Re: Then we should have 1GP sensors by now.
Doppler9000 wrote:
Thomas A Anderson wrote:
2008.
That's the year Sony announced development of their first BSI CMOS sensor. In 2010 they announced a 16.41MP BSI CMOS phone sensor that started shipping January 2011. It was a 1/2.8" sensor with an area of around 20 mm2 (that's rounding up). A FF sensor is 864 mm2, which is 44.2 X the area. So my question is why hasn't anyone, even Sony, made a 725MP FF sensor? The technology existed in 2010 to do it, which means anything less than that should be considered falling behind Sony's abilities.
This paragraph uses both the "Straw Man" logical fallacy and a false analogy.
You cited a Samsung APS-C from 2014 as a benchmark for Canon 2021 BSI CMOS sensor manufacturing as a method for comparing and evaluating Canon's technical and manufacturing expertise/experience. Why is an APS-C sensor from 2014 a more valid benchmark for comparison than a 1/2.8" sensor made by Sony in 2010?
Please explain applying your logical fallacies to my comparison but NOT to your comparison. The fact is that using your logic the Samsung sensor you use as a benchmark is itself far behind where it should be based on the sensor Sony shipped in 2010.
Not very compelling.
Neither was your comparison to Samsung BSI sensors from 2014, which was exactly my point. There are so many reasons why Canon may choose a 24MP sensor for a FF camera body. You claimed Canon must be having technical issues with their manufacturing when you said they are "so far behind" Samsung from 2014.
I'm really going to need you to explain how there is any difference at all: an earlier BSI sensor not made by Canon with a resolution that implies we should have far more pixels today for anyone who has a level of technical and manufacturing capability that we would expect of them.
Also, unclear that it supports your contention that in 2021, Canon is technologically-limited to a 24 MP limit for a FF BSI sensor.
It doesn't. There's no evidence in the Samsung 2014 comparison nor the Sony 2010 comparison that in any way indicates the choice of 24MP from Canon has anything to do with technological or manufacturing limitations. It is most likely a matter of cost. And that cost also has to do with getting a fab up and running. Any fab requires investment that has to be recovered by selling its output. So as they get their BSI processes online they need to make sure their yield is high enough to make that line profitable. And once they have improved their processes they may upscale to more pixels, but this is the same exact process for any fab development and the same cost/benefit analysis for any new technology whether its a chip architecture or a manufacturing process (which can be equally challenging to updating the chip architecture itself).
By the way, leaving technical sensor concerns aside, the reason we are unlikely to see, or want, a 725 MP FF camera is diffraction.
Sure, obviously. At the same time, a 28 MP APS-C BSI CMOS sensor from Samsung upscaled to FF (332mm2 versus 864 mm2) is about 72.9MP. The highest resolution Sony and Canon sensors to date are far below that (Sony max at 61MP) and are very sensitive to diffraction. If diffraction is an issue, then your Samsung comparison also means Canon shouldn't get anywhere near that implied 72.9MP recommendation you made with a 10 foot pole. I
You would be limited to fast lenses and large apertures or give your resolution back to diffraction.
https://www.dpreview.com/forums/post/62940604