# My Prediction for the new EOS Lineup



## adamfilip (Jun 23, 2011)

Here is my wild prediction for the future of the Canon EOS Lineup

1D & 1DS lines to be combined into a new 1Ds Mark 4

Canon EOS 1Ds Mark 4

Full Frame with 40 MP
45Point AF All Cross Type with Eye track focus point selection
10FPS up to 100 frames raw, 300 jpg
Dual Digic 5 processors
ISO 25-204800 (low noise to iso 1600)
2k video
3.5 LCD with full HD res, 2M pixel
Built in Wireless File Transmitter and GPS
350k shutter
Intelligent Viewfinder (like current 7D) 100%
built in flash control like current 7D
Dual Media cards
Extensive Weather sealing
Auto ISO up to Max ISO
$5999

Canon EOS 3D
26MP Full Frame CMOS Sensor
6FPS up to 100 frames raw, 300 jpg
Dual Digic 5 processors
ISO 25-204800 (low noise to iso 1600)
Built in Grip like 1Dm4
3.5 LCD with 2M Pixel Res
45Point AF from 1Dm4
Built in Wireless File Transmitter and GPS
Built in flash control like current 7D
Intelligent Viewfinder (like current 7D) 100%
Dual Media cards
Moderate Weather sealing
Auto ISO up to Max ISO
$3999


Canon EOS 5D Mark III VIDEO

12.7MP Full Frame CMOS Sensor (to achieve 4k video 4096x3112)
4FPS up to 100 frames raw, 300 jpg
Dual Digic 5 processors
ISO 25-204800 (low noise to iso 1600)
Articulating 3.5 LCD with full HD res, 2M pixel
19Point AF from 7D
Built in Wireless File Transmitter and GPS
Built in flash control like current 7D
Intelligent Viewfinder (like current 7D) 100%
Dual Media cards
Minimal Weather sealing
RAW Video capture
4k video up to 60fps
16GB video Clips max
Full Autofocus in video
Auto ISO up to Max ISO
Available Add on Battery Grip with Mic inputs
$2999

Canon EOS 5D Mark III Photo

26MP Full Frame CMOS Sensor
4FPS up to 100 frames raw, 300 jpg
Dual Digic 5 processors
ISO 25-204800 (low noise to iso 1600)
Articulating 3.5 LCD with full HD res, 2M pixel
19Point AF from 7D
Built in Wireless File Transmitter and GPS
Built in flash control like current 7D
Intelligent Viewfinder (like current 7D) 100%
Dual Media cards
Minimal Weather sealing
Existing Video Capabilities of 5Dm2
Auto ISO up to Max ISO
$2499

Canon EOS 7D Mark II

21MP APS-C CMOS
10 FPS
19P AF
Articulating 3.5 LCD with full HD res, 2M pixel
Minimal Weather sealing
Same Video modes as 7D
Improved Video Autofocus
$1599


----------



## awinphoto (Jun 23, 2011)

possible but I still cant see them COMBINING the 1D series and separating the 5D series... Kinda counter intuitive... I could see them adding a 5D and 3D or something like that, but separating to 2 5d's... dunno...


----------



## drummstikk (Jun 25, 2011)

awinphoto said:


> possible but I still cant see them COMBINING the 1D series and separating the 5D series... Kinda counter intuitive... I could see them adding a 5D and 3D or something like that, but separating to 2 5d's... dunno...



Combining the 1D series actually DOES make sense to me, it's splitting the 5D that I don't grok. Pros would understand the difference between two 5D models and choose accordingly, but the serious amateurs, who move a lot of units for Canon, will find it confusing that the line has been forked. Canon already has a line of video cameras. Many (maybe all) of the video cameras will do stills, but you don't see video cameras "optimized" for stills. That's why I don't understand optimizing a still camera for video.

As for the 1D series, If you maintain the motor speed and other features we all expect from the 1D, but give it a full-frame sensor in, say, the 30MP range (not that much higher than the current 5D MkII), I'm not sure I see the need for a separate model with even higher pixel density. If 30 MP doesn't cut it for you, you probably need to be looking to a higher power anyway (Hasselblad, Mamiya, Leaf. . .).

And, if they go this way, I think they will call it 1D Mark V, not 1Ds Mark IV. The marketing statement would be that pro cameras are now full frame. Period. No longer will the "sports" camera be limited by the smaller sensor, or the "high -rez" camera be hampered by a slow fps rate.


