# New Sensor Technology Coming From Canon? [CR1]



## Canon Rumors Guy (Apr 29, 2014)

```
<div name="googleone_share_1" style="position:relative;z-index:5;float: right; /*margin: 70px 0 0 0;*/ top:70px; right:120px; width:0;"><g:plusone size="tall" count="1" href="http://www.canonrumors.com/2014/04/new-sensor-technology-coming-from-canon-cr1/"></g:plusone></div><div style="float: right; margin:0 0 70px 70px;"><a href="https://twitter.com/share" class="twitter-share-button" data-count="vertical" data-url="http://www.canonrumors.com/2014/04/new-sensor-technology-coming-from-canon-cr1/">Tweet</a></div>
<p>We’re told by a new source that a new generation of full-frame CMOS sensors slated for both a forthcoming mirrorless camera as well as updated versions of the current range of prosumer DLSR models.</p>
<p>The new full frame sensors are said to have lower production costs. Yields have improved for these sensors when compared to their predecessors, and that has probably lead to the cost reduction in production. There was also a bit of information about the new sensors having Foveon like technology, we’ve asked for clarification on this.</p>
<p>New source, so a big grain of salt for this one is required.</p>
<p><strong><span style="color: #ff0000;">c</span>r</strong></p>
```


----------



## pierlux (Apr 29, 2014)

Finally an interesting rumor! Too bad it's only CR1... Hoping there's more to come on this!


----------



## 1Zach1 (Apr 29, 2014)

Not sure this can even be answered yet but if Canon came out with a full frame EOS-M version, would they need to change to a new lens mount as well? Could the EF-M still be used?


----------



## lycan (Apr 29, 2014)

I think this long absence of interesting new products from Canon means that they are making something groundbreaking. Better than us they know that their sensors are outdated


----------



## Zv (Apr 29, 2014)

1Zach1 said:


> Not sure this can even be answered yet but if Canon came out with a full frame EOS-M version, would they need to change to a new lens mount as well? Could the EF-M still be used?



EF- M mount can't be used for FF unfortunately. Too small. Likely they'd create a mirrorless camera with the regular EF mount instead.


----------



## simonxu11 (Apr 29, 2014)

Too many CR1s on this site


----------



## pierlux (Apr 29, 2014)

lycan said:


> I think this long absence of interesting new products from Canon means that they are making something groundbreaking.


Agreed, though the recent DPAF is an interesting new product to my eye.



lycan said:


> Better than us they know that their sensors are outdated


Yet still competing with Sony's, and doing even better in some aspects at high ISOs.

I'm hoping it's not only a matter of cost and yield, though welcome. The Foveon-like thingy is intriguing, indeed...


----------



## CTJohn (Apr 29, 2014)

simonxu11 said:


> Too many CR1s on this site


Agree. This has been a really boring period of time.


----------



## Maximilian (Apr 29, 2014)

Is it April Fool's Day? No!
But I almost feel like, reading this rumor. 

Too much contradictions in it. 
Especially the FF mirrorless. :
Foveon like technology and cheaper? Hard to believe.
And just making the sensor cheaper means increasing Canons profit because this will not show in sales price.

So I am about to carry my bucket of salt back home.


----------



## dstppy (Apr 29, 2014)

Hah? How is this been a boring period of time? You can GO OUT and BUY a 70D, 5Dmk3 or 1Dx

Maybe it's boring because we've got great options.

Besides, we haven't heard the REAL details of this rumor yet . . . will it be available in a white body? ;D


----------



## neuroanatomist (Apr 29, 2014)

This new sensor plus the 100-400 II... Look out, unicorns – we will finally be able to take your picture!


----------



## jebrady03 (Apr 29, 2014)

Canon Rumors said:


> <div name="googleone_share_1" style="position:relative;z-index:5;float: right; /*margin: 70px 0 0 0;*/ top:70px; right:120px; width:0;"><glusone size="tall" count="1" href="http://www.canonrumors.com/2014/04/new-sensor-technology-coming-from-canon-cr1/"></glusone></div><div style="float: right; margin:0 0 70px 70px;"><a href="https://twitter.com/share" class="twitter-share-button" data-count="vertical" data-url="http://www.canonrumors.com/2014/04/new-sensor-technology-coming-from-canon-cr1/">Tweet</a></div>
> <p>We’re told by a new source that a new generation of full-frame CMOS sensors slated for both a forthcoming mirrorless camera as well as updated versions of the current range of prosumer DLSR models.</p>
> <p>The new full frame sensors are said to have lower production costs. Yields have improved for these sensors when compared to their predecessors, and that has probably lead to the cost reduction in production. There was also a bit of information about the new sensors having Foveon like technology, we’ve asked for clarification on this.</p>
> <p>TALK OF NEW SENSORS, so a big grain of salt for this one is required.</p>
> <p><strong><span style="color: #ff0000;">c</span>r</strong></p>



There, fixed it for you! ;-) 

Kidding! I, for one, don't have a problem with Canon sensors.


----------



## Dylan777 (Apr 29, 2014)

FF mirrorless + 3-4 pancake lenses to start with: 35,50, 85, and 18mm


----------



## AvTvM (Apr 29, 2014)

neuroanatomist said:


> This new sensor plus the 100-400 II... Look out, unicorns – we will finally be able to take your picture!



OH YES! 
Especially if the rumored sensor is any good and does come in a really nice non-mirrorslappin' body.  ;D 8)


----------



## Don Haines (Apr 29, 2014)

Well there you go! The reason the 7D2 has been delayed so long is that it will be a full frame mirrorless dual pixel  quad pixel fovenon big megapixel camera with a 1DX build in an EOS-M package.... that will shoot at ISO 819,200 and take 8K video.....


----------



## bereninga (Apr 29, 2014)

Dylan777 said:


> FF mirrorless + 3-4 pancake lenses to start with: 35,50, 85, and 18mm



Omg, this would be ridiculously amazing.


----------



## neuroanatomist (Apr 29, 2014)

Don Haines said:


> Well there you go! The reason the 7D2 has been delayed so long is that it will be a full frame mirrorless dual pixel  quad pixel fovenon big megapixel camera with a 1DX build in an EOS-M package.... that will shoot at ISO 819,200 and take 8K video.....



…and cost $1399.


----------



## sanj (Apr 29, 2014)

Hallelujah


----------



## whothafunk (Apr 29, 2014)

neuroanatomist said:


> …and cost $1399.


ok, now you're just being silly.


----------



## traveller (Apr 29, 2014)

Zv said:


> 1Zach1 said:
> 
> 
> > Not sure this can even be answered yet but if Canon came out with a full frame EOS-M version, would they need to change to a new lens mount as well? Could the EF-M still be used?
> ...



This is widely stated, but I can't see that the EF-M mount is much different in dimensions to the Sony E mount; I know that E mount is tight for full frame, but it is still possible. I'm struggling to find the technical specifications, but here's a comparison (assuming the scaling is correct) -measure for yourself: 

http://camerasize.com/compact/#487,351,325,466,459,ha,f 

EF-M is pretty similar to E-mount in its internal diameter and a bit larger than either X-mount or micro 4/3rds. We also know that the flange back distance is the same as E-mount (18mm, vs 44mm for regular EF). 

