# Still no news about a Canon shift in sensor fabrication?



## pedro (Jul 8, 2013)

Was just browsing the net and didn't find any news about a probable sensor fabrication shift (from 500 to 180 nm) by Canon for its newest camera body. Can it be expected by 2014 along with a rumored 7DII? Stumbled upon an older but intresting thread at this forum instead
http://www.canonrumors.com/forum/index.php?topic=10545.0


----------



## Mt Spokane Photography (Jul 8, 2013)

The reference topic was based on someone at Chipworks speculation.

Of course, it will happen some day, and might have already happened without any fanfare, but it was pure speculation or a guess, with no indication that Chipworks actually had information. 

Chipworks does not get information from Canon, they purchase products and analyze them for a stiff fee. Their analysis is used to find patent violations so patent holders can collect.


----------



## pedro (Jul 8, 2013)

Thanks, MtSpokane this gives somes additional insight in procedures like these.
Here's some stuff from DPR
http://www.dpreview.com/forums/post/51771778

By the look of things, the 70D is still using an off-sensor ADC (analog-to-digital converter).
This means that DR will be limited to 11 stops as on all current Canon cameras.
This limitation is determined by the off-sensor ADC and Canon cannot 'fix' it - unless they switch to on-sensor ADCs as Sony/Toshiba/Aptina.

"So, no change in DR compared to previous cameras.

As for ISO/noise: Canon themselves claim that ISO/noise performance in RAW will be 'on par' with the 60D. They did mention better color reproduction, though.

We have to look at RAW samples to verify the 'on par' claim.
By looking at the posted samples, I'd say that ISO/noise might be slightly improved.
It would be a 5DII->5DIII type of improvement, though, nothing major ... unfortunately.

So, there you have it: no change in DR, slightly better ISO/noise, and better color reproduction.
This is what you can expect from the 70D image quality - as compared to the 60D."


----------



## pedro (Jul 8, 2013)

Thank you, Ankorwatt. Guess I missed this one. So I hope, they come up with something similar at a lower cost and even more improved within the next 4 to 5 years, once the 5DIV or the 5DV (or whatever they may call it by then) is released. What is the reason for the higher internal cost at Canon? March 2011 hurricane?


----------



## x-vision (Jul 8, 2013)

The big unknown at this time is whether Canon will use the same sensor in the 7DII or not. 

If the 7DII has the same sensor as the 70D, Canon will have a hard time, IMO, convincing people to spend more on the 7DII.
The 70D specs are quite good already, so why bother?

It would be a completely different story, though, if the 7DII has better image quality than the 70D.

So, it makes more sense for Canon to put a better sensor in the 7DII - but who knows what they will actually do.


----------



## pedro (Jul 8, 2013)

Thank you so much for contributing. Very helpful information. I wish Canon could come down to an agreement with Sony. But doing their own stuff prevents from dependence on externale suppliers, so they might take their time developping their own version of an enhanced sensor tech.


----------



## Hannes (Jul 8, 2013)

I never think it is healthy depending on your competition for vital parts. Just look at the apple/samsung cpu production story


----------



## hamada (Jul 8, 2013)

sony is making 63% of it´s profit from insurance these days.

the electronic part of sony is a money grave.

it´s more and more likely sony will split off or even sell the electronics department.
canon would be dumb to depend on sony for sensor manufacturing in the long run.

and i have not much trust in the sony DSLR system either.

sony may has invested the most in manufacturing plants... but it does not PAY.


http://www.nytimes.com/2013/05/28/business/global/sonys-bread-and-butter-its-not-electronics.html?pagewanted=all&_r=0


----------



## AprilForever (Jul 8, 2013)

x-vision said:


> The big unknown at this time is whether Canon will use the same sensor in the 7DII or not.
> 
> If the 7DII has the same sensor as the 70D, Canon will have a hard time, IMO, convincing people to spend more on the 7DII.
> The 70D specs are quite good already, so why bother?
> ...




If the 7D mk II is only as good as the 70D, then upgrading from the 7D mk I seems much less interesting... 

However, if they put some special AF sauce in it, and make the body better sealed, and maybe e'en make the grip like the 5D III, then...


----------



## pj1974 (Jul 9, 2013)

If the rumours that the 7DmkII include something 'ground-breaking' - I am hoping it is it's IQ - which would mean a new sensor, and hopefully with an improved sensor manufacturing process - that would lead to less noise, greater DR, few banding issues, etc. However the 7D's sensor is not as bad as some people make it out to be.

I love my 7D. Sure, there *are* other aspects about the 7D that could be improved upon (eg ability to focus with less light, and somewhat improved AF consistency - especially with Live View) - but as a whole package it's an awesome DSLR, and that's why I bought it soon after it was released.

Of course technique and glass also are very important. But as far as buying a DSLR body I haven't looked back from purchasing the 7D. The thousands of quality photos I've captured with it are worth it to me. Even today there are still many landscape, macro, wildlife, portrait, event photos that I take which discerning people are very happy with.

Roll on technology improvements and competition! 

Paul


----------



## Skulker (Jul 9, 2013)

No rumors of a change to talk about so

1) Canon will have to go on producing some of the best Cameras out there ... and...
2) all those who complain about Canon making announcements well ahead of introductions will have less to complain about (but it wont stop them) ....and....
3) others will be speculating about all sorts of rubbish.

Me? apart from bemusement about some of the things I read, I'll be taking photos.


----------



## Don Haines (Jul 9, 2013)

ankorwatt said:


> Canon buy sensors from them selves to a higher price than from companies outside, this is a internal decision, Canon have invested lot of money and prestige in their own sensor lines, today there are a number of dedicated sensor manufacturers who have come much further in the cmos process than Canon and can keep lower price/unit than Canon can. An example is Sony who makes the best mobile units today and also sensors up to 24x36mm


And none of us know what agreements are in place between companies. For all we know, to get Nikon as a client, Sony could have signed an agreement that they would not sell particular components to Canon.... We photographers can speculate all we want as to why things are the way they are, but we will never know all the factors involved.


----------



## yakman (Jul 9, 2013)

If you read the 70D Canon China news release, 
the following is Google translate result
http://translate.google.com/translate?langpair=auto%7Cen&u=http://www.canon.com.cn/news/products/2013/pr_2013_07_02-12_00_00.html

"In the semiconductor manufacturing process, while improving fine processing technology, each pixel arranged on the surface to improve the collection efficiency of the micro lens, and shortens the distance between the photodiode and improve the photoelectric conversion efficiency of the photodiode. It also improved the pixel transistors, in more than 20 million pixels at the same time achieve a high sensitivity, low noise and wide dynamic range. Approximately 20.2 million effective pixels amount of data can be achieved under the 300dpi A3 format printout, cut out the image locally you will not lose a sense of resolution, etc., with a variety of advantages. "

I can read Chinese. It sounds to me a new fabrication process. Though we have to wait and see.
Btw, the ISO 3200 sample doesn't look bad


----------



## pedro (Jul 9, 2013)

yakman said:


> If you read the 70D Canon China news release,
> the following is Google translate result
> http://translate.google.com/translate?langpair=auto%7Cen&u=http://www.canon.com.cn/news/products/2013/pr_2013_07_02-12_00_00.html
> 
> ...



@yakman: thanks for this post and your ability to read Chinese. So, this opens a window to my question. I almost thought of an obsolote thread while starting it. But there was no trolling intended. As it has to do with taking a guess about Canon's further product releases in about six years from now, when I plan to replace my absolutely excellent 5D3. As a strictly non-flash amateur photographer IQ at very lowlight and extremely high ISOs is the most demanding part. I frequently take pictures at ISO 12800, 25600 and dare to take some of them even at ISO 51200, and if I am absolutely insane for a moment at 102400 as well ;-) So any improvement which materializes in one of the upcoming camera bodies makes me glad, as it serves as a forecast of what can be expected further down the road.


----------



## AmbientLight (Jul 9, 2013)

In my opinion we must be somewhat cautious regarding speculation in this area. What Yakman has translated (many thanks for that!) and what information Canon's marketing has otherwise provided is the only hint we have regarding new technology being introduced with the 70D.

What appears to have driven Canon's development here is mostly the rather obvious need (for Canon) to provide faster AF with an electronic viewfinder. That will help them release an EOS-M Mark II or whatever it is going to be named, which will have more success in the mirrorless market. I don't think we will see much of an improvement regarding low noise at high ISOs until Canon reacts to Sony's sensor technology in some form beyond what we already have with the current sensors in the 1D-X, 5D Mark III and 6D, but the apparent financial weakness of Sony and it's lack of success compared to Nikon and Canon in the camera market are unlikely to force Canon into a quick reaction. I expect we must really bide our time in this area.


----------



## yakman (Jul 9, 2013)

@AmbientLight
Google translate should take the credit (or blame for poor translation), I'm too lazy to translate 

What surprised me was no mention of the sensor fabrication process in the English news release. Even worse they mentioned 70D high ISO is on par with 60D.
In general the official 70D Chinese release provides much more info compared to the English version.
The official Japanese release seems double confirmed the new process.

http://translate.google.com/translate?langpair=auto%7Cen&u=http://cweb.canon.jp/eos/lineup/70d/feature-highquality.html

"Advanced technology to support high sensitivity, low noise and a wide dynamic range.

Aims to improve the aperture ratio of the photodiode of the CMOS sensor in the introduction the new miniaturization process in CMOS semiconductor process. Expression that take advantage of more, a wide dynamic range and high sensitivity and low noise is now possible. Moreover, adoption conjunction with photodiode structure having excellent photoelectric conversion efficiency, the pixel transistors improved to reduce the noise of the pixel portion. Improve the S / N ratio, and high ISO sensitivity. In addition, gapless micro lens with excellent light collection efficiency has also contributed significantly to the high sensitivity."

We'll have to wait and see how these marketing press really translate to


----------



## aj1575 (Jul 9, 2013)

I for my part think that Canon made the switch to a new process with the 70D sensor. Canon admited, that 18MP was the limit with the process they had then. So if they now make an APS-C sensor with 40million photodiodes (there are two diodes that can be read seperatly in every of the 20.2MP), then I think they definitly made the move to a new process.

For those who think that Canon has a problem with high ISO noise, just go over to DXO Mark and check the graphs (not their rubbish ratings, but the real measurments). Take the Nikon D600, Canon 6D and Sony a900; look at the graph, and tell me which camera you would take for low light photography. I think we have a clear winner with the 6D. The 6D looses out in dynamic range at *low* ISO, and has worse color sensitivity, but DR and SNR are better than the rest at high ISO.