----------



## motorhead (Jun 25, 2011)

Drummstikk,

Much of what you say I fully agree with. We do differ when it comes to the MP of a recombined 1D range body or whatever Canon choose to call it. To me 30mp is about 3 years too late to make the grade as a top flight pro camera. Other manufacturers are openly talking about 40MP and I suggest that for Canon to have any claim at all to the top step of the podium they must at the very least match that.

Remember that Canon pulled what was assumed to be a circa 32mp 1Ds mk4 at a very late stage. They have been the manufacturer who have pushed Megapixels the hardest. It's been a big selling point for them and not to at least match others would be a major defeat and trust me, Japanese businesses are very proud.

Then we have the emerging medium format competition. This is a relatively new threat but I bet Canon and indeed Nikon are having to seriously consider their options. The big benefit Canon has is that it produces it's own sensors and has demonstrated sensors massively bigger than the 30 or 40 MP we are discussing here.


----------



## ecka (Jun 25, 2011)

drummstikk said:


> Combining the 1D series actually DOES make sense to me, it's splitting the 5D that I don't grok. Pros would understand the difference between two 5D models and choose accordingly, but the serious amateurs, who move a lot of units for Canon, will find it confusing that the line has been forked. Canon already has a line of video cameras. Many (maybe all) of the video cameras will do stills, but you don't see video cameras "optimized" for stills. That's why I don't understand optimizing a still camera for video.
> 
> As for the 1D series, If you maintain the motor speed and other features we all expect from the 1D, but give it a full-frame sensor in, say, the 30MP range (not that much higher than the current 5D MkII), I'm not sure I see the need for a separate model with even higher pixel density. If 30 MP doesn't cut it for you, you probably need to be looking to a higher power anyway (Hasselblad, Mamiya, Leaf. . .).
> 
> And, if they go this way, I think they will call it 1D Mark V, not 1Ds Mark IV. The marketing statement would be that pro cameras are now full frame. Period. No longer will the "sports" camera be limited by the smaller sensor, or the "high -rez" camera be hampered by a slow fps rate.


Well said, drummstikk. However, I imagine a bit different top grade Canon PRO DSLR. Probably that is just something to dream about but who knows ... 
1D Mark 5
48mp FF sensor
5 fps at full resolution
8fps in 28mp 1.3x crop mode
10fps in 18mp 1.6x crop mode
12fps in 12mp FF mode (2x2 pixel bining) for best high ISO performance and fast burst


----------



## Lawliet (Jun 25, 2011)

motorhead said:


> Other manufacturers are openly talking about 40MP and I suggest that for Canon to have any claim at all to the top step of the podium they must at the very least match that.



40MP won't get you any closer to MF then 30. Its not the sensor resolution that limits the amount of actual detail, but all that stuff that sits in front of it. From an AF that only promises a 1/3 DOF based on an acceptable COC for 135, not tight enough tolerances(among other factors due to outdoor usability) to the AA filter.
Not that sqrt(40/30)=~15% more resolution under ideal conditions would get me exited if they would actually manifest.

Those Billboards&centerfolds printed from shots taken with a D700 turned out really good.


----------



## V8Beast (Jun 25, 2011)

Merging of the 1D and 1Ds is long overdue, and I'd love to see it. The big question is, would it sell for $5,000 like the 1DMKIV, or $7,000 like the 1Ds MKIII? Maybe somewhere in-between? With as good as the 7D is for sports shooters, Canon will probably take into account that potential buyers of the current 1DMKIV might opt for a 7D instead. It might be in situations where the 7D plays a supplementary role, where a shooter has a 1DIV in addition to a 7D rather than a system that consists of two 1DIVs. Either way, the 7D has to be cutting into the 1DIV's sales to a certain degree. 

I'm willing to bet Canon will release a 1Ds replacement before the much-anticipated 5DIII. The 1Ds is ancient at this point, and long overdue for an update. As for the 5DII, despite it's short-comings in the AF and FPS department, it's still an outstanding body. Like everyone else, I'm guilty about complaining about how slow the 5DII is, but in practical terms, it has carved out a niche amongst wedding, portrait, and landscape photographers where a blazing AF system and frame rate aren't necessary. I'd expect Canon to continue to cater to this market segment, and take an evolutionary rather than a revolutionary approach to updating it. I think most the speculation surrounding the 5DIII's potential specs are spot on: a 7D-like AF system, a slight bump in MPs, a minor jump DR and high ISO performance, and 4-5 FPS. I actually wouldn't be surprised if the 5DIII's AF system was inferior to the 7D's and the FPS rate didn't improve at all over the 5DII. Even if that were the case, it would still be the go-to camera for wedding, portrait, and landscape photogs.