I'm not saying that this proves EF-M is compatible with full frame sensors, nor that Canon would have any near term plans to produce a full frame mirrorless camera if it were, but it would be a bit strange if they happened to make it so similar in size to E-mount and it not be FF capable. They must have had _some_ idea that Sony were interested in making a FF E-mount camera. I believe that FF probably is possible with EF-M mount, if nothing else then to cover that base for the future. Of course, Canon would never admit that now whilst it is still trying to push their FF DSLRs! 

As for a mirrorless camera with an EF mount: it's possible but not with a reduced flange back distance, or they'd create all sorts of lens compatibility confusion!


----------



## traveller (Apr 29, 2014)

dilbert said:


> Thus either this rumor is a hoax (why would Canon not want to reduce the cost of sensors made for the top end?)...



Can I flip this around: why would the top end be the priority for reducing production costs? Surely the margins are tighter at the bottom? Besides, I can't think of why a new production technology that improves yield wouldn't equally benefit APS-C sized sensor production costs. 

I think that this whole rumour is based upon the "all cameras will be full frame in the future" fallacy that we're now meant to buy into. If Canon are experiencing pressure from mirrorless in the APS-C market, then it's lenses that are more to blame than camera bodies. 

So I think your first proposition is probably more correct: 



dilbert said:


> Thus either this rumor is a hoax...


----------



## neuroanatomist (Apr 29, 2014)

traveller said:


> Zv said:
> 
> 
> > 1Zach1 said:
> ...



According to Canon's full frame white paper, the diagonal measurement of a FF sensor is 43.3mm The measured inner diameter of the lens mount opening on the EOS M, accounting for the bayonet protrusions, is 43mm. For comparison, the measured inner diameter for the EF mount opening is 51mm.

Having said that, the Sony a7 mount opening appears to 'clip the corners' of the sensor, and is quite similar in size to the EOS M's opening.


----------



## mclaren777 (Apr 29, 2014)

If they were able to match (or possibly even surpass Sony's current sensors) I would buy a 5D Mark IV in a heartbeat!


----------



## unfocused (Apr 29, 2014)

Before people get too excited, they might want to re-read this CR-1 rumor. 

It is focused on improvements in manufacturing technology to increase yields and reduce costs. Aside from a glancing mention of "Foveon Like" technology (whatever that is supposed to mean), this is all about reducing costs of production, not about any change in the performance of sensors.

That's not to say it isn't important or beneficial to consumers, just that the benefits are more likely to come in some combination of lower costs and better margins.


----------



## kaihp (Apr 29, 2014)

traveller said:


> dilbert said:
> 
> 
> > Thus either this rumor is a hoax (why would Canon not want to reduce the cost of sensors made for the top end?)...
> ...



I believe that you're thinking it wrong: ANY reduced manufacturing costs goes straight to the bottom line.

Sure, the lower end has a higher volume, but sometimes it is easier to reduce costs at the high end simply because people didn't bother too much about cost, with the argument that "it's high end, so our focus is quality, not cost", which ends up in a circular argument resulting in high cost.

Believe me, I speak from experience (sigh).


----------



## sdsr (Apr 29, 2014)

bereninga said:


> Dylan777 said:
> 
> 
> > FF mirrorless + 3-4 pancake lenses to start with: 35,50, 85, and 18mm
> ...



Yes, especially if it has good IBIS. I don't think I'll hold my breath, though....


----------



## Zv (Apr 29, 2014)

neuroanatomist said:


> traveller said:
> 
> 
> > Zv said:
> ...



So with the Sony a7r, do the clipped corners affect the image in anyway? Surely not since no one has reported black corners. How does that work then? Is the entire sensor area not used then? That would mean in reality a sensor size slightly smaller than FF, prob negligible though overall? 

If that's the case then perhaps a FF sensor could be squeezed into the M mount then with a tiny bit of cropping. Or Canon could make a completely new sensor that is almost FF in size and fits perfectly (seems unlikely in terms of maximizing profits).


----------



## traveller (Apr 29, 2014)

kaihp said:


> traveller said:
> 
> 
> > dilbert said:
> ...



1. What yield improvement were you thinking of that is of no benefit to APS-C sized sensors? 

2. If it is of benefit to APS-C sized sensors, why apply it only to full frame sensors? Surely you apply the technology that improves yield to the production line that has the highest production levels (i.e. APS-C), not the one with the lowest?


----------



## AvTvM (Apr 29, 2014)

Don Haines said:


> Well there you go! The reason the 7D2 has been delayed so long is that it will be a full frame mirrorless dual pixel  quad pixel fovenon big megapixel camera with a 1DX build in an EOS-M package.... that will shoot at ISO 819,200 and take 8K video.....



sounds good. except for the video bit, which I don't care for.  ;D


----------



## t.linn (Apr 29, 2014)

If I were to guess, I would say that Canon will finally advance their sensor tech into this decade the day after I complete my transition to Fujifilm's X-system. :


----------



## unfocused (Apr 29, 2014)

traveller said:


> 1. What yield improvement were you thinking of that is of no benefit to APS-C sized sensors?
> 
> 2. If it is of benefit to APS-C sized sensors, why apply it only to full frame sensors? Surely you apply the technology that improves yield to the production line that has the highest production levels (i.e. APS-C), not the one with the lowest?



A similar thought occurred to me, but as I understand it, the yield problem has always been more of an issue for full frame sensors than APS-C. An improvement in the manufacturing process the reduces waste could benefit both APS-C and Full Frame, but the relative benefits would likely be much greater for full-frame than APS-C. 

Nothing in this CR1 rumor would rule out using the manufacturing improvements for APS-C, it's just that it might not be as significant a factor as it would be for full-frame.


----------



## Zv (Apr 29, 2014)

OK, this is a very unscientific, quick and dirty photoshop effort using the camera compare link and superimposing two images to see if the sensor from the a7r would fit inside an EOS M. 

The two mounts seemed to almost line up perfectly. Intriguing.

taken from this link - http://camerasize.com/compact/#487,351,325,466,459,ha,f


----------



## kaihp (Apr 29, 2014)

traveller said:


> 1. What yield improvement were you thinking of that is of no benefit to APS-C sized sensors?
> 
> 2. If it is of benefit to APS-C sized sensors, why apply it only to full frame sensors? Surely you apply the technology that improves yield to the production line that has the highest production levels (i.e. APS-C), not the one with the lowest?



???

I'm not sure why you are asking about FF vs APS-C sized sensors here, as my comment was meant truly generally and did not speak of sensor size.


----------



## jrista (Apr 29, 2014)

Don Haines said:


> Well there you go! The reason the 7D2 has been delayed so long is that it will be a full frame mirrorless dual pixel  quad pixel fovenon big megapixel camera with a 1DX build in an EOS-M package.... that will shoot at ISO 819,200 and take 8K video.....



And support frame rates up to 100fps stills and 100,000fps video.