Don't get yourself fooled by the DXOMark Rating, it shows not the whole picture. It is also difficult to judge what a 5 or 10 point difference means exactly.

I'm looking forward to the DXOMark measurments of the 70D; I think we will see some surprises, not that the 70D will storm to the top, but just a different behavior then the recent Canon sensor (which was rather predictable).


----------



## pedro (Jul 9, 2013)

aj1575 said:


> I for my part think that Canon made the switch to a new process with the 70D sensor. Canon admited, that 18MP was the limit with the process they had then. So if they now make an APS-C sensor with 40million photodiodes (there are two diodes that can be read seperatly in every of the 20.2MP), then I think they definitly made the move to a new process.
> 
> For those who think that Canon has a problem with high ISO noise, just go over to DXO Mark and check the graphs (not their rubbish ratings, but the real measurments). Take the Nikon D600, Canon 6D and Sony a900; look at the graph, and tell me which camera you would take for low light photography. I think we have a clear winner with the 6D. The 6D looses out in dynamic range at *low* ISO, and has worse color sensitivity, but DR and SNR are better than the rest at high ISO.
> 
> ...



yakman's hints corelate with yours, so I will be really looking forward towards more info once the RAW samples are available and real world tests by other users are done.


----------



## Don Haines (Jul 9, 2013)

As someone who does not upgrade every model, I see significant differences between cameras. Model to model you see small incremental improvements (REALLY SMALL with the T5i) but over many models you see large improvements.

To change from 18 to 40 megapixels, to introduce pixel binning, to introduce the dual-pixel-phase-detect, does imply that this model is a significant change that would require new fabrication technologies. Time will tell, but it is looking more and more that this is going to be the transition point of Canon DSLR's to a new level


----------



## Tanja (Jul 9, 2013)

ankorwatt said:


> hamada said:
> 
> 
> > sony is making 63% of it´s profit from insurance these days.
> ...



he talked about electronics at sony and he gave a source.

where is your source? (*)

they earn money... how much?
how long till they get the investment back?

sony electronics are overall in a bad spot compared to canon.


(*) don´t mind i found it myself.




> Sony saw revenues of its semiconductor department (mainly focusing on image sensors) fall 11.5% on quarter to JPY164.1 billion in the first quarter of 2013. However, Sony aims to increase 2013 annual revenues to JPY500 billion from JPY480 billion in 2012.


----------



## jrista (Jul 9, 2013)

pedro said:


> Thank you, Ankorwatt. Guess I missed this one. So I hope, they come up with something similar at a lower cost and even more improved within the next 4 to 5 years, once the 5DIV or the 5DV (or whatever they may call it by then) is released. What is the reason for the higher internal cost at Canon? March 2011 hurricane?



Keep in mind, ankorwatt only presumes that Canon cannot produce a FULL FRAME sensor on a 180nm fab process. As far as I know, Canon does have the ability to manufacture APS-C and smaller sensors in their 180nm fabs on smaller wafers (8in, rather than 12in). Technically speaking, one could produce FF sensors on smaller wafers as well, it would just be terribly inefficient and therefor prohibitively expensive.

I would not be surprised if the 70D sensor (an APS-C, not FF, sensor) WAS produced on 8in wafers with a 180nm process. They would certainly have to do something in order to be capable of producing 40 million pixels, along with the extra transistor logic to support simultaneous single-readout as well as binned readout. That is a lot more transistors per pixel than Canon ever used to have. I would be rather surprised if they are capable of doing that with a 500nm process.

Canon's primary low-iso DR problem has less to do with fabrication process than it does with the fact that they use off-die, high frequency ADC (and when parallel DIGIC chips are used, that increases the chances of strong vertical banding with an even pitch.) If Canon has finally moved to a 180nm process, I think there is more hope of them finally moving to an on-die parallel ADC solution. Who knows if they will also move to digital readout like Exmor, but I think at the very least moving to on-die hyper-parallel ADC will help their read noise issues.


----------



## David Hull (Jul 9, 2013)

x-vision said:


> The big unknown at this time is whether Canon will use the same sensor in the 7DII or not.
> 
> If the 7DII has the same sensor as the 70D, Canon will have a hard time, IMO, convincing people to spend more on the 7DII.
> The 70D specs are quite good already, so why bother?
> ...



I have long thought (and I have seen you post along the same lines) that the cost of the external AFE would drive Canon to integrate (or partner with a sensor vendor who does) but this hasn’t seemed to be the case. Their cameras seem to sell well despite somewhat poorer performance on the low ISO end. My gut feel is that the 5DIII is outselling the D800 (for example) despite the higher (MSRP) price and the lower base ISO performance.

I think that the bulk of camera buyers outside of guys like us that hang out on gear forums grousing over DxO results don’t pay much attention to the sensor details. Even I, having participated in these types of discussions for the last few years, bought a 5DIII. I did this with full knowledge of the test data and full understanding of the potential implications having seen Horshack’s demos, and the endless postings from Mikael and others. One of the main influences on my decision was the fact that I used the 5DII for several years and never found any IQ deficiency that wasn’t relatively easy to work around. My biggest complaint was the AF system which they fixed.

I still think that ultimately it will be the cost that makes them improve the sensors but apparently for now their cost model seems to be working. From an IQ perspective there really is no difference until you push it into the corner and most users never do that.


----------



## jrista (Jul 9, 2013)

David Hull said:


> x-vision said:
> 
> 
> > The big unknown at this time is whether Canon will use the same sensor in the 7DII or not.
> ...



Well said.


----------



## Rienzphotoz (Jul 9, 2013)

hamada said:


> sony is making 63% of it´s profit from insurance these days.
> 
> the electronic part of sony is a money grave.
> 
> ...


Interesting


----------



## jrista (Jul 9, 2013)

ankorwatt said:


> hamada said:
> 
> 
> > sony is making 63% of it´s profit from insurance these days.
> ...



Sorry, but the linked reference begs to differ. This is what I've been saying for months, if not a year. Sony has had to go so far into debt to build their electronics industry over the last decade that their debt costs too much. They pay an inordinate amount of money to service their debt, and the income they make off of their electronics products isn't enough to cover it. Electronics, especially today, are low margin products...its tough to make meaningful profit on any electronic device...be it TV, phone, or CMOS chip. The problem becomes even worse when Sony undercuts themselves while trying to undercut the competition (i.e. $399 for PS4 in order to undercut Microsoft's $499 XBox One). Just "being top dog" isn't enough if you aren't making any money on the product. Sony may have won some hearts with a $399 PS4, but if it doesn't pay the bills...will there actually BE any PS4s for those heats to buy when the time comes? Exmor is an amazing CIS, but if Sony isn't around in a few years to actually continue supporting a highly competitive environment because they folded under too much debt and not enough revenue, what good is it?


----------



## x-vision (Jul 9, 2013)

ankorwatt said:


> Wise words as usual David. Hope you have a nice summer as we have.



+1


----------



## David Hull (Jul 9, 2013)

ankorwatt said:


> aj1575 said:
> 
> 
> > I for my part think that Canon made the switch to a new process with the 70D sensor. Canon admited, that 18MP was the limit with the process they had then. So if they now make an APS-C sensor with 40million photodiodes (there are two diodes that can be read seperatly in every of the 20.2MP), then I think they definitly made the move to a new process.
> ...



How does any of this affect a real photograph? Let's just take one of them, colour depth. The difference between 22 and 24 bits is going to be indistinguishable in any type of real world use. Can you show us a photo where this difference is evident?


----------



## David Hull (Jul 10, 2013)

ankorwatt said:


> David Hull said:
> 
> 
> > ankorwatt said:
> ...



I don't really need an explanation of how the CFA works; I have been reading that stuff for years. Nor do I need someone to tell me that Nikon and Canon render colors differently, that fact is well known and has also been discussed ad nauseum here and elsewhere.

The reason I responded to your comment is that I continually see people trotting out these DxO numbers claiming that they represent some sort of scathing indictment of Canon technology yet when I look at images produced by each technology, the results are pretty much indistinguishable in terms of IQ. About the only one of these that can be demonstrated in an actual photograph is the oft discussed read noise and that requires some pretty serious “image abuse” to do.

To me, the acid test will be to perform a double blind experiment where several photographers walk through an exhibition of displayed prints and correctly identify which camera shot them. I have never seen this done (or even attempted) but if all of this DxO stuff really carried any real world significance, identifying the superior performing technology in such a test would be a “slam dunk” and… I think we both know that is not going to be the case.

The proof lies in the images themselves, if dramatic differences not evident in the images, then there has to be some question as to the real world relevance of the measurements that are supposed to be indicative of image quality.


----------



## northbyten (Jul 10, 2013)

I just want to see what Canon's next FF sensor can do.


----------



## jrista (Jul 10, 2013)

ankorwatt said:


> This is a iPhone picture, and people have let me know here at CR that they think it is good picture regarding sun set



Hmm...first things first....any "good" landscape photo, sunset or otherwise...would have a flat horizon! (This one is wildly tilted...)

As for good...try this (taken with a Canon by Marc Adamus):

http://500px.com/photo/2905633


----------



## David Hull (Jul 10, 2013)

ankorwatt said:


> David Hull said:
> 
> 
> > ankorwatt said:
> ...



Looks nice to me. It may not hold up when pushed to a meter wide though.


----------



## David Hull (Jul 10, 2013)

jrista said:


> ankorwatt said:
> 
> 
> > This is a iPhone picture, and people have let me know here at CR that they think it is good picture regarding sun set
> ...



It's that "Dutch angle thing


----------



## jrista (Jul 10, 2013)

ankorwatt said:


> Regarding DXO numbers, I have only one comments, the resolution test= cameras+ lenses and the scores, I do not understand them.
> Regarding DXO tests of DR I have no problem with them, I have by my self done a lot of DR tests and they are simple to explain



It is not that the DR tests are hard to understand. It is that they ho*ld far too much weight* on the final camera score that they skew the results, making some cameras seem "bad" or even "terrible" when they are nothing of the sort.


----------



## Skulker (Jul 10, 2013)

ankorwatt said:


> ........ Sonys sensor department is healthy, they earn money from the mobile sensors up to 24x36mm
> that other departments such as television, consumer electronics, etc. are not going so well is another question ......