----------



## drummstikk (Jun 29, 2011)

motorhead said:


> Much of what you say I fully agree with. We do differ when it comes to the MP of a recombined 1D range body or whatever Canon choose to call it. To me 30mp is about 3 years too late to make the grade as a top flight pro camera. Other manufacturers are openly talking about 40MP and I suggest that for Canon to have any claim at all to the top step of the podium they must at the very least match that.



I'll leave it to the tech geeks to discuss why 40MP is technically difficult or impossible to achieve for this size sensor. What I will address, or rather ask, is what the heck would you do with all that data? Is there really a practical use for 40MP or are we all for some reason obsessed with seeing the fulfillment of the prophecy of Moore's Law?

This is strictly my opinion of course, but anything much more than about 25MP is just irrelevant to my work. The 18MP that comes out of my 7D's are already overkill for many applications and some clients actually request that I and other photographers provide lower rez images so as not to overwhelm their archive systems. When you're doing web design and small trifold brochures and in-house newsletters, even 11MP (the next "standard" size down available from the 7D in Adobe Camera Raw) is overkill, but at least the file size is more manageable.

Storing all those Raw files is no picnic for me either, but of course I deal with it.

Put another way, I can do a reasonable amount of cropping and still get an excellent 13x19 portfolio print (max size from my Epson) from the 7D. The 5D would of course do better, and future future iterations of both of these cameras and the 1D will undoubtedly improve even on that. But 40MP? Just sounds like a lot of pixels I'll never really use except for maybe .01% of my images.

There is of course the limited market for commercial and very high-end portrait/wedding work that will want those megapixels for retouching and/or bookcase-sized enlargements, but don't the vast majority of us just want to get off the megapixel treadmill and start seeing some better performance in low light?

Can I get a "hell yes" from the congregation?


----------



## bycostello (Jun 29, 2011)

dual memory cards on the 5d would be nice....


----------



## motorhead (Jun 29, 2011)

Drummstikk,

Just as you don't understand why I think Canon have to come up with more than 32mp for their top of the range pro model, I don't understand why so many users are trying to stop the inevitable march of progress.

Canon pulled the 1Ds mk4 at a very late stage for reasons they have not shared with us, but if the rumour factory is to be believed it was at least in part because the 27mp sensor was considered inadaquate.That's why I say that anything less than 40mp will have the world laughing at Canon when Nikon/Sony/Panasonic etc, etc, introduce bodies with higher pixel counts.

Apart from that, a digital image file still does not have the same "smoothness" of tone and colour changes that a good MF film produces. Thats nothing to do with resolution, it's purely a pixel count issue. I suggest that in a few years when we are all regularly using 2000 mp and higher cameras, we will be very disappointed with the unsmooth colour and tonal graduation of the present cameras.


----------



## Flake (Jun 29, 2011)

"Canon pulled the 1Ds mk4 at a very late stage for reasons they have not shared with us"

Really? You know this as a fact? It's not something I've heard or am able to find on the net, if this is a rumour you have heard then you should say that, and not state it as a fact. 

You do state that it was rumoured that the reason was because the 27 MP sensor was "considered inadequate" reinforcing the original statement as fact.

You may be privvy to something I am not, and if so would you please point me to the source of this information, presumably it was a Canon announcement?


----------



## EYEONE (Jun 29, 2011)

I really don't think Canon would combine the 1D(s) line just to turn around and split the 5D line. There is no reason, from a business standpoint, to have a photo and a video version of the 5DIII. Doesn't make any sense.


----------



## motorhead (Jun 29, 2011)

Flake,

At the time it was well covered by numerous Canon forums and I don't intend to reopen what is now history. Reports of the body seen being beta tested were everywhere at the time. Granted the specs were guesswork then, just as we are speculating now, but given the progress made by other manufacturers since I think the higher numbers being suggested now are entirely possible.

Canon have built a reputation around ever higher pixel counts and they will take a hit in the market place if they are perceived to have messed it up.