----------



## jrista (Apr 29, 2014)

unfocused said:


> Before people get too excited, they might want to re-read this CR-1 rumor.
> 
> It is focused on improvements in manufacturing technology to increase yields and reduce costs. Aside from a glancing mention of "Foveon Like" technology (whatever that is supposed to mean), this is all about reducing costs of production, not about any change in the performance of sensors.
> 
> That's not to say it isn't important or beneficial to consumers, just that the benefits are more likely to come in some combination of lower costs and better margins.



Well, I think you can read into "inrease yields and reduce costs" a bit. 

The only way to really increase yields, especially with a decade-old fabrication process that is highly likely to already be as refined as it can get, is to increase wafer size. If Canon was using 200mm wafers for their existing process, then it seems logical they are moving to 300mm wafers. If they are moving to 300mm wafers, then that means they are either sharing fab time with their small sensor fabs, or have built new fabs. If they have built new fabs, then it also seems likely that they have moved to a smaller process, 180nm? 90nm? 

Even if Canon does not employ a layered foveon-like technology, a move to larger wafers and a smaller process would be huge. It's the thing Canon needs to be able to move more technology onto the sensor die, move to a CP-ADC design (which they have a patent for), etc.


----------



## East Wind Photography (Apr 29, 2014)

neuroanatomist said:


> traveller said:
> 
> 
> > Zv said:
> ...



Quite likely the reasoning is that the light from the lens is projected onto the sensor from a cone and not parallel to the light path. Telephoto lenses and in particular LONG telephoto lenses are more parallel and could potentially cause some vignetting on the corners. As such it is technically possible to put a FF sensor into the M. However there may not be much room for anything else.

I for one dont see it happening. The M format needs to be cheap and affordable and up to this point the smaller chips have dominated that price point. I get making the FF chips cheaper but as one other pointed out that will ALL go to Canon profit margin and not to the consumer.


----------



## neuroanatomist (Apr 29, 2014)

Zv said:


> So with the Sony a7r, do the clipped corners affect the image in anyway? Surely not since no one has reported black corners. How does that work then? Is the entire sensor area not used then? That would mean in reality a sensor size slightly smaller than FF, prob negligible though overall?
> 
> If that's the case then perhaps a FF sensor could be squeezed into the M mount then with a tiny bit of cropping. Or Canon could make a completely new sensor that is almost FF in size and fits perfectly (seems unlikely in terms of maximizing profits).


The clipped corners aren't a problem because of the way light travels when leaving the lens - think of it as an expanding cone, so the image circle is physically smaller at the lens mount than when it hits the sensor. Just look at the back of the EF 40mm f/2.8, the rear element is significantly smaller than a FF sensor:







OTOH, there may be issues with some lenses with a large aperture and an exit pupil close to the image plane (similar to the 'clipped' bokeh of the 85L wide open with close subjects).


----------



## pierlux (Apr 29, 2014)

Interesting observations on lens mounts, but back on topic: no need to bother unicorns or flying pigs, Canon very likely will deliver something new in the imaging sensor compartment this turn. They already have, with DPAF; little advance for stills shooters, big one for videographers.

Whether this rumor is a hoax or not I don't know, I can only say I'm pretty sure something new is coming in the sensor tech area. It's not gambling to think so at this point since it's not a matter of "IF", but "WHEN" it'll come, presumably sooner than later. Smaller sensors first, then bigger ones. As usual.

If I remember correctly, there was another tiny bit of information in this CR1 rumor as soon as it appeared, an acronym or something similar, relative to this presumptive new sensor tech, which was soon removed: does any early reader of the rumor remember what it was exactly? Or it's me going nuts?


----------



## East Wind Photography (Apr 29, 2014)

pierlux said:


> Interesting observations on lens mounts, but back on topic: no need to bother unicorns or flying pigs, Canon very likely will deliver something new in the imaging sensor compartment this turn. They already have, with DPAF; little advance for stills shooters, big one for videographers.
> 
> Whether this rumor is a hoax or not I don't know, I can only say I'm pretty sure something new is coming in the sensor tech area. It's not gambling to think so at this point since it's not a matter of "IF", but "WHEN" it'll come, presumably sooner than later. Smaller sensors first, then bigger ones. As usual.
> 
> If I remember correctly, there was another tiny bit of information in this CR1 rumor as soon as it appeared, an acronym or something similar, relative to this presumptive new sensor tech, which was soon removed: does any early reader of the rumor remember what it was exactly? Or it's me going nuts?



Tis true. The 7D2 has been reported many times it will have a new sensor.

... now where did my flying pig fly off too...


----------



## Bob Howland (Apr 29, 2014)

Zv said:


> 1Zach1 said:
> 
> 
> > Not sure this can even be answered yet but if Canon came out with a full frame EOS-M version, would they need to change to a new lens mount as well? Could the EF-M still be used?
> ...



I agree. I've never understood people's fascination with using a FF sensor in an M-mount camera. It always seemed more reasonable to just shorten the flange-sensor distance and use the EF mount. Just getting rid of the mirror box will allow significant size and weight reductions. I don't see how the M-mount would make that much of a difference.


----------



## neuroanatomist (Apr 29, 2014)

Bob Howland said:


> I agree. I've never understood people's fascination with using a FF sensor in an M-mount camera. It always seemed more reasonable to just shorten the flange-sensor distance and use the EF mount. Just getting rid of the mirror box will allow significant size and weight reductions. I don't see how the M-mount would make that much of a difference.



EF (and EF-S) lenses are designed with a 44mm flange focal distance. If Canon makes a FF mirrorless with that same flange focal distance, they'll use the same mount. If they make one with a shorter flange focal distance (it's 18mm for EF-M lenses, for example), they'll make a new mount for the same reason they designed the system so EF-S lenses don't mount on FF bodies - to avoid confusion and unexpected results. They might try squeezing the FF mount into the EF-M size, so that the new FF-mirrorless lenses could be used directly on EOS M or other APS-C mirrorless, in the same way that EF lenses can be used on APS-C dSLRs. In particular, it the whole ecosystem does shift to mirrorless, longer lenses don't really benefit from a smaller image circle, so having a mount compatible with larger and smaller sensors makes sense.


----------



## traveller (Apr 29, 2014)

neuroanatomist said:


> Zv said:
> 
> 
> > So with the Sony a7r, do the clipped corners affect the image in anyway? Surely not since no one has reported black corners. How does that work then? Is the entire sensor area not used then? That would mean in reality a sensor size slightly smaller than FF, prob negligible though overall?
> ...



Interesting points. Could this explain why Sony/Zeiss have so far steered clear of large aperture wide angle and telephoto primes?


----------



## jrista (Apr 29, 2014)

neuroanatomist said:


> Bob Howland said:
> 
> 
> > I agree. I've never understood people's fascination with using a FF sensor in an M-mount camera. It always seemed more reasonable to just shorten the flange-sensor distance and use the EF mount. Just getting rid of the mirror box will allow significant size and weight reductions. I don't see how the M-mount would make that much of a difference.
> ...



Totally agree.


----------



## pierlux (Apr 29, 2014)

East Wind Photography said:


> pierlux said:
> 
> 
> > Interesting observations on lens mounts, but back on topic: no need to bother unicorns or flying pigs, Canon very likely will deliver something new in the imaging sensor compartment this turn. They already have, with DPAF; little advance for stills shooters, big one for videographers.
> ...