Do you have any justification for this statement? or is it just plucked from the depths of your mind?


----------



## meli (Jul 10, 2013)

Skulker said:


> ankorwatt said:
> 
> 
> > ........ Sonys sensor department is healthy, they earn money from the mobile sensors up to 24x36mm
> ...



They sell to everyone -including canon-, they're bound to be profitable.

"Sony, the third largest semiconductor firm in Japan, divides its semiconductor business into in-house use and outside sales. The fourth-quarter revenues from outside sales reached JPY90 billion, representing a sequential increase of 19%. The firm has reported revenue growth for two consecutive quarters and continues to stay in profit."
from :http://www.digitimes.com/news/a20130325PD206.html


----------



## jrista (Jul 11, 2013)

meli said:


> Skulker said:
> 
> 
> > ankorwatt said:
> ...



Profit is a relative and often misleading term. When you are tens of billions of dollars in debt, a significant portion of which was required to build the fabs that make Sony sensors, as well as put into the R&D and patent purchases...well, profit simply means deferred payments on debt. The electronics divisions of Sony, of which IC fabrication is a part, have been in the red for years. Even if some of the subdivisions are making some money, overall Sony is hemorrhaging from their electronics division (and they STILL have immense piles of debt at high interest rates.)


----------



## Don Haines (Jul 11, 2013)

jrista said:


> meli said:
> 
> 
> > Skulker said:
> ...


And don't underestimate the impact of profit on a product line. Take a look at Olympus 4/3 cameras ( 4/3, not micro 4/3). The line was not profitable so they let it drop. If Sony cameras are not profitable, expect to see them dropped.


----------



## Skulker (Jul 11, 2013)

meli said:


> Skulker said:
> 
> 
> > ankorwatt said:
> ...



The whole point of the nytimes article was that the electronic division did not make money. In fact over the last decade it had lost $9.8 billion (from memory, the actual number is not too important ) the company overall made money. But about half of what it made from films and insurance was lost again on electronics.

It is in such a bad way one significant shareholder is saying get rid of it. And the electronics business might be worthless according to the nytimes article. 

The nytimes article talks about the electronics division and the digitaltime talks about the semi conductor business. Are they the same, I think not as the first includes such as the playstation.

Ankorwatt specifically claimed the sensor department was healthy. My question was did he have a justification for that claim. I asked for two reasons. First it would be interesting if true as Sony make some good sensors, and maybe they could sell it off if it really was healthy. Although that is unlikely I accept. Secondly Ankorwatt make some claims I find strange to say the least, so I was wondering whether it was worth taking any notice of his claim this time. Normally I find his rants very ignorable.


----------



## J.R. (Jul 11, 2013)

Skulker said:


> Ankorwatt specifically claimed the sensor department was healthy. My question was did he have a justification for that claim. I asked for two reasons. First it would be interesting if true as Sony make some good sensors, and maybe they could sell it off if it really was healthy. Although that is unlikely I accept. Secondly Ankorwatt make some claims I find strange to say the least, so I was wondering whether it was worth taking any notice of his claim this time. Normally I find his rants very ignorable.



Ankorwatt may not be wrong. This is an extract of a recent press release of Sony's Corporate Strategy Meeting of 2013 - 

_Imaging Businesses

Placing image sensors, a particularly strong category for Sony, at its core, Sony is concentrating the focus of its imaging businesses on creating value-added products, while aggressively exploring new applications for its imaging technologies in both the consumer and professional markets. In terms of image sensors, the Company will continue to commercialize new sensor technologies capable of differentiating finished products, for use in a range of consumer and professional applications. The Company also plans to engage in aggressive capital investment in order to meet the robust demand for these components. At the same time, Sony is also developing technologies that further expand the range of sensor applications, including sensors capable of sensing beyond the visible light spectrum, and sensors capable of detecting and categorizing different types of information. For the professional market, Sony will continue to reinforce its professional camera lineup centering on 4K-compatible cameras, as well as cameras for cinematography. The Company will also target further business growth by extending the scope of its digital imaging technologies to new business areas such as security, sports and medical, and will reallocate resources accordingly. In the consumer market, where business conditions continue to shift rapidly, Sony aims to expand sales of value-added compact digital still cameras by introducing models that leverage Sony’s image sensor technologies to further enhance image quality, and also incorporate feature enhancements such as reduced size and weight, and higher-powered zoom. Sony will also seek to firmly maintain its number one global market share in the growing mirrorless lens camera category. Through these measures, Sony will target sales of 1.3 trillion yen and an operating profit margin of more than 10% across the image sensor, professional, and consumer categories by FY14. _

The full text is available here - 

http://www.sony.net/SonyInfo/News/Press/201305/13-065E/


----------



## Skulker (Jul 11, 2013)

J.R. said:


> Skulker said:
> 
> 
> > Ankorwatt specifically claimed the sensor department was healthy. My question was did he have a justification for that claim. I asked for two reasons. First it would be interesting if true as Sony make some good sensors, and maybe they could sell it off if it really was healthy. Although that is unlikely I accept. Secondly Ankorwatt make some claims I find strange to say the least, so I was wondering whether it was worth taking any notice of his claim this time. Normally I find his rants very ignorable.
> ...



Yes he may be right, that's why I asked him. : : it would be nice to hear from him, if he has any support for his claim I'm sure he will reply.

But I hope it's based on something a lot more substantial than a press release from a strategy meeting. :


----------



## J.R. (Jul 11, 2013)

Skulker said:


> J.R. said:
> 
> 
> > Skulker said:
> ...



Ha ha ... I've had enough trouble with him in the past to last a lifetime. He loves facts ... such as this ... if you must!


----------



## StepBack (Jul 11, 2013)

Follow where your spirit and imagination take u. Trade in the Canon equipment and buy the Nikon. You'll be happy. And repeat that recipe for as long as it takes to make u satisfied.


----------



## meli (Jul 11, 2013)

Skulker said:


> Yes he may be right, that's why I asked him. : : it would be nice to hear from him, if he has any support for his claim I'm sure he will reply.
> 
> But I hope it's based on something a lot more substantial than a press release from a strategy meeting. :



Already 2 persons posted 2 different sources that validate his claim, a simple google search was all it took, what kind of "a lot more substantial proof" would be good enough? :


----------



## Skulker (Jul 11, 2013)

meli said:


> Skulker said:
> 
> 
> > Yes he may be right, that's why I asked him. : : it would be nice to hear from him, if he has any support for his claim I'm sure he will reply.
> ...



You think those 2 post supported his claim! WOW How? Neither of the post even mentioned the sensor division he made the statement about. Your reference even seemed to contradict his assertion that the other departments were not doing so well by claiming the semi conductor part was the good bit. :

How about something that gave a credible informed opinion about the sensor division. ;D He knows what he based his statement on. It would be nice to hear what he had behind it rather than trying to find "evidence" that fits the claim.

How ever you split it up or try to split hairs to claim this bit or that bit is OK the accounts show that overall they are in trouble. As a photographer I find that a shame because they make good sensors and it would be nice to think they could make money out of them.


----------



## jrista (Jul 11, 2013)

Skulker said:


> meli said:
> 
> 
> > Skulker said:
> ...



Doesn't the image posted by J.R. indicate that the imaging division (explicitly called out in the sidebar, along with a couple others) posted an Operating LOSS last year? As I read the chart, Sony brought in three trillion yen, but spent 229 billion more yen than they brought in in revenues...


----------



## Skulker (Jul 11, 2013)

jrista said:


> Doesn't the image posted by J.R. indicate that the imaging division (explicitly called out in the sidebar, along with a couple others) posted an Operating LOSS last year? As I read the chart, Sony brought in three trillion yen, but spent 229 billion more yen than they brought in in revenues...



Most people read the numbers to indicate that sort of performance, me included. But ankorwatt seemed to think he knew better.


----------



## jrista (Jul 11, 2013)

Skulker said:


> jrista said:
> 
> 
> > Doesn't the image posted by J.R. indicate that the imaging division (explicitly called out in the sidebar, along with a couple others) posted an Operating LOSS last year? As I read the chart, Sony brought in three trillion yen, but spent 229 billion more yen than they brought in in revenues...
> ...



Well, as long as there isn't any difference in the way the Japanese report their financials. 

As for ankor...that's pretty much his M.O....he just plain and simply knows better, about everything, right? ;P


----------



## AprilForever (Jul 11, 2013)

Don Haines said:


> jrista said:
> 
> 
> > meli said:
> ...



I hope not... I kind of was hopin gincreased competition would help the market...


----------



## Don Haines (Jul 12, 2013)

ankorwatt said:


> Let us se when Canon starts to invest any money in new tech and sensor lines to keep up and how it will affects the camera division's finances


You mean like last year when they developed dual-pixel focus and still turned a profit?

And before someone say's that the technology is this year, it is the result of many year's work.....


----------



## tcmatthews (Jul 12, 2013)

Don Haines said:


> jrista said:
> 
> 
> > meli said:
> ...



They were also bankrupt do to corporate mismanagement and were bailed out by Sony. Rumor has it the are calibrating with Sony on a number of things in the medical and imaging departments. They get Sony sensor and phase detection sensors in the OMD and Olympus helps Sony develop lens and contrast auto-focus etc. 

The rumor is that Olympus wants to re-introduce a pro 4/3 camera next year, along with a pro OMD. What ever that means.


----------



## Skulker (Jul 12, 2013)

ankorwatt said:


> Skulker said:
> 
> 
> > J.R. said:
> ...



Thanks for the reply ankorwatt. Unfortunately I don't see anything on the links that you gave that gives me any indication that the sensor division is doing better than the rest of Sony's electronics division. Let's face it blogs are not a reliable source of information. Record sales don't mean much, it's profit that matters. The Japanese do take a long term view to business but the problem for Sony is that in the last decade the have lost so much money in electronics. I was hoping maybe someone was offering to buy the division. Think about it. How good would it be if nikon bought it!

But I'm afraid it seems your opinion is based on others blogs and opinions. I was hoping you had some better reason than that for your claim.


----------



## Zv (Jul 12, 2013)

An operating loss of ¥229 billion is a lot no matter how well the sensor division is doing. Their imaging dept will likely only make up a small fraction of their entire revenue anyway. It's a shame I like Sony as a company and want them to succeed. They might bounce back with the ps4 since microsoft messed up so badly with the xbox 1.