----------



## amarlez (Jun 29, 2011)

The problem with these predictions (seem pretty good) is that you're assuming canon is going to complicate the line up even more with two 5Ds and a 3D, when everything we've been hearing is that they're looking to simplify the line. Simplifying the line just makes sense business wise.

Wasn't there rumors about some kind of external accessory that might allow future cameras to shoot 4k? I'm expecting all the wishes of the people who are crying for higher video quality to be granted with something like that. Video boosting kind of screams a new grip, and maybe a hybrid one that includes more batteries for long video shoots. 

Bringing the 5D's sports performance (AF, FPS) into the modern age and selling an optional accessory for those who want to shell out extra for video (since they're already shelling out more for other equipment anyway...) makes more sense than making different models of the same camera. New feature? New gimmicky add-on for niches, albeit video seems to be a huge niche.

And I doubt Canon would withdraw from the megapixel wars just to boost ISO. Isn't the idea to have all cameras with phenomenal ISO performance? Purely opinion (as is all of this) but it seems like Canon is committed to striking a balance between megapixels and ISO and making it work. ISO seems to be a generational priority, not a camera-to-camera one.

I've mentioned this before, and I'm sticking by it: The new 7D is going to inherit the 45-point AF system from the discontinued 1D. A 19-point system for the 5D seems kind of inevitable. So, supposing Canon comes out with a new grip for video, what exactly would differentiate a 7DmarkII from a 5DmarkIII? Sensor size? FPS? 

The 7D is an xD in its own right and will need to be differentiated from other xDs. 

That's the name of the game at Canon right now â€” differentiation.


----------



## Stu_bert (Jun 29, 2011)

I think the proposed lineup is good but as Amarlez said, it's more complex than they have today. Canon have stated that they want everyone on FF at some stage, so why not shake up both your Prosumer & Pro market? I would have as my lineup

- Pro Line (think they might change the name).
4K Video to give RED something to think about
36MP
Better Focusing / ISO yada yada.
Merges 1Ds / 1D lines
Some new funky body design as suggested, which makes more sense for video
Touch Screen
Built in BT & wi-fi connectivity

- Prosumer
HD video
28MP
7D focusing
Merges 5D and 7D ranges, although the 7D as is will fall into a new xxD range

- Enthusiast
7D replacement (2012) with a few more MP
Articulating Screen
Compact Camera style editing functions - crop, auto-levels, proper B&W etc etc.

- Entry Level
The current xxxD range
Compact Camera style editing functions - crop, auto-levels, proper B&W etc etc.

So basically 4 models and that's your lot. Reduce manufacturing, boost development cycles as you are refreshing less often. Stop worring about overlap. Enthusiast / Entry are 1.6x crop, Pro / Prosumer are FF. You might add some form of automatic crop mode for FF so it "acts" like a 1.3x or 1.6x crop in the HW.

*Canon also need to worry about*

- Better DR - Nikon has at least a 2 stop lead on them
- Actually using 14bits of colour - rather than 12. Again, Nikon/Sony appear better here on recent models
- Lower ISO as everyone requests - not a fudge
- Higher ISO performance which will match the latest D4 series.
- Open up the camera for developers. Either put the SDK/API on Android & iOS and give BT or wi-fi connectivity as standard, or add the equivalent compelling env. to the camera.
- Bring back tech into the camera such as the Depth mode that we had on Film cameras, or provide this in a nice I/F on the back of the screen
- Introduce tech such as voice control so I can focus on my subject and just tell it ISO 1600 or high burst. Not convinced about eye focus, but VC I think would be good for sports & nature and perhaps even paparazzi/wedding
- Consider square sensors - no rotation problems, higher quality MP
- Simple HDR to extend the DR
- Focus stacking tech - the camera provides focus bracketing, and SW stacks it all together
- Proper Auto-ISO where I can define what parameters I want to vary, what my min and max are for each parameter.
- Allow me to assign any button any function I want.
- Changeable sensor backs. This would be a big one. Dealer has to replace, but the issue is how to stop people taking a 36MP sensor, and adding it to the Prosumer model. Maybe this is a Pro range feature only.

_None of these are my ideas - many others have had them..._

For me the usability of SLRs has not changed much since I got my first film EOS. Digital has improved quality and given me the ability to preview what I have done. But has the way I control the camera changed much? Not really. No leaps & bounds here. Shake it up Canon et al - open up your camera to developers and see what happens. Then it is just the HW which differentiates your models.