LOL! But, seriously, the 7D2 will. At least DPAF will be there, new to the 7D line. It's always safe to say a new tech is coming, the risk lies in guessing when it's coming, and what exactly it is...


----------



## AvTvM (Apr 29, 2014)

it is evident, that Canon [and Nikon and anybody else] will migrate to mirrorless.
First, APS-C - EOS-M + EF-M mount and lenses
Second, FF, + new lens mount an dnew lenses
No need to have the mount compatible. The Sony feature of E-mount and FE-lenses is useless in practice. While it may be ok to use a crop-lens on an FF sensor in a pinch, it is no long-term solution. And full-frame image circles will always be unneccarily large and heavy on for use on an APS-C sensor. 

Let's face it: EF will be superseded by EF-X or whatever its called, FF short flange-back lenses for mirrorles FF cameras (which will supersede DSLRs at some point further in the future). 

There is less drama tah in the transition from Canon FD to EF, because of the shoreter flange back this time round. So all EF lenses remain fully usable by means of a simple, glass-less adapter [extension tube]. 

Canon will be happy to develop and sell us a new set of (FF) lenses over many years to come. And we will buy theam and transition, since they will be miore compact (without adapter) and still higher image quality - lens design still gets better every year and these lenses will meet the reuirements of a short flange back.

I am confident, that Canon again has the necessary foresight to make the new mirrorless FF-mount as wide as possible to facilitate lens development. Sony made a mistake by chosing to go with the E-mount (which like EF-M is really suitable only to APS-C; I bet there will never be Sony ZE f/1.2 lenses for that very reason].
Sony made a mistake with the narrow mount and it severly restricts and compilicates construction options for new lenses - as a top Sony executive has admitted in an interview some time back (maybe I can dig it out). 

Looking forward to mirrorless times.


----------



## pierlux (Apr 29, 2014)

pierlux said:


> If I remember correctly, there was another tiny bit of information in this CR1 rumor as soon as it appeared, an acronym or something similar, relative to this presumptive new sensor tech, which was soon removed: does any early reader of the rumor remember what it was exactly? Or it's me going nuts?



Anyone? I haven't got a cached copy of the very first version of this rumor, my browser clears everything when I close it, but I do remember this supposedly new tech was given a name, someone please confirm that it's not schizophrenia riseup on my side... wait! A bevy of flying quadrupeds out of my window, not sure if unicorns or pigs, I must be quick, this could be the first post of a new thread, "PIGS IN FLIGHT ONLY -- share your PIF photos here"...


----------



## Don Haines (Apr 29, 2014)

traveller said:


> kaihp said:
> 
> 
> > traveller said:
> ...


EXACTLY!

Sell 100,000,000 APSC cameras and save $10 each and thats a billion dollars....
Sell 5,000,000 FF cameras and save $40 each and thats 200 million dollars....

Which pile of money do you think Canon would go for first


----------



## dafrank (Apr 29, 2014)

The clipped corners aren't a problem because of the way light travels when leaving the lens - think of it as an expanding cone, so the image circle is physically smaller at the lens mount than when it hits the sensor. Just look at the back of the EF 40mm f/2.8, the rear element is significantly smaller than a FF sensor:






OTOH, there may be issues with some lenses with a large aperture and an exit pupil close to the image plane (similar to the 'clipped' bokeh of the 85L wide open with close subjects).
[/quote]

Even simpler to explain how full frame could work, with unclipped corners, using the M mount: the imaging light is projected from the lens to the sensor from the last element at the back of the lens, which is, I think, always situated slightly behind the plane of the lens mount, not at or in front of the plane of the lens mount. Simple. All other explanations are surely true, but none, other than the above, is necessary.

Regards,
David


----------



## ewg963 (Apr 29, 2014)

Now we're talking Canon too bad it's a CR1 only.... I hope something comes of this...fingers crossed!!!


----------



## ewg963 (Apr 29, 2014)

Maximilian said:


> Is it April Fool's Day? No!
> But I almost feel like, reading this rumor.
> 
> Too much contradictions in it.
> ...


+1000000


----------



## ewg963 (Apr 29, 2014)

neuroanatomist said:


> Don Haines said:
> 
> 
> > Well there you go! The reason the 7D2 has been delayed so long is that it will be a full frame mirrorless dual pixel  quad pixel fovenon big megapixel camera with a 1DX build in an EOS-M package.... that will shoot at ISO 819,200 and take 8K video.....
> ...


Cute....


----------



## jrista (Apr 29, 2014)

dafrank said:


> Even simpler to explain how full frame could work, with unclipped corners, using the M mount: the imaging light is projected from the lens to the sensor from the last element at the back of the lens, which is, I think, always situated slightly behind the plane of the lens mount, not at or in front of the plane of the lens mount. Simple. All other explanations are surely true, but none, other than the above, is necessary.



There are problems with designing lenses this way, though. The closer to the sensor plane the backmost elements are (or, for that matter, the exit pupil is), the more angled the light has to be to reach the periphery of the sensor. The larger the sensor, greater that angle is. Highly angled light doesn't flow into the pixel wells (for FSI designs), and it is difficult to create microlenses with a great enough power to bend the light back into the well. For BSI designs, the high angle of light results in a significantly greater amount of reflection rather than refraction, so the light is simply lost. This increases vignetting in the corners. The Sony FF mirrorless options have this problem. Sony has tried to mitigate the issue by using differently designed microlenses in the periphery, however it is only a mitigation, not a solution to the problem.

Another problem with lens elements being mounted so close to the sensor plane is ghosting. A lot of ghosted light that reflects off the sensor is so dim that the inverse square falloff law results in it being invisible, for all intents and purposes, once it reflects off the back lens elements and back onto the sensor. With a much shorter sensor to back element distance, ghosting becomes a much greater problem. This actually occurs with most mirrorless designs today, including the EOS-M and Sony A7 series. 

As much as everyone seems to want smaller and smaller and more compact cameras, making cameras that way has it's tradeoffs, it's cons. There isn't anything simple about creating pancake lenses that could work ideally for full-frame sensors in a mirrorless design. The benefits of using larger camera bodies with larger flange-to-sensor distances is you don't have these problems. A large flange distance, such as 44mm for Canon DSLRs, means light, even for a FF sensor, never has to reach significant angles, making microlensing on the sensor far more effective at guiding light down to the photodiodes. The greater distance results in a longer distance for reflected light to fall off and not cause ghosting. 

I think it will be interesting to see how a FF Canon Mirrorless fares with purpose-built lenses. I suspect we'll see many of the same problems that the Sony FF mirrorless cameras experience. Canon has superior lens design capability vs. Sony, so in the long run I think they could build better lenses for a FF mirrorless system...but there are physical limitations for lenses just as much as there are physical limitations for sensors.


----------



## LetTheRightLensIn (Apr 29, 2014)

lycan said:


> I think this long absence of interesting new products from Canon means that they are making something groundbreaking. Better than us they know that their sensors are outdated



One can hope.