----------



## Skulker (Jul 12, 2013)

ankorwatt said:


> Sony are investing for the future which impress so much that Eric Fossum has comment their foreward spirit in competition with other Omnivision, Aptina etc. We are here discussing if Canon are using 180nm tech, Sony are at 45nm.
> 
> http://www.sony.net/SonyInfo/News/Press/201208/12-107E/index.html
> 
> ...



Don't get upset ankorwatt. We all know Sony has invested and make good sensors.

But here you are starting off on your anti canon hobby horse. Again. You seem incapable of taking a balanced view. The "proof" of canons investment you ask for is easy for anyone to see. Many people, myself included, think the 1dx is about the best camera out there. Not only have they clearly made investments they have made wise investments as they make money and that is what a business is trying to do.

As ever you are very critical of canon, who incidentally also make very good sensors. You seem hung up on looking for anything that in your opinion shows canon in a bad light. But you should realise that even if canons sensors are not quite as good as Sony's, and that's not definitely right. Canon also make very good cameras and lenses and money.

Overall you should accept that canon has made wise investments and run a successful business. The results speak for themselves, my 1dx is quite capable of producing great images. I'm sure you would not be able to tell the difference if I was using nikon or Sony or pentax.

Why don't you stop being so bitter and negative?


----------



## eml58 (Jul 12, 2013)

I know I'll regret this, I just Know, But.

Ankorwat, instead of angsting over Sensors and Sony Margins & DR and D800's etc, why don't you take a break, go get that iPhone 4s of yours, and practise taking Sunsets with a straight Horizon, once you get that down pat, progress to bigger Cameras (without a dial tone), with bigger sensors, and ultimately perhaps bigger discussions, and don't worry so much about Sony & their Healthiness, they don't care, they're Happily driving themselves into the Ground.

And Canon don't care what's happening at Sony, Canon are making Money selling all those Crappy cameras with Crappy Sensors with Crap DR, to People like me, and I'm Happy to be buying them.

And Apple don't care either, they're just Happy selling Boat Loads of iPhones for Boat Loads of Profit to Guys just like you & me, only I have the iPhone 5, I think it has a better Sensor than your iPhone 4s it takes Sunsets with a straight Horizon, time to upgrade.


----------



## Tanja (Jul 12, 2013)

eml58 said:


> I know I'll regret this, I just Know, But.
> 
> Ankorwat, instead of angsting over Sensors and Sony Margins & DR and D800's etc, why don't you take a break, go get that iPhone 4s of yours, and practise taking Sunsets with a straight Horizon, once you get that down pat, progress to bigger Cameras, with bigger sensors, and ultimately perhaps bigger discussions, and don't worry so much about Sony & their Healthiness, they don't care, they're Happily driving themselves into the Ground.




i wonder... was there not an ignore button? 
that ankortwat guy is getting on my nerves.


----------



## insanitybeard (Jul 12, 2013)

Skulker said:


> Don't get upset ankorwatt. We all know Sony has invested and make good sensors.
> 
> But here you are starting off on your anti canon hobby horse. Again. You seem incapable of taking a balanced view. The "proof" of canons investment you ask for is easy for anyone to see. Many people, myself included, think the 1dx is about the best camera out there. Not only have they clearly made investments they have made wise investments as they make money and that is what a business is trying to do.
> 
> ...



I like.


----------



## eml58 (Jul 12, 2013)

Tanja said:


> eml58 said:
> 
> 
> > I know I'll regret this, I just Know, But.
> ...



But it's Hilarious isn't it ?? I've been sitting here, actually sitting on my Hands to ensure I wouldn't respond, then I did.

I haven't got the foggiest Bloody Clue what the hell he's on about, he may well be right when it comes to Sensors, I actually don't have a clue, and I don't give a flying bread basket, I just Buy the damn Camera, look at the Images I've worked so hard to improve on through adaption and increasing skill levels, and decided that the 5DMKII was pretty damn good, 1DMKIV was Ok, not great, but Ok, 5DMKIII is bloody great with the better autofocus and the 1Dx I currently sleep with, along with my 200-400 (my wife hates sharing), "F" knows what Sensor is in them, but it seems to do the job real well, if you know what to do with it, which is take Images, preferably with straight horizons, as much as possible. 

But this Chap just burns me, I'm starting to understand how the Wildebeest feels in my Posts on the 1Dx Image site, why doesn't the Lad head over to Nikon Rumours and complain about Canon Sensors & the great DR on Nikon Sensors et all ?? Oh, that's right, People over there are Nikon Guys using Nikon Gear, no reaction.


----------



## Tanja (Jul 12, 2013)

Skulker said:


> Why don't you stop being so bitter and negative?



or use nikon/sony for gods sake.

what do such persons try to achive writting their negative stuff all day on a CANON user forum?
i mean i dont´t get it.

is this some kind of advertising for nikon?
does he think that some people will switch to sony/nikon because of his rabbiting?

does he think canons managers care what he writes here? 

really i don´t get how someone rants about ONE topic, all day, 7 days a week.
what a poor life..... :


----------



## J.R. (Jul 12, 2013)

eml58 said:


> But it's Hilarious isn't it ?? I've been sitting here, actually sitting on my Hands to ensure I wouldn't respond, then I did.



;D ;D ;D


----------



## The Bad Duck (Jul 12, 2013)

So, ehm, to sum this thread up so far:
- We have no solid facts that Canon has invested in new tech to make even better cameras.
- We have no solid facts that Canon has NOT invested in new tech to make even better cameras.

This. Is. Canon. Rumors.

Nothing new under the sun, guys, really, chillax


----------



## pedro (Jul 12, 2013)

The Bad Duck said:


> So, ehm, to sum this thread up so far:
> - We have no solid facts that Canon has invested in new tech to make even better cameras.
> - We have no solid facts that Canon has NOT invested in new tech to make even better cameras.
> 
> ...



Personal conclusion of the OP: But we have "solid facts" that some of the folk here really engage in a mostly educated discussion on topics like these, therefore the thread imho was worth it. Thanks for any serious contribution to it, that really helped to clear some things up. So Canon, if you read us, go ahead and give us more reality stuff to chew on!


----------



## jrista (Jul 12, 2013)

ankorwatt said:


> eml58 said:
> 
> 
> > I know I'll regret this, I just Know, But.
> ...



_*Straight & Horizon.*_

Not "Straith" and "Horizont". Sorry bub, but when words are used correctly in the very comment you are QUOTING, there is ABSOLUTELY ZERO reason to misspell them. You can't blame a translator here...that is just plain weird. *Straight*. *Horizon*. _Straight_. _Horizon_. Zero reason to misspell those.

Oh, and yes...the lack of a _straight horizon_ was the most glaring aspect of your photo...it matters immensely if the point is to discuss how "good" the photo is. At the very least, if you want to brag...straighten your horizons! 



ankorwatt said:


> Don Haines said:
> 
> 
> > ankorwatt said:
> ...



Dual Pixel, at least according to the reviewing world, is a very solid evolution and a significant innovation. It is a very meaningful step forward, and an innovation (NEW TECHNOLOGY!!) made by CANON. You can downplay it all you want, but even though Canon is not on the forefront of modern cellphone sensor design where pixels are barely two microns in size and light sensitivity is EVERYTHING, they are still king of the high end camera world.


----------



## insanitybeard (Jul 12, 2013)

jrista said:


> _*Strait & Horizon.*_
> 
> Not "Straith" and "Horizont". Sorry bub, but when words are used correctly in the very comment you are QUOTING, there is ABSOLUTELY ZERO reason to misspell them. You can't blame a translator here...that is just plain weird. *Strait*. *Horizon*. _Strait_. _Horizon_. Zero reason to misspell those.



Unless you're English (a.k.a backwards  ) like me, then you spell it *'straight'* ! ;D


----------



## jrista (Jul 12, 2013)

insanitybeard said:


> jrista said:
> 
> 
> > _*Strait & Horizon.*_
> ...



Gah...tried to catch that before someone quoted it. Guess I missed my window of opportunity.


----------



## jrista (Jul 12, 2013)

ankorwatt said:


> And please, I haven't say that Canons sensors are crappy, what kind of BS is that, Im saying that Canons research and sensors are not in level with others today and no new solutions are presented, and I do not mean improvements of a old sensor tech from 2004



And why does that matter? How, exactly, has Canon's continued use of 500nm caused any serious degradation of IQ for 99% of photographers? The only thing they have a problem with is low ISO read noise, and then, only when you are in a DR limited situation where you need more than a two stop shadow push. Canon sensors ONLY show their weakness RELATIVE to Sony Exmor when pushed MORE than two stops...something very few people actually do.

Canon "technology", which is really referring to their fabrication process and sensor design with 500nm transistors, is a non-issue in the grand scheme of things. You come here to demonize Canon every chance you get, and whether you directly state it or not, the implication you impose is extremely clear: You think Canon sucks, that everyone should move to Nikon, and that Canon is literally incapable of competing. When people try to debate you on that issue, you simply turn around and call all of us here on *CANON *Rumors a bunch of nutcase religious zealots, berate our membership, and otherwise light little canon-hate fires everywhere. 

Then you proceed to act shocked and amazed that everyone turns against you, defends their preferred brand, or continues to argue that Canon makes excellent products DESPITE not yet having moved to a new sensor fabrication product (something that should be attributed to Canon's prowess as an efficient, financially savvy competitor in the marketplace, not some has-been dud that will be dead tomorrow.) The fact that everyone here turns against you when you berate them and call them religious nutcases shouldn't be surprising at this point, Mikael...you bring it on yourself.


----------



## David Hull (Jul 12, 2013)

ankorwatt said:


> Sony are investing for the future which impress so much that Eric Fossum has comment their foreward spirit in competition with other Omnivision, Aptina etc. We are here discussing if Canon are using 180nm tech, Sony are at 45nm.
> 
> http://www.sony.net/SonyInfo/News/Press/201208/12-107E/index.html
> 
> ...


I wouldn't get so hung up on the geometry. For smartphones where the sensor is small and all of the rest of the phone electronics is implemented in 28nm and 45nm there is probably a lot of benefit to going to the newer process nodes (the electronics gets smaller, the power is lower and the voltage interfaces will be similar) but for APS-C and FF size chips, sitting in DSLR bodies with huge batteries this may not be as important.