Finally, whilst in my "no, no, I can make a difference, Canon will hear me" mode ;D , I think a lot of people don't realise how much significant leaps in tech require companies - even as big as Canon. Witness how often Intel has really *changed* it's CPU architecture. Nikon took best part of 3/4 of a decade to get their act together, and have been developing it for the past 3 years. Canon not only got caught out resting on their laurels when Nikon release the D3 etc, but probably did not have any revolutionary tech programmes in place as they did not think they had to develop it.

So now they have had the last 4 years to effectively deliver "2 generations of tech" to match what Nikon will release, OR come out with something quite special to leapfrog the D4 range. I personally think the "special" tech is not here for this release, I just hope that they had the sense to design based on Nikon's continual evolution of their technology, and not catch up with the D3. Guess we'll all know in 2 months.


----------



## unfocused (Jun 29, 2011)

> Canon have stated that they want everyone on FF at some stage,



I'd like to see that quote. It sounds more like hyperbole than a serious business strategy. 

From what I understand from others on this forum (I'm no engineer) the inherently higher cost of full frame vs. APS-C sensors are unlikely to be overcome by improved manufacturing technologies. If the manufacturing cost is more and if the profit margin is less, I can't imagine why Canon (or any other manufacturer) would want to push full-frame sensors over compact sensors. 

I would think that all manufacturers would like to be moving their customers toward smaller sensors. In fact, that does seem to be the strategy. I'm not suggesting that full frame SLRs will be going away anytime soon, but there doesn't seem to be much growth in that segment of the market.

Instead, it appears manufacturers of all brands are focused on higher-end APS-C bodies. (Sigma recently announced a new flagship APS-C body in the $5,000 range). I would not be at all surprised if within a few years we see more true professional APS-C bodies (full weathersealing, built-in grip, 15-20 fps, etc. etc.)


----------



## macfly (Jun 29, 2011)

I just wish they'd get a move on, the wait is againizing, and getting me closer to Nikonizing.


----------



## Stu_bert (Jun 29, 2011)

Re Canon FF Strategy

http://www.northlight-images.co.uk/cameras/Canon_1DS_MkIV.html

Scroll down to the 18th June IIRC from Canon Product Manager

Downscaling the size of the sensor hits the limits of how much you can cram in there far quicker than FF and also gives you less control over depth of field - one of the biggest strengths or weaknesses compact camera sensors (ignoring the APS ones) depending on your POV.

I would be interested to know how much additional cost there is for a single FF sensor family vs maintaining 2 development and production threads for a FF and 1.3. Add in 1.6x and I think the comparison would be even more compelling. You could just roll down each generation from Pro to Prosumer etc, and then just replace the high-end one. Give it 5-6 years and your entry-level dSlR would have the same sensor as the Pro one had with perhaps just some small tweaks.

Also it's not just a size consideration viz a vie materials, you have more / smaller photo-sensors in an APS sensor vs FF just to achieve the same MP, and your R&D on how to squeeze even more "light-reception" into the same area becomes more and more difficult for each generation, until you manage that next leap in technology - be that foveon or something else.

Finally, Canon would be able to drop their EF-S lens development cycle and focus back again on EF.

So for me, if they want to continue the MP race and if they want to shake it up but simplify their lines then reducing the number of sensors and relegating smaller sensors to entry models just seems a good solution. As the efficiency of manufacturing / tech continues, then I would phase out APS all together.

But hey, I don't work for Canon, I just use their kit ;D


----------



## Stu_bert (Jun 29, 2011)

PS Nikon used to be APS for years and argued against the need for FF, before finally launching FF sensors across their range. Sure they both sell far more APS-based cameras than FF, and indeed a significant amount is based on the price of the camera. However, I think a more mass-production run of FF sensors and not always trying to cram more MP on the same die would result in a better price point. I think a reasonable percentage of photographers would love a revised 5D MK 1 with better focusing, maybe 14MP, better DR and a lower price - closer to the Â£1K mark.

I personally switched to a 5D as soon as it launched - of course personal preference - and again, would change to whoever maintained a FF capability if Canon dropped theirs.


----------



## unfocused (Jun 30, 2011)

> Re Canon FF Strategy
> 
> http://www.northlight-images.co.uk/cameras/Canon_1DS_MkIV.html
> 
> Scroll down to the 18th June IIRC from Canon Product Manager



Not interested in a big debate, but I'm not sure a six year old quote from a product manager has much relevance today. 