I hope it doesn't end up being ground-breaking simply because it ends up with very high yield and cheap productions costs, but same old or worse performance.


----------



## LetTheRightLensIn (Apr 29, 2014)

Maximilian said:


> Is it April Fool's Day? No!
> Too much contradictions in it.
> Especially the FF mirrorless. :



Why roll your eyes at that comment of all comments when Canon's very own chart showed an empty spot for an upcoming FF high-end mirrorless??? I mean Canon's very own slide clearly had a spot in it for that very thing.


----------



## tron (Apr 29, 2014)

pierlux said:


> Finally an interesting rumor! Too bad it's only CR1... Hoping there's more to come on this!


That's what the next years are for... ;D


----------



## tron (Apr 29, 2014)

whothafunk said:


> neuroanatomist said:
> 
> 
> > …and cost $1399.
> ...


True, he should have said $1499 ;D ;D ;D


----------



## Don Haines (Apr 29, 2014)

dafrank said:


> The clipped corners aren't a problem because of the way light travels when leaving the lens - think of it as an expanding cone, so the image circle is physically smaller at the lens mount than when it hits the sensor. Just look at the back of the EF 40mm f/2.8, the rear element is significantly smaller than a FF sensor:
> 
> 
> 
> ...



Even simpler to explain how full frame could work, with unclipped corners, using the M mount: the imaging light is projected from the lens to the sensor from the last element at the back of the lens, which is, I think, always situated slightly behind the plane of the lens mount, not at or in front of the plane of the lens mount. Simple. All other explanations are surely true, but none, other than the above, is necessary.

Regards,
David
[/quote]
This may be true for a wide angle lens.... but look at the size of the last element on a telephoto lens.... the cone of light is a lot more like a tube....


----------



## CarlTN (Apr 29, 2014)

Don Haines said:


> Well there you go! The reason the 7D2 has been delayed so long is that it will be a full frame mirrorless dual pixel  quad pixel fovenon big megapixel camera with a 1DX build in an EOS-M package.... that will shoot at ISO 819,200 and take 8K video.....



+1 !! The best part is it will feature a camera and computer monitor built into eyeglasses, since nobody has ever thought of doing that before! Even harder to believe, but the sensor will be 4x5 inches! You wear it on your belt, the light is transferred to it via fiber optics that are one trillionth the diameter of a human hair!


----------



## thedman (Apr 29, 2014)

Maybe 2015 will be the 'Year of the Sensor' like this year is the 'Year of the Lens'!


----------



## Don Haines (Apr 29, 2014)

CarlTN said:


> Don Haines said:
> 
> 
> > Well there you go! The reason the 7D2 has been delayed so long is that it will be a full frame mirrorless dual pixel  quad pixel fovenon big megapixel camera with a 1DX build in an EOS-M package.... that will shoot at ISO 819,200 and take 8K video.....
> ...



but on a serious (somewhat) note, we now have the technology to make the "Dick Tracey radio wristwatch" with video....


----------



## Antono Refa (Apr 29, 2014)

dilbert said:


> "_We’re told by a new source that a new generation of full-frame CMOS sensors slated for both a forthcoming mirrorless camera as well as updated versions of the current range of prosumer DLSR models._"
> 
> So the first thing that comes to mind is that this does not mention professional (1D range, etc) DSLR models.
> 
> Thus either this rumor is a hoax (why would Canon not want to reduce the cost of sensors made for the top end?) or there is a sacrifice in sensor IQ being made in exchange for something else (DPAF maybe?)



Canon often introduces new features in lower end cameras, DPAF being an example.


----------



## neuroanatomist (Apr 29, 2014)

dafrank said:


> Even simpler to explain how full frame could work, with unclipped corners, using the M mount: the imaging light is projected from the lens to the sensor from *the last element at the back of the lens, which is, I think, always situated slightly behind the plane of the lens mount*, not at or in front of the plane of the lens mount. Simple. All other explanations are surely true, but none, other than the above, is necessary.



The highlighted statement is not true. For example, the 600/4L IS II that I was out shooting with this afternoon has a rear element that's recessed several centimeters inside the barrel of the lens when viewed from the mount side.


----------



## Diko (Apr 29, 2014)

Currently a bunch of innovations on CIS market. Curved micro-lenses version, a few modified BSI versions, CMOS with ir, film coated, No colour filtered and of course let us NOT forget FOVEON....

As for the wavers - it is about time. According to ChipWorks - this is SUPPOSED to be CANON's next step. For some time they already have the tech... the implementation so far was not available....


----------



## neuroanatomist (Apr 29, 2014)

Don Haines said:


> traveller said:
> 
> 
> > 1. What yield improvement were you thinking of that is of no benefit to APS-C sized sensors?
> ...


Not exactly…

It depends on what the improvement is and how much it costs to implement. The rumor (although likely false) suggests an improvement in yield, which is where there's a major difference between FF and APS-C. Sensors are cut from round silicon wafers, and according to Canon a single wafer can produce 20 FF sensors or ~200 APS-C sensors. 

How about a hypothetical example… Say it costs $20,000 for the raw silicon wafer and the stamping and cutting (I have no idea how wild-assed that guess is). That means a FF sensor costs $1000 and an APS-C sensor costs $100. Now, say there are on average two random local defects per wafer that result in the loss of the sensors where they occur. FF production takes a 10% hit on yield, whereas APS-C takes only a 1% hit on yield. Taking QC defects into account, the cost of a FF sensor is $1111 and an APS-C sensor is $101. Now, suppose this new process cuts the defect rate in half, to one per wafer, and increases production costs by 2% per wafer. That drops the cost of a FF sensor to $1074, a 3.3% savings. However, that 'improvement' results in an APS-C cost per sensor of $102.50, an *increase* of 1.5% per sensor for APS-C production.

Sell 5,000,000 FF cameras and save $37 each and that's a 185 million dollar profit….
Sell 100,000,000 APSC cameras and spend an extra $1.50 each and that's a 150 million dollar *loss*....

_Now_ which pile of money do you think Canon would go for first? 

Granted, this is only a hypothetical example. Hwever, it does demonstrate one scenario in which application of a process improvement for FF production would not be cost-effective when applied to APS-C production.


----------



## Bob Howland (Apr 29, 2014)

neuroanatomist said:


> Bob Howland said:
> 
> 
> > I agree. I've never understood people's fascination with using a FF sensor in an M-mount camera. It always seemed more reasonable to just shorten the flange-sensor distance and use the EF mount. Just getting rid of the mirror box will allow significant size and weight reductions. I don't see how the M-mount would make that much of a difference.
> ...



I thought the reason that EF-S lenses can't mount on FF bodies is because EF-S lenses may extend further into the body, and there was the risk that the mirror in the FF body would hit the rear of the lens. Nikon and third party manufacturers don't seem worried about confusing the customer. Their APS-C lenses fit onto FF bodies just fine. Also, given that the M-mount and EF-mount aren't all that different in size, your last point seems to argue that the M-mount shouldn't have been invented at all. The SL1 would seem to support that argument.