It only makes since to move to the next process node if there is genuine benefit to be gained from doing so; otherwise the older nodes tend to be less expensive. What would be the driver for Canon to move to 45nm? It cannot be that the sensors are not implementable in 180nm, since Sony and others have demonstrated in the past that sensors with good DR and very low FPN can be implemented in that technology.


----------



## David Hull (Jul 12, 2013)

ankorwatt said:


> David Hull said:
> 
> 
> > ankorwatt said:
> ...


Isn't the 70D 40 MP on an APS-C chip? That is more pixel density than anything Sony has done regardless of what node they are operating in.

Incidentally, something I didn’t mention earlier is that if you look at the actual sensor performance which you can see when the ISO gain is cranked to max, the Canon 6D and the Nikon D800 perform about the same (actually the Nikon is worse 4e- vs. 3e-) which means from a pure sensor perspective the Canon 500nm technology is working fine (or at least as well as whatever Sony is using). It is not Canon’s sensor that is at issue, it is their system architectural choices. Canon is every bit as good at “sensor” design as Sony is.

If you take the time to study the available data and figure out what it is really saying, you will see the Canon actually does sensors quite well. I suspect that part of their issue is that they aren't about to arbitrarily "fix" something that they consider not to be "broke". Their challenge is to find a way to keep their already excellent sensor performance which is arguably the best in the business) and implement it in a way that ferries that performance all the way to the output.

The 70D shows that canon can clearly make a high MP camera if they want to. However, if they had one, I doubt that it would sell as well as the 5DIII. I see no evidence that the D800 is outselling the 5DIII particularly now that the prices have dropped to more reasonable levels.


----------



## Zv (Jul 12, 2013)

ankorwatt said:


> jrista said:
> 
> 
> > ankorwatt said:
> ...



Last I checked Canon were in the camera and imaging system making business not CMOS sensor making (though they do that too!). They make mighty fine cameras, no one can argue about that. Now why don't we all chill and have a nice wee cuppa tea and get on with our lives!


----------



## jrista (Jul 12, 2013)

ankorwatt said:


> jrista said:
> 
> 
> > ankorwatt said:
> ...



Proclaiming the members here are "religious" and berating them for their opinions has nothing to do with facts, yet it is something you do on a regular basis. That is another predictable trait of yours...when the real truth starts to come out, you feign a fallback to "facts", and try to play yourself as an objective voice. 

As for Canon's "big stumbling block", that is 100% purely your misguided opinion. It has absolutely zero basis in fact. If sensor technology was the SOLE factor that made a company successful, Canon would have gone bankrupt a couple years ago. As the *facts* would have it...Canon is the most successful digital camera company in the world. Given the actual facts...I guess by "stumbling block" you mean "cash cow"...as sticking to their guns has allowed Canon to be immensely profitable with their very popular photography brand. They are successful because outside of a few nuts like ourselves on the net, no one really gives a crap what actual technology or technological advancements a company is making on a nanoscopic scale. The only thing the very vast majority of photographers give a crap about is the actual quality of the images produced by the camera 
they USE. Canon cameras produce some of the best IQ in the world in almost every situation imaginable, so their customers are quite happy.



ankorwatt said:


> David Hull said:
> 
> 
> > ankorwatt said:
> ...



The 70D has 40.4 million independent pixels. Each full bayer pixel is 4 microns in size, however each half pixel, which include independent readout, is a mere 2 microns in size. Is that not high enough in terms of megapixels, pixel density, and readout wiring complexity for you?


----------



## insanitybeard (Jul 12, 2013)

ankorwatt said:


> insanitybeard said:
> 
> 
> > Unless you're English (a.k.a backwards  ) like me, then you spell it *'straight'* ! ;D
> ...



F.Y.I, it was only myself that I was attempting to make fun of, just trying to inject a little humour humor and dare I say, light into the thread, which has become the regular DR etc etc 'discussion'.


----------



## J.R. (Jul 12, 2013)

ankorwatt said:


> The big stumbling block is that Canon is no longer the best CMOS sensors manufacture and that is difficult to understand for some



I doubt that. It's easy enough to understand but no-one around here cares in the slightest.


----------



## Don Haines (Jul 12, 2013)

insanitybeard said:


> jrista said:
> 
> 
> > _*Strait & Horizon.*_
> ...


eye sink ewe wood bee moor write whiff thee ewes off spill chick


----------



## insanitybeard (Jul 12, 2013)

Don Haines said:


> eye sink ewe wood bee moor write whiff thee ewes off spill chick



;D Oi was too bizzy suppin' moi bottle 'o cyder moi dear!


----------



## jrista (Jul 12, 2013)

ankorwatt said:


> jrista said:
> 
> 
> > ankorwatt said:
> ...



Ignoring whatever the noise or S/N might be (I suspect it would be on part with the prior 18mp APS-C), that wasn't your argument...you were stating Canon hadn't demonstrated an ability to make small pixels. My point is that if Canon has produced a sensor with dual pixel FP-PDAF, then they have 40.4 million separate pixels, each with independent readout logic. That puts the height of each of those pixels at 4 microns, and the width at 2 microns. At 2 microns, that is smaller than any other APS-C sensor on the market so far. That demonstrates a fairly significant leap forward...over a factor of two smaller than Canon's previous smallest DSLR pixel size.


----------



## David Hull (Jul 13, 2013)

ankorwatt said:


> jrista said:
> 
> 
> > ankorwatt said:
> ...


Grasping for straws now -- LOL.


----------



## David Hull (Jul 13, 2013)

ankorwatt said:


> David Hull said:
> 
> 
> > ankorwatt said:
> ...


That is the ADC not the sensor, the noise at max gain would indicate that the Canon sensor implementation is as good as (if not better than) anything else out there.


----------



## x-vision (Jul 13, 2013)

ankorwatt said:


> This sensor is made from canon line 2 , APS line and compact camera line, nothing difficult with that



At the CMOS/electronics level, the 70D sensor *is* a 40mp sensor. You'd better accept that.

It's hard to believe that Canon has managed to make a 40mp sensor on their old 500nm process. 
But there are no clear clues at this time to confirm whether Canon has indeed switched to a new process. 

We'll surely find out, as I'm sure Chipworks is eager to put this new sensor under their microscopes.


----------



## jrista (Jul 13, 2013)

x-vision said:


> ankorwatt said:
> 
> 
> > This sensor is made from canon line 2 , APS line and compact camera line, nothing difficult with that
> ...



If Canon has used some kind of BSI process, I guess it's possible they stuck with 500nm. Even if they did that, I think it's still impressive...I don't think BSI has been used in a sensor as large as APS-C before. I do know that they actually have a patent for such a thing, however:

http://thenewcamera.com/canon-patent-back-illuminated-cmos-sensor/


----------



## jrista (Jul 14, 2013)

ankorwatt said:


> jrista said:
> 
> 
> > x-vision said:
> ...



Sure it does. That is the entire point. To expose a greater photodiode surface area by burying transistors and wiring on the opposite side (non light side) of the sensor. In normal sensor manufacture, the photodiode is light sensitive silicon surrounded by those transistors and readout wires. In other words, in an FSI sensor, logic circuitry intrudes on surface area that could otherwise be dedicated to photosensitive diode area. If that wasn't the case, then there wouldn't be any point whatsoever in having BSI technology in the first place!


----------



## Malte_P (Jul 14, 2013)

yawn.....


----------



## northbyten (Jul 15, 2013)

We are going to sit here and argue back and forth for what? 

Let's just wait until it comes out.

I've been using my Nokia Lumia 920 over my Canon 550D for personal shot landscapes because the colours are that much nicer and they retain shadows much better straight from the camera.

Yes I can shoot in RAW and grade it to come out nicer on my 550D but that's extra work on top of simply capturing.

If that's a tell tale sign then I don't know what is.


----------



## jrista (Jul 16, 2013)

ankorwatt said:


> *read what I write, the real improvements are around 1,1 to 1,4 um sensel size*
> 
> and there are no APS or 24x36 from Canon or others yet= with that small pixel size
> 
> ...



It really depends on the photodiode size. A 7D has 4.3 micron pixels, but the actual photodiode is smaller than that. The entire pixel is surrounded by 500nm (.5 micron) transistors and wiring, which would mean the photodiode...the actual light sensitive area embedded in the silicon substrate, is only about 3.3 microns at best (and usually, the photodiode has a small margin around it...so closer to 3 microns). A 24.4mp sensor would have pixels in the range of 3.2 microns, however with a 500nm process, the actual photodiode pitch is closer to 2 microns.

Canon has already demonstrated that larger pixels can be huge for overall SNR (and therefor actual light sensitivity) with the 1D X. Despite the fact that the 1D X is a FF sensor, it benefits greatly from a larger pixel, and thus a larger photodiode size...as the gain is relative to the square of the pixel pitch. Production of a BSI APS-C 24.4mp sensor would mean that it could have 3.1 micron photodiodes that perform at least as well as the 7D's 18mp sensor, as total electron capacity is relative to photodiode area. A 24.4mp BSI 7D II could then be roughly as capable (~21,000 electrons charge FWC @ ISO 100) as an 18mp FSI 7D.

Personally, I find that to be quite a valuable thing. Especially given that the 7D currently performs about as poorly as one could expect by today's standards. A 2 micron photodiode in the 7D II would mean SNR suffers even more, which is going to have an impact on IQ, especially for croppers, so I can't imagine Canon doing that.


----------



## Zv (Jul 17, 2013)

jrista said:


> ankorwatt said:
> 
> 
> > *read what I write, the real improvements are around 1,1 to 1,4 um sensel size*
> ...



I was never quite sure about this topic, it seemed very electrical engineer related and there was a lot of acronyms and stuff that confused me and made my brain hurt but this post by jrista is the first time I kinda understand what you guys are talking about! Thanks! 

Rookie question - what does BSI and FSI stand for?


----------



## Drizzt321 (Jul 17, 2013)

Zv said:


> jrista said:
> 
> 
> > ankorwatt said:
> ...



BSI stands for Backside Illumination
FSI stands for Frontside Illumiation

Basically, BSI is a way of creating a sensor which has better sensitivity (light gathering ability) which can enable better performance in lower amounts of light. However it can be more costly, especially for larger chips where one fault can cause an entire chip to have to be discarded.

EDIT: That's not to say that all faults are the same. Some, depending on the exactly issue, can be tolerated and are usually designed for to an extent while others are (hopefully) rare but will render an entire chip, or possibly the whole wafer as bad and must be discarded.