As I said, I'm no engineer, but others on this forum who are more technically minded have said that they don't think you can easily overcome the price differential between full frame and APS-C. 

Obviously, from a marketing standpoint, it's good for Canon to maintain that they want everyone buying a full frame camera. But I just don't think their actions reflect that and I can't find any evidence in the actual marketplace to support that premise either. I guess all we can do is wait it out over the next 4-5 years and see what happens.


----------



## Stu_bert (Jun 30, 2011)

Agreed, I am no engineer either so it is pure conjecture on my part, and I meant no offence in the discussion. I guess I am assuming that in the same way we keep cramming more transistors onto CPUs, and make bigger and higher res Plasma/LCD/LED devices, then the same cost-challenges with sensors can be overcome. Of course making a 12 MP FF sensor for $500 this year, which may have cost you $700 2 years ago to make, also means you can make an APS sensor for $300. So the economies of scale would apply to either. 

I guess my point was more that overall cost, simplifying your whole range has an affect on a whole manner of elements - from develop/manufacture/market to support and thus help reduce your cost base and allow you to increase your margin or lower your prices. Whether that was standardise on FF or APS would have the same affect to your cost base. I was just biased as would hate them to standardise on APS sensors ;D


----------



## Rocky (Jul 5, 2011)

Stu_bert said:


> Agreed, I am no engineer either so it is pure conjecture on my part, and I meant no offence in the discussion. I guess I am assuming that in the same way we keep cramming more transistors onto CPUs, and make bigger and higher res Plasma/LCD/LED devices, then the same cost-challenges with sensors can be overcome. Of course making a 12 MP FF sensor for $500 this year, which may have cost you $700 2 years ago to make, also means you can make an APS sensor for $300. So the economies of scale would apply to either.
> 
> I guess my point was more that overall cost, simplifying your whole range has an affect on a whole manner of elements - from develop/manufacture/market to support and thus help reduce your cost base and allow you to increase your margin or lower your prices. Whether that was standardise on FF or APS would have the same affect to your cost base. I was just biased as would hate them to standardise on APS sensors ;D


CMOS process is a relative stable process and has been around for a long time.. We cannot expect any substantial cost reduction in sensor from the process alone, except moving from 8 inch wafer to 12 in wafer. With the same amount of physical work (mostly done with automation), a little more chemical, and a slight modification in process and you end up twice as much sensor.
As for improving the sensor performance, we should have high hope. just look at the latest sensor from Nikon( Sony). However, we have already pushed beyond the capability of the lens resolution with 18MP APS_C sensor.

As a foot note: Most other electronic device are enjoying huge cost reduction in the last 40 years due to the advance in processing technology and cost reduction in the processing itself and hence the internal device on the silicon is getting smaller and smaller and resulted in the actual silicon in each IC is getting smaller and smaller and hence more and more IC per wafer. They are getting cheaper and cheaper. Unfortunately. This does not appy to the DSLR snesor. The sensor size is fixed. So there is no cost reduction in shrinking internal device. Instead we end up with higher pixel count. We have moved from 2MP (APS-C) to 18MP (APS-C) in the last 15 years or so. 
As for the prine difference of FF and APS-C, The size ratio between them is about 2.63. So the cost ratio between FF and APS-C will be 5 to 7 times depends on the cleningness of the fabrication facility.


----------



## Stu_bert (Jul 6, 2011)

Rocky, as you clearly have more understanding in this area, would appreciate a little more info/understanding....

If moving from 8" to 12" is not much additional cost but you end up with twice as much sensor, does it follow that you can similarly continue to scale the wafer size to benefit?

Secondly, did not quite get the maths on 2.63x larger, therefore 5-7x more expensive?

Thirdly, electronic shrinkage, is it not the case that all that happens is we get more for the same price - more transistors etc, of course coupled with better use of those transitors? Did not think in the case of CPUs they were getting smaller, just more on them - which is akin to CMOS sensors advancement?

Finally (almost there  ) but is cost reduction of TV panels again just a maturity of the technology / manufacturing process?