However, for whatever reason, the M-mount _was_ invented. If Canon shortens the flange distance to create a mirrorless EF mount, they could shorten it to something longer than the 18mm used for the M-mount, perhaps 24mm. That way, they could introduce an adapter allowing FF mirrorless lenses to be used on an M-system body. Furthermore, Canon could (and should) introduce their answer to the Metabones Speed Booster, allowing EF lenses to be used on an M-body. Because of the 1.6X crop factor, Canon's speed booster could provide a 1-1/3 stop advantage, although the device would probably have to be very high quality and consequently very expensive to provide good image quality in the corners.


----------



## jrista (Apr 29, 2014)

neuroanatomist said:


> It depends on what the improvement is and how much it costs to implement. The rumor (although likely false) suggests an improvement in yield, which is where there's a major difference between FF and APS-C. Sensors are cut from round silicon wafers, and according to Canon a single wafer can produce 20 FF sensors or ~200 APS-C sensors.



HMM! This is interesting. If Canon is producing ~200 APS-C sensors per wafer, and only 20 FF sensors per wafer, then that means they are already producing APS-C sensors on 300mm wafers, but are still producing FF sensors on 200mm wafers. If you run the numbers, the raw number of full APS-C sensors on a 200mm wafer is 94, on 300mm wafer is 212; the raw number for full Ff sensors on 200mm wafer is 36, on 300mm wafer is 81. Factor in losses, you get a bit less than 200 APS-C/300mm wafer, maybe 20 FF/200mm wafer. I suspect that the actual number of total FF sensors is less than 36, since every time I've seen a photo of large sensors on a wafer, there is usually plenty of blank space and an unetched border around the edge. So maybe Canon gets 190 APS-C out of a 300mm wafer, and indeed only about 20 FF out of a 200mm wafer. Assuming similar losses with larger wafers, Canon should get almost 70 FF sensors out of a 300mm wafer if they do indeed make the move. 



neuroanatomist said:


> How about a hypothetical example… Say it costs $20,000 for the raw silicon wafer and the stamping and cutting (I have no idea how wild-assed that guess is). That means a FF sensor costs $1000 and an APS-C sensor costs $100. Now, say there are on average two random local defects per wafer that result in the loss of the sensors where they occur. FF production takes a 10% hit on yield, whereas APS-C takes only a 1% hit on yield. Taking QC defects into account, the cost of a FF sensor is $1111 and an APS-C sensor is $101. Now, suppose this new process cuts the defect rate in half, to one per wafer, and increases production costs by 2% per wafer. That drops the cost of a FF sensor to $1074, a 3.3% savings. However, that 'improvement' results in an APS-C cost per sensor of $102.50, an *increase* of 1.5% per sensor for APS-C production.
> 
> Sell 5,000,000 FF cameras and save $37 each and that's a 185 million dollar profit….
> Sell 100,000,000 APSC cameras and spend an extra $1.50 each and that's a 150 million dollar *loss*....
> ...



I totally agree. I think increasing yield on the FF sensor front is really where they can save the most money, especially if they are still using 200mm wafers. They have to waste a proportionally much larger area of a 200mm wafer than a 300mm wafer when fabbing FF sensors.


----------



## Don Haines (Apr 29, 2014)

jrista said:


> neuroanatomist said:
> 
> 
> > It depends on what the improvement is and how much it costs to implement. The rumor (although likely false) suggests an improvement in yield, which is where there's a major difference between FF and APS-C. Sensors are cut from round silicon wafers, and according to Canon a single wafer can produce 20 FF sensors or ~200 APS-C sensors.
> ...



I think your cost estimate of $1000 for a FF sensor is way off.... 

A 6D RETAILS for $1600....
The dealer is probably paying $1000 to 1200 for it....
Canon wants to make a healthy profit, so it probably costs less than $200 to make. (Remember, they need to pay wages, heat, light, R+D, etc etc etc)
Then there are all the other components involved.... so even if we say the sensor is a quqrter of the cost of the finished camera, that's $50....

I read somewhere.. (sorry, I can't find it) that it costs Sony $30 to make a FF sensor and about $7 to make a crop sensor.... I don't know how this translates to Canon costs, but you can bet it isn't $1000 and $100..


----------



## neuroanatomist (Apr 29, 2014)

Don Haines said:


> I think your cost estimate of $1000 for a FF sensor is way off....



No doubt, thus the mention of the per wafer cost being a WAG (wild-asset guess). It was a relative example, the absolute numbers didn't matter. 

Jon's point about different wafer sizes changes the the relative numbers, of course, but the main point remains - there are possible scenarios where a process change could decrease production costs for FF sensors but not for APS-C sensors, because of the differential effect of random blemishes with FF sensors that are 2.6 times the size of APS-C sensors.


----------



## kaihp (Apr 30, 2014)

neuroanatomist said:


> Don Haines said:
> 
> 
> > I think your cost estimate of $1000 for a FF sensor is way off....
> ...



I would guess at a wafer cost is in the range of $2000, given the technology nodes in play (180-500nm)
For the differences in cost structure, see my previous explanation.


----------



## CarlTN (Apr 30, 2014)

Don Haines said:


> CarlTN said:
> 
> 
> > Don Haines said:
> ...



The problem is now, though...Dick Tracey, didn't take pictures of his...well you know. He only used the technology to fight crime.


----------



## 100 (Apr 30, 2014)

jrista said:


> neuroanatomist said:
> 
> 
> > It depends on what the improvement is and how much it costs to implement. The rumor (although likely false) suggests an improvement in yield, which is where there's a major difference between FF and APS-C. Sensors are cut from round silicon wafers, and according to Canon a single wafer can produce 20 FF sensors or ~200 APS-C sensors.
> ...



They never mention a 12 inch wafer, they say they get 200 ASP-C sensors of an 8 inch wafer.
Quote from the white paper: 

_an 8" diameter wafer could cost as much as $450 to $500, $1,000 or even $5,000. After several hundred process steps, perhaps between 400 and 600 (including, for example, thin film deposition, lithography, photoresist coating and alignment, exposure, developing, etching and cleaning), one has a wafer covered with sensors. If the sensors are APS-C size, there are about 200 of them on the wafer, depending on layout and the design of the periphery of each sensor. For APS-H, there are about 46 or so. Full-frame sensors? Just 20._


8 inch is 8*2.54mm = 203.2 mm
The total surface area of this wafer is π/4*203.2^2 = 32429 mm^2

Surface area of ASP-C => 330mm^2
32429/330=98.3
Even if they didn’t have any losses they wouldn’t get 100 sensors. 

Surface area of FF => 864mm^2
32429/864=37.5

If they can only get 20 FF sensors out of that, they have about 47% losses. 

This is an 8 year old white paper and nobody mentioned these mistakes before?


----------



## CarlTN (Apr 30, 2014)

100 said:


> jrista said:
> 
> 
> > neuroanatomist said:
> ...



That's very interesting if indeed that does translate to about 58% (or 47% !!) full frame sensor losses per wafer, even if it was 8 years ago.


----------



## 100 (Apr 30, 2014)

CarlTN said:


> 100 said:
> 
> 
> > Surface area of FF => 864mm^2
> ...