----------



## jrista (Jul 17, 2013)

Zv said:


> jrista said:
> 
> 
> > ankorwatt said:
> ...



Glad it was helpful. Any engineering stuff aside, an image sensor is really just a circuitboard with sensors that generate electric charge in response to light stimulus surrounded by a bunch of electronic logic (transitors, capacitors/resistors, and wiring) designed to make it possible to "read" out the charge of each pixel when told to do so. Generally, as a matter of physics, the larger the area of the sensor, the more light can be detected and converted into charge.

BTW, BSI stands for Backside Illiminated, it has to do with the specifics of how the sensor is manufactured. These nano-scale circuit boards are "etched" onto the surface of highly polished, high grade silicon wafers. Etching occurs via light, which is beamed through a much larger scale "circuit board template" and onto the surface of the silicon (its a lot more complicated than that, as etching a CMOS device is usually done in layers, with depositions of various material for each layer, and further etchings with different templates...but that's the gist). The "front" side is the side that is etched. Usually, all the logic is etched onto the front side, and the photodiode itself is simply appropriately doped silicon in a grid at the bottom of the "well" created by all the transistors and wiring. Sensors etched in such a way are FSI, or Front Side Illuminated. 






Fig 1: You can see the photosite well in this image. The "pixel cathode" is the photodiode. Various wiring surrounds the photodiode. Above the pixel is a color filter and a microlens.





Fig 2: You can see the grid layout of pixels in this image. 

A newer technique originally designed to support the increasingly small photodiode area left available in small form factor sensors (such as the ones that are a fraction of a fingernail in size) for cell phone cameras, cheap point & shoots, etc. put the photodiode on the back of the silicon wafer, then etched the wiring on the front side, connected to the previously etched photodiodes. There are also usually color filters and micro lenses etched into the back side as well, above the photodiode itself. The process is more expensive as usually, only one side of the wafer needs to be etched or doped. The back side is usually just part of the "substrate", and the number of defects (stratches, pits, or other marks or even particulate embedded into the surface) do not matter. Since both sides of the wafer are important in a BSI design, both sides of the silicon wafer must be not only polished, but defects must be kept to a minimum. Hence it is more expensive and harder to manufacture. 





Fig 3: A sony BSI sensor design. You can see all of the logic on top (front side), and microlenses, color filters, and photodiode on the bottom (back side). You can see where the photodiode for each pixel is connected to its logic in the middle.

An alternative to BSI design is LightPipe design. Canon also has patents as well as prototype (and possibly production...not sure) designs for a 180nm Cu (copper wiring) LightPipe sensor design with a double layer of microlenses. LightPipes make use of a high refractive index material to fill in the well. Normally, any light not directly incident on the photodiode itself will convert to heat or possibly reflect. That results in a loss of light energy, reducing the sensitivity of the sensor. 





Fig 4: Canon's 180nm Cu LightPipe sensor cross section. This is for a very small sensor, possibly with pixels less than 2 microns in size (as evidenced by the very large wiring blocks next to each pixel, which on a 180nm process, means these pixels are quite small.)


----------



## Zv (Jul 17, 2013)

Thanks jrista and Driz for the info. I couldn't quite picture a BSI sensor so I wikipediaded it and found some links that were helpful. I learned something today! This is why I love CR! 

Let me see if I have this right -

So FSI is cheaper as only one side need to be treated in the manufacturing process, it's more common and what Canon uses. However light can be reflected by the metal layer which sits in front of the photodiode. One way to get around that would be to make the transistors and metal logic parts smaller, right? Or just have less pixels. See 1DX. 

And BSI is more expensive to make due to both sides of the wafer being treated however it essentially captures more light and is better for low light photography as light hits the silicon layer directly. So this has up until recently only been used in very small sensors, right? I read Sony were putting a 1 inch sensor in the RX-200. 

Some conflicting info though. Have Sony found a way to reduce the cost of producing a BSI sensor then? And are there any other disadvantages to BSI? 

I would imagine that the equipment that is used to make BSI sensors also costs more than FSI and that for Canon to switch they would have to spend a boat load of money which in turn would mean more expensive cameras? Or can it be done relatively easily and Canon are working on this for the big megapixel body next year?


----------



## jrista (Jul 17, 2013)

Zv said:


> Thanks jrista and Driz for the info. I couldn't quite picture a BSI sensor so I wikipediaded it and found some links that were helpful. I learned something today! This is why I love CR!
> 
> Let me see if I have this right -
> 
> ...



I think Sony quite simply just adds more debt in order to manufacture their sensors. They have tens of billions in debt, in no small part due to the creation of their highly modern fabs. Sony does bring in revenue, but last I heard, their operating expenses were higher, so they are loosing money to the tune of several hundred billion yen a year. I can't say whether they have found ways to make BSI fabrication cheaper or not...although I suspect they can certainly refine the process over time.

Canon is capable of producing sensors using more advanced processes. Currently, they use 8" wafers for fabricating smaller CMOS devices, sensors for small cameras. An 8" wafer doesn't offer as much surface area, so it is more expensive to fabricate larger sensors, like APS-C and FF, on them. They build their own fabs, so I see no reason they couldn't build a fab capable of 180nm on 12" wafers.

I think it is probably more likely that Canon is using some kind of BSI 500nm process for their high density APS-C and FF sensors. They actually have a patent for such a thing, and it wouldn't require them to build a new fab...and it would really be the only way to continue using a 500nm process and still make sensors with even smaller pixels produce IQ that is on par with their past and current generation sensors. I haven't heard even a rumor of anything indicating they have created new fabs or anything like that (although I certainly hope they have...I don't see how Canon can remain competitive moving forward without jumping to a 180nm process, while the rest of the world is already there or even moving beyond. Canon has certainly been able to remain competitive with 500nm...but they have to be well into the realm of diminishing returns now.)


----------



## Zv (Jul 17, 2013)

Yeah i saw the info regarding the patent. Seems like they have the know how or even have known for some time. I guess they are just waiting for the right time. Seems they can keep up with current market trends just fine. If things change drastically then they'll prob step it up. I have faith. And in the meantime theres always Magic Lantern! Hey hey!


----------



## jrista (Jul 17, 2013)

Zv said:


> Yeah i saw the info regarding the patent. Seems like they have the know how or even have known for some time. I guess they are just waiting for the right time. Seems they can keep up with current market trends just fine. If things change drastically then they'll prob step it up. I have faith. And in the meantime theres always Magic Lantern! Hey hey!



The Magic Lantern 14stop Dr thing is interesting. Certainly not the same as what you get with a D800 and its Exmor...you lose vertical resolution. To me, the point of having additional native hardware DR is the ability to recover shadow _DETAIL_. You can always downsample, which will improve image DR, but at the cost of detail...so to me that is kind of a net zero tradeoff (at least, when printing...doesn't matter if your uploading online.)

I guess for web publishers, the trick will be quite handy, and will certainly be better than the banding you get now on a Canon sensor.


----------



## Drizzt321 (Jul 17, 2013)

jrista said:


> Zv said:
> 
> 
> > Yeah i saw the info regarding the patent. Seems like they have the know how or even have known for some time. I guess they are just waiting for the right time. Seems they can keep up with current market trends just fine. If things change drastically then they'll prob step it up. I have faith. And in the meantime theres always Magic Lantern! Hey hey!
> ...



Yea, it'd be great to be able to pull some more detail out of the shadows. Once this makes it into a somewhat stable alpha I might play around with this. Might use it for stills, as it might not be as easy to see the moire/aliasing as it is with video since with video you can see it moving around. Plus most of my output is for web, so I'm downsampling much of the time.

As others have said, it'll be really interesting to see if the new 70D dual-photosite per pixel has 2 read-out chips, and if they read out the separate photosites at each pixel. If they do, that could make this really interesting.


----------



## jrista (Jul 17, 2013)

ankorwatt said:


> jrista said:
> 
> 
> > ankorwatt said:
> ...



I am not mixing anything up. The primary benefit of 180nm is that you have more area per pixel to dedicate to the photodiode. In the case of 1.4 micron pixels, use of a 500nm process is already a non-option...you would have already passed the limit you claim would be reached with 1.1 micron pixels on a 180nm process...the photodiode of a 1.4 micron pixel on a 500nm process would be maybe .3 microns (300nm). You have to translate from a 180nm 1.4 micron pixel to a 500nm 3.2 micron pixel. The wiring and transistors in a 500nm process take up a lot of space. That space could be put to better use...and assuming one does not change from a 500nm process....well, then BSI DOES have value. 

Instead of taking up ~1 micron of pixel pitch for wiring and other logic, you take up a quarter of a micron if you moved to a 180nm process on APS-C. That means, for a 4.3 micron pixel pitch, the actual photodiode could be ~3.95 microns, rather than 2.1 microns. That increase in area is where you gain the greatest potential for an improvement in IQ. Now, with 180nm transistors, you can pack more of them in. Canon could stick with a 2.1 micron photodiode, and have a lot more logic circuitry around it with a 180nm process. That would allow them to add more sophisticated noise reduction logic, maybe drop in some on-die ADC, etc....simply because each transistor and all the wiring consumes less space. But fundamentally, photodiode area is the key thing from an SNR standpoint, and a higher SNR leads to less noisy images.

When it comes to Canon's read noise, the primary issue there is high frequency components and binned pixel processing on an off-die component. The longer the signal remains analog, and the closer any pixel processing is to a high frequency component (a DIGIC processor is a CPU...the whole thing is a high frequency component), the greater the chance that read noise will interfere with shadow detail. It doesn't matter what the fabrication process is...Canon could move to 180nm, and keep using their Digic processors with off-die ADC. They will continue to have shadow noise problems, despite the move to a better process. If they move the ADCs on-die, and do something akin to what Exmor does, by moving the PLL, Clock, and other high frequency components to an isolated area away from those ADC units, then Canon could reduce their shadow noise. 

That only affects low ISO, however, and a lot of Canon users care more about high ISO. Using a BSI design, even in APS-C, allows photodiode area to remain large. Canon could also still add more advanced per-pixel logic in a BSI design even if they stay on a 500nm process, as they would have the full photodiode area on the front side to utilize for logic (i.e. additional noise reduction circuitry...one of their patents described a power-source free CDS system that decoupled the power input while performing CDS, as keeping the power coupled continued to add dark current noise.)