Sorry so many questions - just like to learn


----------



## Rocky (Jul 6, 2011)

Stu_bert, increase the wafer size is not as easy as it looks. It is very envolved. Also the equipment will be extremely expensive for large wafer. As far as I know, nobody can break the 12" barrier yet. As for yield, the ratio is not the ratio of the size but roughly the 1/ square of the ratio of size. The size of idividual trnssitors are getting smaller and smaller, As a result, Some IC are getting smaller and smaller and hence getting cheaper and cheaper. Some IC have multifunction. that is why most of the electronic device are getting cheaper including Digital camera. As for CPU, that is a slightly different story. The transistors are getting smaller and becomes faster. The CPU also evolved from single core to double, quad, even hex. I can predict tha we will see Octo soon.
As for flat panel TV, IT is not yet a mature process, so the cost is dropping due to increase in yield.

Hope this will help


----------



## Mt Spokane Photography (Jul 6, 2011)

The quality of the wafer is yet another factor. Canon say they use a higher grade of wafers with as few defects as possible, because the yield can be very low with FF or APS-H sensors. 

Still, I wonder if they are able to find all the defects before they assemble the sensor with microlenses, anti-aliasing, etc. If they have to do all that before testing, the cost of a good sensor goes up a whole lot.


----------



## Rocky (Jul 6, 2011)

Mt Spokane Photography said:


> The quality of the wafer is yet another factor. Canon say they use a higher grade of wafers with as few defects as possible, because the yield can be very low with FF or APS-H sensors.
> 
> Still, I wonder if they are able to find all the defects before they assemble the sensor with microlenses, anti-aliasing, etc. If they have to do all that before testing, the cost of a good sensor goes up a whole lot.


There are so much at stake for the 12" or even 8" wafer. So everybody are using high quality wafer. Raw(starting wafer) are dirt cheap, compared to the finished wafer. Infact most of the defects are from each processing steps. there are at leat 30 steps, some can go as high as 60 plus steps. Testing sensor can be quick, it is all automatic problem is that you cannot notto add microlens in individual sensor. You have to do it on the whole wafer, for bothj good and bad sensors all at the sametime.


----------



## Mt Spokane Photography (Jul 7, 2011)

Rocky said:


> Mt Spokane Photography said:
> 
> 
> > The quality of the wafer is yet another factor. Canon say they use a higher grade of wafers with as few defects as possible, because the yield can be very low with FF or APS-H sensors.
> ...



See Canons white paper, a bit dated, but not a lot has changed, lots of small things, but the process and number of steps has not been reduced from 600 ti 60 or 30.

http://www.scribd.com/doc/49842014/Canon-CMOS-WP

And, as Canon says, they do not use cheap $30 wafers, but pay up to $5,000 for ultra high quality ones.


----------



## macfly (Jul 7, 2011)

That is a great read, than you for posting the link.


----------



## AG (Jul 7, 2011)

I cant see the 5D being split but i can see the 1D series being merged.

I can actually see the 7D being dropped and as for the 3D idea, unless it was released as a gimmick actual "3D" camera. I cant see it selling because unfortunately that is what the 3D label has come to represent. 

I think that eventually Canon will realise that as nice as it is to have multiple choices for customers they will eventually do a similar strategy to someone like Apple and reduce the options.

The way i see it, it will be:

Fully Pro Camera - 1D series with ALL the bells and whistles but no video, purely a FF Photographers camera.

Prosumer Camera - 5D series, lots of MP & FF, geared around both Photo and Video, Best of both worlds.

Enthusiast - 60D series, pretty much as is but eventually gaining the 7D's AF and other benefits.

Amateur - 600D series, no changes from current models

Entry - 1100D series, no changes from current models or if anything add more funkier colours to take on the Pentax KR 

I know that this will upset a few people but it would also mean that people would know what to gear towards. There would be a uniformity in the line ups and this would mean that Canon would only need to really focus on the top 2 cameras.
The rest would be a trickle down effect.


----------



## Rocky (Jul 7, 2011)

Mt Spokane Photography said:


> Rocky said:
> 
> 
> > Mt Spokane Photography said:
> ...


There are different ways to define step. In the industry, each step is one mask. Between each mask, there are a few process, So If you count everything, 600 "steps" are highly possible. As for the number of sensor an 8" wafer can produce, there are some mistakes too. There is no way an 8" wafer can produce 200 APS-C sensor. I worked out to number to be roughly 70 sensor sites for APS-C for a 8" wafer. There are a few holes in the paper. we can read it anyway we want. I read it as a paper to justify the high cost of FF sensor. I am speaking from my own experience about the CMOS process.. You can also read it anyway you want also.


----------



## Stu_bert (Jul 7, 2011)

@Rocky - many thanks


----------