I made a mistake (maybe Canon has a job offer ;-)), corrected it in my last post. It should be

Surface area of FF => 864mm^2
32429/864=37.5

If they can only get 20 FF sensors out of that, they have about 47% losses.


----------



## jrista (Apr 30, 2014)

100 said:


> CarlTN said:
> 
> 
> > 100 said:
> ...



It isn't exactly 47% loss. It's 64% of the area is actually used to print FF sensors. If this diagram is any indication, then they actually ETCH exactly 24FF, or 80APSC on a single 200mm wafer:






The actual losses would be out these numbers...so accounting for defects and whatnot, actual FF yield would have to be less than 24, and actual APS-C yield would have to be less than 80. Assuming they actually get 20 FF out of 24, the loss is 16.7%. 

That assumes that the article was clear about the size of wafer used to produce APS-C sensors...which it is not. Since a 300mm wafer can handle about 212 APS-C sensors, and since the article states that around 200 APS-C sensors are made from each wafer, it makes sense that Canon is manufacturing APS-C sensors on 300mm wafers, rather than 200mm wafers. Either way, they clearly have a higher yield off smaller sensors.


----------



## scottkinfw (Apr 30, 2014)

Exactly! A dearth of juicy rumors lately!

Hope this it true. 

sek



pierlux said:


> Finally an interesting rumor! Too bad it's only CR1... Hoping there's more to come on this!


----------



## Maximilian (Apr 30, 2014)

LetTheRightLensIn said:


> Maximilian said:
> 
> 
> > Is it April Fool's Day? No!
> ...


As far as I understood tech discussion until now, the EOS-M system and mount is not capable of handling FF sensors in a proper way. The discussion in this thread showed, that maybe the former information is wrong. And therefore also my rolling eyes were wrong. I am always willing to learn something new.
If it is not wrong, so EOS-M really can NOT be pushed to FF and if this “Canon's very own slide” is showing the opinion of Canons strategists, then I even more : : : because Canon made a wrong step with EOS-M being just an non compatible consumer product (to a potential FF mirrorless high-end).
If it possible to push EOS-M to FF mirrorless – especially into the high-end, I will be one of the first interested people, if they can make EVF and AF performance close to or better to what I see today for example at the Oly OMD-M1. 
Until I can see the proof of these speculations here – with a lot of implemented hope – I will stay skeptical.


----------



## AvTvM (Apr 30, 2014)

What is so difficult here?


APS-C and 135/"FF" are two separate worlds, separated by the difference in image circle
Both systems require their own native lens set
There is no need for a unified aps-c and FF lens mount, ff lenses can be used via simple glassless extension tube adapters, as long as the flange distance of the APS-C system is shorter than for the FF system
Canon EF-M is a highly functional APS-C mount for mirrorless cameras with short flange distance
EF-M allows for low-end and high-end APS-C cameras and lenses - including f/0.95 lenses if so desired.
Canon will have to add a new native lens mount for mirrorless ff cameras with short flange distance
In the end there will be a range of mirrorless APS-C cameras (EOS-M) and mirrorless FF cameras (EOS-?)
There will be one native set of lenses for APS-C (EF-M) and one for FF (EF-?)
On mirrorless Canon APS-C cameras (EOS-M), EF-M lenses work natively while EF, EF-S and new EF-? lenses will work via adapter
On FF mirrorless canon cameras, new EF-? Lenses will work natively and EF-lenses as well as other FF-lenses with long enough flange distance will work via a simple adapter

DSLRs will be phased out, first the APS-C models along with EF-S lenses and after some extended transition period also FF-sensored DSLRs and EF lenses. 

Everything is perfectly clear and fine.


----------



## traveller (Apr 30, 2014)

jrista said:


> 100 said:
> 
> 
> > CarlTN said:
> ...



So the conclusion of this thread seems to be that (if this rumour has any truth in it) Canon are moving their full frame production to 300mm wafers? Could this also be an opportunity for them to move to a newer process generation?


----------



## zim (Apr 30, 2014)

jrista said:


> 100 said:
> 
> 
> > CarlTN said:
> ...




Why do the etchings always have to go in the same direction?
I guess it's how are they cut out? what do they use, a saw ;D

Regards


----------



## PJSOFT (Apr 30, 2014)

Zv said:


> 1Zach1 said:
> 
> 
> > Not sure this can even be answered yet but if Canon came out with a full frame EOS-M version, would they need to change to a new lens mount as well? Could the EF-M still be used?
> ...



That's correct, unless they will develop another version of EF adapter with built-in speed-booster glasses.


----------



## jrista (Apr 30, 2014)

zim said:


> Why do the etchings always have to go in the same direction?
> I guess it's how are they cut out? what do they use, a saw ;D



Well, there is no specific reason why they couldn't etch some additional sensors in the perpendicular direction, but it would be costly. The way sensor fabrication works is by etching the silicon with extreme UV light via a template. The template is oriented in a single direction. The wafer is moved underneath the light beam so that multiple sensors can be etched. Etching of a single sensor is a multi-step process, with various steps involving masking, etching, dissolution of masks, more etching, doping and layering of new materials, masking, etching, etc. This stuff has to be precise to the level of a few nanometers at most, so it is entirely automated. Rotating the wafer to etch additional sensors in a different direction introduces a source of error that could hurt yield.


----------



## mkabi (Apr 30, 2014)

AvTvM said:


> What is so difficult here?
> 
> 
> APS-C and 135/"FF" are two separate worlds, separated by the difference in image circle
> ...



Thats the same thing as switching systems... if you can't use the same lenses on future Canon bodies. Might as well switch to Sony now!


----------



## zim (Apr 30, 2014)

jrista said:


> zim said:
> 
> 
> > Why do the etchings always have to go in the same direction?
> ...



Fascinating, must be very impressive to watch, though I guess not actually viewable. Thanks for the enlightenment!

Regards


----------



## jrista (May 4, 2014)

zim said:


> jrista said:
> 
> 
> > zim said:
> ...



As far as I know the systems used to fabricate silicon devices are not sealed. The wavers are open and accessible in most of the pictures I've seen. These things have to be done in sealed clean rooms where not even one speck of dust exists (as one speck of dust on a wafer means whatever is etched in that area of the wafer is useless). If you could find a way to get into a cleanroom at Canon, you could probably watch sensor fabrication in action. It isn't a particularly fast process, from what I understand, though.


----------



## East Wind Photography (May 5, 2014)

This is all fine and dandy but doesnt explain when the 7d mark ii will be available for pre-order. Isnt that what really matters? ;D


----------



## Don Haines (May 6, 2014)

East Wind Photography said:


> This is all fine and dandy but doesnt explain when the 7d mark ii will be available for pre-order. Isnt that what really matters? ;D



+1


----------



## dgatwood (May 7, 2014)

jrista said:


> zim said:
> 
> 
> > Why do the etchings always have to go in the same direction?
> ...



I was under the impression that chip vendors typically used a single mask (template) for the entire wafer, though. If so, then the additional work to add a sensor in the other direction would be limited to modifying the mask with an additional set of clear spots for the additional chip's features, modifying the cutting program slightly, and then modifying the picker to grab that one chip and rotate it ninety degrees.

