying that sony is using the latest / advanced lithography systems for their image sensors - i guess they felt 180nm was latest and greatest.

I guess the only reason you would want to go to a smaller geometry would be to fit the electronics but if it fits and works at 180 nm why bother. The more advanced nodes bring disadvantages along with their advantages -- more leakage, more expensive mask sets, etc. The only reason that the industry continues this march toward smaller lithography is to fit "more $hit on the shingle" (and we all thought that SOS stood for silicon on sapphire

). I don't think that is the name of the game for camera sensors -- at least not nearly as much as it is for microprocessors, memory and ComSys stuff like I work on. On that stuff, you are always trying to cram on more functionality. With a sensor, all you need is the diodes, their read structure and the ADC (in Sony's case). In Canon's case (so far anyway) they don't integrate the ADC.

--
Flickr: http://www.flickr.com/photos/drhull
SmugMug: http://davidhull.smugmug.com/

rrccad · Aug 15, 2014

David Hull said:
rrccad said:

David Hull said:

rrccad said:

Stephen787 said:

rrccad said:

Stephen787 said:

canon sensor is going downhill. They are limited by their lithography tool, which over the year became in-competitive compare to rivals.

Click to expand...

canon now has state of the art sub 10nm lithography equipment. not to mention canon does not even use any of their KrF process Lithography systems for their sensors (to date).

David Hull said:

Sony use an European build lithography tool.

Canon refuse to use the european build lithograpy tool, because canon also make their own tool, but now just outdated technology.

So you have sony, nikon, olympus, fujifilm using sony fab that use world most advance lithography tool, and canon camera using their own outdated lithography tool to make sensor.

Click to expand...

hmm i suspect you know absolutely nothing about what you are talking about.

David Hull said:

It is downhill trend.

Time to move on.

Click to expand...

maybe you should.

Click to expand...

no one for sensor fab is using top of the line latest and greatest lithography systems for sensors.

What a load of BS.

Make me LOL.

Click to expand...

really? so let's see how many fabs are using 14nm processes? 20nm? 40nm? oh right. NO ONE.

I believe sony is JUST starting to use 90nm for cellphone sensors - that's like 6-8 years old now? 180nm is more common - that's 10 to 15 years old?

canon's current lithography is 90nm - which is far beyond anything used in APS-C or FF sensors to date.

LOL indeed.

Click to expand...

What are you talking about? My company and many others are routinely making SoC's in 28nm, 40nm is considered routine and the next generation Cable Modems (for example) will be built on 14nm (the DSP anyway), the RF probably will remain at 28nm. INTC has 14 up and running. Nobody has anything running any volume at 10nm as far as I know (maybe the memory guys have that up and running -- they are generally on the bleeding edge). However, there are some big downsides to pushing the node down and no one will do it if they don't need to.

So you want a list of fabs running those nodes? TSMC, UMC, Global, Silterra, Intel, TI,..... All of these have at least 28nm on-line and producing high volume production.

Click to expand...

image sensors my friend..sensors. someone was saying that sony is using the latest / advanced lithography systems for their image sensors - i guess they felt 180nm was latest and greatest.

Click to expand...

I guess the only reason you would want to go to a smaller geometry would be to fit the electronics but if it fits and works at 180 nm why bother.

oh for sure. even the ADC stuff seems to fit on 180nm - mind you, for the APS-C sensors, looks like they are scooting down to 65nm now (the toshiba sensor in the D5100 is 65nm) ..however that's still a long way off from bleeding edge.

David Hull · Aug 15, 2014

rrccad said:
David Hull said:

rrccad said:

David Hull said:

rrccad said:

Stephen787 said:

rrccad said:

Stephen787 said:

canon sensor is going downhill. They are limited by their lithography tool, which over the year became in-competitive compare to rivals.

Click to expand...

canon now has state of the art sub 10nm lithography equipment. not to mention canon does not even use any of their KrF process Lithography systems for their sensors (to date).

Member said:

Sony use an European build lithography tool.

Canon refuse to use the european build lithograpy tool, because canon also make their own tool, but now just outdated technology.

So you have sony, nikon, olympus, fujifilm using sony fab that use world most advance lithography tool, and canon camera using their own outdated lithography tool to make sensor.

Click to expand...

hmm i suspect you know absolutely nothing about what you are talking about.

Member said:

It is downhill trend.

Time to move on.

Click to expand...

maybe you should.

Click to expand...

no one for sensor fab is using top of the line latest and greatest lithography systems for sensors.

What a load of BS.

Make me LOL.

Click to expand...

really? so let's see how many fabs are using 14nm processes? 20nm? 40nm? oh right. NO ONE.

I believe sony is JUST starting to use 90nm for cellphone sensors - that's like 6-8 years old now? 180nm is more common - that's 10 to 15 years old?

canon's current lithography is 90nm - which is far beyond anything used in APS-C or FF sensors to date.

LOL indeed.

Click to expand...

What are you talking about? My company and many others are routinely making SoC's in 28nm, 40nm is considered routine and the next generation Cable Modems (for example) will be built on 14nm (the DSP anyway), the RF probably will remain at 28nm. INTC has 14 up and running. Nobody has anything running any volume at 10nm as far as I know (maybe the memory guys have that up and running -- they are generally on the bleeding edge). However, there are some big downsides to pushing the node down and no one will do it if they don't need to.

So you want a list of fabs running those nodes? TSMC, UMC, Global, Silterra, Intel, TI,..... All of these have at least 28nm on-line and producing high volume production.

Click to expand...

image sensors my friend..sensors. someone was saying that sony is using the latest / advanced lithography systems for their image sensors - i guess they felt 180nm was latest and greatest.

Click to expand...

I guess the only reason you would want to go to a smaller geometry would be to fit the electronics but if it fits and works at 180 nm why bother.

Click to expand...

oh for sure. even the ADC stuff seems to fit on 180nm - mind you, for the APS-C sensors, looks like they are scooting down to 65nm now (the toshiba sensor in the D5100 is 65nm) ..however that's still a long way off from bleeding edge.

There are issues with the lower nodes in terms of leakage current (bad for battery life, although QCOM is in the 28 nm node for cellphones so they must have licked it) and also noise. The bigger geometries tend to be quieter since the signal swings are higher and the operating voltages are higher. This is true in my stuff anyway bit I don't do camera sensors (used to when I was at Rockwell/Conexant, but not any more).

Marquee · Aug 19, 2014

No Worries Drew83076,

Glad you found my thoughts interesting, I certainly acknowledge others comments that an interchageable sensor cam. has its technical and market demand challenges, but if you want to change the market you have to challenge conventional wisdoms through innovation. Upgrade of Canon's flagship models tends to go hand in hand with a CPU upgrade, which will be DiGiC 6+ in the next generation of high end releases. If the camera platform had two of such processors, a pre envisioned set of specialist sensors could then potentially work with the processing power and be competative for 5 years or so. If someone wants an APS-H sensor size for instance, this could become possible.

Mark

"What Should Canon and Nikon Do?"

Forum Enthusiast

meland

Guest

Senior Member

rrccad

Guest

Veteran Member

Senior Member

Forum Pro

Forum Pro

Veteran Member

Well-known member

Well-known member

Forum Enthusiast

meland

Guest

Forum Pro

rrccad

Guest

rrccad

Guest

Veteran Member

rrccad

Guest

Veteran Member

Forum Enthusiast

Keyboard shortcuts