It is not NECESSARY for Canon to move to a 180nm process, or only use BSI with small form factor sensors having 1.4 micron pixels or smaller, in order to continue innovating and improving IQ. As far as I am concerned, for the kind of high ISO work I do, I would LOVE to see Canon produce a FF BSI sensor. That would allow them to increase photodiode area, particularly in a shared pixel architecture, by another micron. Right now, in the 1D X, photodiode pitch is around 5.8 microns, while the actual pixel pitch is 6.95. I think it would be awesome to see a 1D XI with a BSI design that had 6.95 micron photodiodes. That is a 43% increase in total photodiode area, an increase that would have a measurable improvement in high ISO performance (imagine an actual usable ISO 25600 and maybe 51200 for wildlife and birds.) Again, Canon could move to a 180nm process, and either pack more logic into each pixel and improve readout NR (i.e. CDS), or reduce the logic, increase photodiode area, and move the ADC on-die, which at the very least should increase the maximum readout rate and possibly improve read noise performance. There are a whole lot of options...Eric Fossum isn't the only source of CIS innovation, nor the bible of what is and is not possible with CIS devices. Eric Fossum has done a lot of research in the area, however so has Canon (remember, it wasn't that long ago that Canon had the best sensors in the digital camera arena...they certainly have the knowledge and knowhow...I think their current reliance on 500nm is more of a business and financial matter than a lack of ability.)

I think moving to BSI, even if Canon sticks to 500nm, is a better option. It frees up the entire front side for logic, and the entire back side to light sensitive photodiodes. It is something Canon could do with their current process, potentially freeing up a billion dollars for other purposes (R&D, greater production capacity, whatever.)


----------



## jrista (Jul 17, 2013)

ankorwatt said:


> Im not very interested of what you think when I have a dialog with Eric Fossum, Emil Martinec, BOBn2, John Sheehy and several others about the benefits of BSI at Dpreview years back _*and also private*_



Well...good to see your keeping the culture of obfuscation and misinformation alive. : Good day, Mikael.


----------



## Skulker (Jul 18, 2013)

jrista said:


> ankorwatt said:
> 
> 
> > Im not very interested of what you think when I have a dialog with Eric Fossum, Emil Martinec, BOBn2, John Sheehy and several others about the benefits of BSI at Dpreview years back _*and also private*_
> ...



At least he is very consistent. He always goes on and on and then makes unsupported statements and assertions often claiming to have years of inside knowledge. I've got to the point were if a post says ankorwatt at the top then I probably won't read it.


----------



## jrista (Jul 18, 2013)

Skulker said:


> jrista said:
> 
> 
> > ankorwatt said:
> ...



I only respond so that other readers don't take his information at face value. It's always twisted in some way or another...I think people should be privy to at least some of the facts.


----------



## BozillaNZ (Jul 18, 2013)

Sensor Dynamic Range vs. Camera Dynamic Range

http://theory.uchicago.edu/~ejm/pix/20d/tests/noise/noise-p3a.html


----------



## Skulker (Jul 18, 2013)

ankorwatt said:


> Skulker said:
> 
> 
> > jrista said:
> ...



no insult intended ankorwatt, just saying you are consistent. In my opinion you are usually wrong, misguided, ill judged or unjustified to the point were I don't bother reading your posts as a rule. I suspect you just like to argue. And that's not an insult some people are just like that.


----------



## jrista (Jul 18, 2013)

ankorwatt said:


> Skulker said:
> 
> 
> > jrista said:
> ...



It wasn't an insult, I think it was more a statement of exasperation.

Maybe there is a cultural barrier here...I'll concede the possibility, however given how long you've been around these forums, I would have expected you to pick up some English grammar and a bit more insight into how Americans think. I am not really sure how you expect a statement like the one quoted above to be taken, but it comes off as superior, haughty, antagonistic, and braggish. In terms of interpretation, it is more likely your statement will be received as follows than anything else: 

"Hahaha, I (but not you) have been privy to and participated in very important, and PRIVATE (hahaha, you can't verify this) discussions about high level stuff you guys wouldn't understand. So there, you HAVE to trust me, I know more stuff than you!" 

Personally, I don't really care how you intend to come off, the simple fact that you refer to secret discussions that supposedly contain important information that is apparently critical to the basis of your position in a debate, but are unwilling to share the information, immediately makes me think you are intentionally obfuscating. I think it weakens your argument every time you do it, and I think it strengthens the opposing arguments (mine or anyone elses)...and to be frank, I'm quite ok with that. Still, I have no problem debating, and if you present a cohesive argument backed up by verifiable fact, I'm happy to change my opinion (TheSuede has succeeded in changing my opinion on a critical debte we had a number of months ago in 2012.) 

The simple fact of the matter is, you don't present a cohesive, factual, or verifiable argument most of the time...so, people simply get exasperated by your persistent insistence that Canon sucks, has sucked, and always will suck, and everyone should go out and buy a D800 because DXO says its the best. I think people would really like you to take the hint and stop pushing a camera they don't want (and, at this point, don't even want to hear a single thing about, especially from you) at *every single opportunity.*


----------



## sjprg (Jul 18, 2013)

Back on topic, I am amazed that Canon and I suppose Nikon and Sony also are still using 500nm technology when the rest of the computer world is down to 22 nm. Talking about milking the consumers.


----------



## Skulker (Jul 18, 2013)

sjprg said:


> Back on topic, I am amazed that Canon and I suppose Nikon and Sony also are still using 500nm technology when the rest of the computer world is down to 22 nm. Talking about milking the consumers.



Why do you think that using 500nm is milking the consumers?


----------



## jrista (Jul 18, 2013)

sjprg said:


> Back on topic, I am amazed that Canon and I suppose Nikon and Sony also are still using 500nm technology when the rest of the computer world is down to 22 nm. Talking about milking the consumers.



Canon is the last company that I know of to still use 500nm. Prior to the D800 and the DSLR's released since that, Nikon was on 350nm and 250nm processes. Sony moved to a 180nm with Exmor, and I believe they may have even moved past 180nm with some of their latest small form factor stuff. 

I don't think Canon's continued use of 500nm has anything to do with "milking the consumer". It costs a tremendous amount of money to move to a new, smaller fabrication process. If Canon doesn't see that they actually need to do that, for whatever reason, and could put that billion or several billion to use on other endeavors, that is a matter of business. At the moment, Canon owns the majority of the market, and their lead is not being threatened in any way by either Sony or Nikon. Their cameras still produce excellent IQ...they simply have slightly less editing latitude in a few specific circumstances, so a decision to continue using an existing process and bank their money towards more useful endeavors makes logical sense.

To be frank, Canon really did do exactly what the majority of their vocal customers before the release of the 5D III and 1D X asked for: Fewer pixels, bigger pixels, better pixels at higher ISO. At high ISO, Canon delivered every single one of those requests.

Now, the most vocal group of Canon users seems to be those calling for a process shrink, and better pixels at LOWER ISO. If Canon continues to respond to their customers requests, I foresee them delivering on those requests within the next refresh cycle.


----------



## Skulker (Jul 18, 2013)

ankorwatt said:


> Skulker said:
> 
> 
> > sjprg said:
> ...



You know I don't agree with your thinking as you expressed above about Canon being unable to compete. Anyone can see that Canon do compete, very successfully, whether you like it or not they are the market leaders.

i think you are just arguing for the sake of it. I'm not asking you to agree with me, quiet frankly I don't care if you do. Why don't you use what you want and respect my choice rather than continually being so negative.


----------



## BozillaNZ (Jul 19, 2013)

Like I've pointed out in the link, Canon sensor currently already has 14 stops DR.

The problem is their amplifier/ADC has too much noise to be able to extract this 14 DR out of the sensor at base ISO.

This is a very interesting problem that this professor discussed in great depth:
http://theory.uchicago.edu/~ejm/pix/20d/tests/noise/noise-p3.html

Solution is actually quite straightforward, have a true dual read sensor not current interleaved dual read sensor in 5D3/7D, so each photosite can be read twice in different ISO,

Read the sensor at ISO 100 to get the upper bits, then at ISO 1600 to extract clean shadows. Combine those data together to form the 14-bit output, then digitally amplify the signal to true user set ISO. In other words it becomes a ISO-less sensor that has true 14-stop DR in base ISO.

All those can be done by modification in the AMP circuit. No need to get fancy fabs to produce better sensors. Their sensors are good enough.

I know reading the sensor twice can be slow (but it can be done for CMOS for sure), but why not make this switchable: Single pass read for fast FPS low DR photos. Dual pass read for slower FPS, extended DR photos. You got best of both worlds.


----------



## David Hull (Jul 19, 2013)

jrista said:


> ankorwatt said:
> 
> 
> > Im not very interested of what you think when I have a dialog with Eric Fossum, Emil Martinec, BOBn2, John Sheehy and several others about the benefits of BSI at Dpreview years back _*and also private*_
> ...



The name dropping is a nice touch


----------



## David Hull (Jul 19, 2013)

sjprg said:


> Back on topic, I am amazed that Canon and I suppose Nikon and Sony also are still using 500nm technology when the rest of the computer world is down to 22 nm. Talking about milking the consumers.



What has that got to do with anything? If they are working in a 500nm node, exactly HOW is that milking consumers? The stuff that shows up in these forums is amazing sometimes. Amazing comment.


----------



## insanitybeard (Jul 19, 2013)

Skulker said:


> ankorwatt said:
> 
> 
> > one reason can be that they have old tech and can't compete regarding a lot of parameters
> ...



Well expressed- again!


----------



## sjprg (Jul 21, 2013)

My contention is that Canon has allways been about "good enough". Their policy has never really pushed the envelope of the state of the art, only just enough to keep ahead of the completion. At 500nm the current requirements from the battery are many times the requirements of 22nm. one example of the problem is their choice of ADCs being current hogs and slow. Look at the specs of a modern bit slice ADC and compare. By going to say 32nm they could use the extra current to produce high speed 16 bit ADCs which would give a decent range of bits to the bottom end and solve some of the shot noise problems. The slow scans they use contribute to the need for AA filters, also they can't scan the ADCs is a single pass. This is just of the places they could improve the "state of the art". another example is "what is a Digic". They won't publish the specs of the processor, probably with good reason as it is dismally slow from the standpoint of modern processors. Sony is the first manufacture to begin the break with the old technology and look at new ways to use the knowledge gained by the semiconductor industry to implement things. If they put the technology from a smartphone into the camera they would have a tremendous improvement. If they don't get off their duff they will go the way of Kodak.