If they aren't using one mask per wafer, then I suspect they're in a world of hurt, yield-wise, because the alignment of the mask would have to be perfect twenty to eighty times per pass across a given wafer, whereas with a single mask, it only has to be perfect once per pass across the wafer.

If Canon hasn't done this already, they should probably sit down, do the math on what percentage of chips are full-frame, and then design masks to etch the full-frame sensors at the center of the wafer, and surround them with crop sensors to maximize the surface coverage. In theory, they could also mask the DIGIC chips, lens microcontrollers, etc. in the borders, so that only a tiny bit of the silicon wafer is wasted (because I'm pretty sure the robots have to have some bare spots near the edge of the wafers so that they can safely grab them).

Granted, you can't do that for every combination of chips—IIRC, some silicon parts likely require significantly different doping—but for parts that are fairly similar, you should be able to do so. At a bare minimum, I would expect that you could combine different sizes of sensors almost arbitrarily, including not only full-frame and crop sensors, but also smaller sensors for use in camera phones and point-and-shoot cameras.


----------



## jrista (May 7, 2014)

dgatwood said:


> jrista said:
> 
> 
> > zim said:
> ...



If you are assuming they use a single mask in a single exposure to generate an entire wafer of sensors, then you would be incorrect. Remember that the whole point of using a mask and deep or extreme ultraviolet light wavelengths is that it allows the mask to be orders of magnitude larger than the actual CMOS device being fabricated. Were talking many thousands to millions of times larger...macro scale vs. nano scale. To make a mask large enough to expose an entire wafer at once would be....immense. Generating and focusing the light beam would be an equally immense undertaking (assuming it's even possible to bend light enough to do it.) You seem to think that making a single mask to expose the wafer in one shot is easier...if it was, I'm sure everyone would have moved to that approach decades ago. Fabbing one die at a time is how it's done in all industries, including CPUs, GPUs, etc. (which are considerably more complex devices than an image sensor, and use smaller processes as well.) 

Fabricating a sensor is a multi-step, multi-layer process, per-sensor (or per-cpu, per-gpu, per-IC), not per-wafer. They design a sensor, generate the template*s* necessary to etch and layer the necessary materials for all of the transistors, wiring, and other components involved in that sensor, then use that template again and again to fabricate multiple sensors per wafer. For each pass, the wafer is coated with a photoresist, which when exposed by DUV or EUV light, changes it's chemical structure. Every die on the wafer is exposed one after the other with the first template, then the entire wafer is bathed in chemicals to remove the exposed photoresist, etch away the exposed silicon, and dope the remaining silicon if necessary. The rest of the photorisist for the first pass is removed, a new layer of silicon or silicon-based material is added, another layer of photoresist is added, and the wafer is sent through the stepper again. Rinse, repeat, etc.

There are steppers, and there are scanners. Some large CMOS (like the very large ultra-sensitive CMOS sensor Canon developed a few years ago) devices cannot even be exposed by a single beam, in order to get proper focus, the beam has to be smaller than the full size of the template...so photolithography scanners allow larger devices to be fabricated via a longer exposure by moving both the wafer and the UV reticle opposite each other *during* exposure. Canon manufactures both photolithography steppers and scanners, and according to their site, these devices support 200mm and 300mm wafers, and their latest devices can apparently use some techniques to image below the 90nm diffraction limit of the DUV light they use (so Canon is more than capable of fabricating sensors on a 180nm process with their own photolithography technology, and on 300mm wafers at that). 

It's all automated and computerized, human hands aren't directly involved in moving the wafer or anything like that (at least not until it's done), so redirecting the beam or moving the wafer can be exceptionally precise. There has to be some negative space around each sensor anyway to allow them to be cut out of the die, but that's a very careful balance of just exactly the right amount of space...not too little as you risk damaging dies during cutting, and not too much that you waste space. The thing of it is, it all works in one orientation...while the wafer and reticule can be moved horizontally, from the things I've read about photolithography devices, there is no rotation of the wafer or template or anything like that. It moves under the template and UV beam, out to the chemical bath for etching and processing, on to have another layer of silicon deposited, back under the template, so on and so forth. It is probably possible to build a fab that could fabricate devices in multiple orientations, however I'm certain there are multiple challenges to making that possible, and it would likely increase cost exponentially (it wouldn't just be changes to the stepper or scanner...you would have to make sure the entire manufacturing pipeline was capable of dealing with devices of differing orientation...that includes the steps involved in cutting the wafer and separating out each die, packaging the die which involves either adding pins or a land grid array and the like, etc.)


----------



## dgatwood (May 7, 2014)

jrista said:


> If you are assuming they use a single mask in a single exposure to generate an entire wafer of sensors, then you would be incorrect.



No, a single mask *per pass (exposure)* of the entire wafer.




jrista said:


> Remember that the whole point of using a mask and deep or extreme ultraviolet light wavelengths is that it allows the mask to be orders of magnitude larger than the actual CMOS device being fabricated. Were talking many thousands to millions of times larger...macro scale vs. nano scale.



I think you're off a bit. According to Wikipedia and other sources, masks typically use 4x magnification (even for EUVL), or on occasion, 8x or 10x. Certainly not millions of times larger.

With that said, apparently I'm somewhat out of date. The older chip manufacturing did typically expose an entire wafer at once, but apparently that isn't practical these days. My bad. Either way, my main point still remains that you can lay out arbitrary patterns of chips on the wafer.

Also, I'm not sure rotation would really be as hard as you think. Assuming a square mask, you could readily produce a second mask with the pattern rotated 90 degrees, and use that mask when exposing the additional bits. It shouldn't matter that part of the projected area is outside the bounds of the wafer. Then, after you cut the wafer, it shouldn't take *that* much effort to rotate a few of the parts 90 degrees as they're moved from the sliced wafer to wherever the next step in manufacturing occurs. Once you've done that, the remainder of your process can treat those parts the same as the other parts.

With that said, the more masks you build, the higher your overhead, so that approach probably wouldn't be nearly as efficient cost-wise as filling in the wasted parts of the wafer with smaller chips that you have to make anyway.


----------



## jrista (May 7, 2014)

Well the masks have certainly shrunk in size, then. Also, keep in mind, masks may not cover the whole die area. A number of years ago I was researching this stuff, and found that a lot of the time masks only cover some of the area of a die, only a few transistors or other components at a time. And they were quite large, inches in size vs. the nanometers of the things they templated (hence the reason I thought a scale factor of thousands...although I guess the size of the transistor designs _on _the template might only be millimeters or maybe even microns in size, vs. nanometers, even if the whole template is a few inches in size, which reduces things to a 10-100x scale factor). I guess progress keeps marching on.

I guess it would be possible to rotate the design on the template. I don't know enough about the actual lithography machines to know how that would work...could you just rotate the whole template? Or would you have to generate twice as many templates for the alternate orientation? And there is still the problem of automating everything with dies of different orientations...you have to update the entire automated pipeline if you do that. When dies are all in the same orientation, you can simplify parts of your pipeline, because you can then make certain assumptions.


----------