----------



## jrista (Jul 21, 2013)

sjprg said:


> My contention is that Canon has allways been about "good enough". Their policy has never really pushed the envelope of the state of the art, only just enough to keep ahead of the completion. At 500nm the current requirements from the battery are many times the requirements of 22nm. one example of the problem is their choice of ADCs being current hogs and slow. Look at the specs of a modern bit slice ADC and compare. By going to say 32nm they could use the extra current to produce high speed 16 bit ADCs which would give a decent range of bits to the bottom end and solve some of the shot noise problems. The slow scans they use contribute to the need for AA filters, also they can't scan the ADCs is a single pass. This is just of the places they could improve the "state of the art". another example is "what is a Digic". They won't publish the specs of the processor, probably with good reason as it is dismally slow from the standpoint of modern processors. Sony is the first manufacture to begin the break with the old technology and look at new ways to use the knowledge gained by the semiconductor industry to implement things. If they put the technology from a smartphone into the camera they would have a tremendous improvement. If they don't get off their duff they will go the way of Kodak.



Regarding your first two sentences, I greatly dispute that. If you've only been on the scene for about four years, then that my seem to be true. On the contrary, however, Canon was the cutting edge for quite some time. They were the SOLE company providing FF sensors for years, over several generations of cameras (5Dc, 1DsIII, 5DII), and during that time, Canon cameras offered top end IQ.

The "Competitors" are really just Sony, as Sony is the only other manufacturer making large form factor sensors. Sony came along, dropped a few tens of billions into fabrication facilities (to their great detriment, as they have excessive debt and their electronics division is hemorrhaging money by the billions), R&D, and started pumping out the sensors that EVERYONE ELSE today uses. That includes Exmor and Exmor RS, which include a rather sudden and significant leap forward in readout technology (which is patented, and is certainly going to have an effect on competition for a while.) The innovations in Exmor also includes a process shrink to 180nm that allow Sony to pack a lot more logic onto the same die the sensor itself is on, which is something Canon could probably do...if they were willing to spend the billions of dollars necessary to create a 300mm wafer 180nm fab.

I would also point out that no one is actually using a 22nm process for sensors. The current cutting edge is around 65nm for 1.1µm pixel sensors. The next stop is 0.9µm (900nm) pixel sensors, however expectations are that a 65nm process will still be used for those, as such sensors are now almost universally manufactured on a BSI process. The next step down would be in the realm of 45nm, however to date (based on patent research, ChipWorks papers, and internet searches) it does not appear as though anyone (including Sony, Toshiba, and Aptina) have moved to a 45nm CIS process in any capacity. 

I would further point out that 90% of the sensor innovations in the marketplace are applied to small form factor sensors...P&S cameras, smartphone cameras, maybe a few bridge cameras here and there. Such sensors are fast approaching hard limits. At 900nm, pixels are already too small for near-infrared light. The next stop would be 0.7µm or 700nm pixels...at which point, you are already going to be filtering some red light simply due to the size of the pixel...they are getting smaller than the wavelengths of light they are supposed to be sensitive to. I don't think we will ever see a 0.5µm or 500nm sensor...sensitivity to red, orange, and yellow light would be extremely low or non existent. 

I think the innovations required to support such small pixels are going to begin "traveling back up the stack". The notion that a BSI design is useless for larger pixels is only true if you are already working at the smallest process level...65nm. With large gate sizes, a BSI design could be quite useful for APS-C and FF sensors, and wouldn't require the investment of billions into new sensor fabrication plants. Other innovations that could be applied to large sensors include light pipes, more efficient metals for wiring (i.e. Cu), color splitting, multi-layer micro lenses, etc. Most of these Canon has already demonstrated in their 200mm wafer fabs, so they have the technology...it's just a matter of applying it.

As for DIGIC, I'm not sure what your complaint is. Each DIGIC 5+ chip is capable of processing at least 250mb/s, and the dual DIGIC setups process 500mb/s. That has allowed Canon to achieve the highest stills frame rate in the industry at 14fps (something I've not seen from any other DSLR manufacturer to date...hell, even 12fps is unmatched.) These dedicated image processors are actually very fast, much faster at their DEDICATED tasks than a general purpose CPU would be. They are more akin to a GPU, albeit at a much smaller die size and with much lower power requirements.


----------



## sjprg (Jul 24, 2013)

I have been around in electronics since 1954 and in cameras since 1941. (Kodak Brownie LOL, than to 4X5) and I was not speaking of the sensor NM, I was speaking of the Digic and the rest of the processor components. I have done a lot of work with very low light IR sensors working in pitch black to detect semiconductor error caused IR radiation. I was using 2Ghz ADCs in 1970 and while I don't know the details of Canon's technology if you read Photonomics you can see where Canon is way behind in technology. Sony seems to be the only company tending to push the state of the art, and if they are losing money it is because they are probably looking at the long term returns. Besides we are speaking of camera technology, not business or economics. Canon probably has the smarts to advance the art, but not the will to do so. As an aside why is NASA using Nikons?
WOW!  Each DIGIC 5+ chip is capable of processing at least 250mb/s, and the dual DIGIC setups process 500mb/s. :-X ; And my I7-3770K processes at 4Ghz. @ 32nm


----------



## Drizzt321 (Jul 24, 2013)

sjprg said:


> I have been around in electronics since 1954 and in cameras since 1941. (Kodak Brownie LOL, than to 4X5) and I was not speaking of the sensor NM, I was speaking of the Digic and the rest of the processor components. I have done a lot of work with very low light IR sensors working in pitch black to detect semiconductor error caused IR radiation. I was using 2Ghz ADCs in 1970 and while I don't know the details of Canon's technology if you read Photonomics you can see where Canon is way behind in technology. Sony seems to be the only company tending to push the state of the art, and if they are losing money it is because they are probably looking at the long term returns. Besides we are speaking of camera technology, not business or economics. Canon probably has the smarts to advance the art, but not the will to do so. As an aside why is NASA using Nikons?
> WOW!  Each DIGIC 5+ chip is capable of processing at least 250mb/s, and the dual DIGIC setups process 500mb/s. :-X ; And my I7-3770K processes at 4Ghz. @ 32nm




And you'r i7-3770K uses how much power and produces how much heat?  Now if you compare a DIGIC 5+ to what's in your phone/tablet, that might be a closer comparison because they operate in more similar of a power/heat envelope.


----------



## jrista (Jul 24, 2013)

sjprg said:


> WOW!  Each DIGIC 5+ chip is capable of processing at least 250mb/s, and the dual DIGIC setups process 500mb/s. :-X ; And my I7-3770K processes at 4Ghz. @ 32nm



LOL

Come now, comparing an embedded DSP to a desktop CPU is ridiculous. At the moment, DIGIC 5+/6 are some of the fastest in the digital camera world. If you really want to compare apples to chickpeas, we could get into how a dedicated desktop GPU can push 300000mb/s...but that would be comparing apples to chickpeas...


----------



## Skulker (Jul 24, 2013)

ankorwatt said:


> David Hull said:
> 
> 
> > jrista said:
> ...



are you talking about your own factual errors?

If you like to keep things "private" how come you put up so much rubbish

I hope you don't think that we believe for one moment that you in the real world that you actually know these people and have the discussions you claim.


----------



## sjprg (Jul 25, 2013)

"At the moment, DIGIC 5+/6 are some of the fastest in the digital camera world."

@500nm, just think how much faster they would be @ 22nm. Now we are talking chickpeas to chickpeas.
If you are going to scale down from 500nm. Why not go all the way to 22? why stop in between.


----------



## Drizzt321 (Jul 25, 2013)

sjprg said:


> "At the moment, DIGIC 5+/6 are some of the fastest in the digital camera world."
> 
> @500nm, just think how much faster they would be @ 22nm. Now we are talking chickpeas to chickpeas.
> If you are going to scale down from 500nm. Why not go all the way to 22? why stop in between.



Simply reducing the size of the transistors doesn't necessarily increase the 'speed'. Also, I doubt the DIGICs are built off of 500nm process. They are probably done on standard processor fab at reasonably modern process. Smaller _processor_ transistor sizes (plus materials, structure, design) can give you a variety of benefits. Some are power savings, power efficiency (wok done per amount of power), sheer CPU power (amount of work done per cycle), clock speed (number of cycles per second), and physical die size which relates to amount of space needed on the circuit board(s).

And the reason not to go straight down to 22nm is it's a giant leap in technology and experience. Probably only one of the really big boy fabs or Intel has enough experience to maybe do that, and even there they'd probably do it in a couple of steps. Or switch over very slowly.


----------



## jrista (Jul 25, 2013)

sjprg said:


> "At the moment, DIGIC 5+/6 are some of the fastest in the digital camera world."
> 
> @500nm, just think how much faster they would be @ 22nm. Now we are talking chickpeas to chickpeas.
> If you are going to scale down from 500nm. Why not go all the way to 22? why stop in between.



Canon's DIGIC 5+ was actually partner-fabricated with Texas Instruments, I believe. It is on a MUCH smaller process than 500nm. The 500nm process is only used for their sensors, which they manufacture themselves. Their DSPs have been manufactured on much smaller processes for a while...I believe Canon themselves is more than capable of manufacturing at 65nm. I believe their latest DIGIC chips are 32nm, maybe smaller. Chipworks has a couple analyses of them (I think...I'll find the links.)


----------



## jrista (Jul 25, 2013)

I can't find anything from ChipWorks that doesn't cost a hefty penny. I did find this article that determined the DIGIC 4 was a 65nm part:

http://techon.nikkeibp.co.jp/english/NEWS_EN/20090218/165866/

Additionally, the DIGIC 3, a very old part at this point, was manufactured on a 130nm process:

http://techon.nikkeibp.co.jp/english/NEWS_EN/20090218/165867/

Canon has been using far smaller and more efficient manufacturing processes for their DIGIC chips for quite some time. The 500nm process is just an oddball _thing_ that has apparently permanently attached itself to Canon's in-house CIS products. Aside from some assumptions about it being less costly and still effective (from a "consumers are still quite happy to buy their products" standpoint), I don't think anyone really knows why they are still using such an inefficient manufacturing process.

I would be willing to bet DIGIC 5 and 6 are manufactured on at least a 32nm process. I am not sure if they have moved to 22nm...that is fairly cutting edge at the moment, and extremely costly, so I am a bit doubtful. I don't suspect we'll see anything at 22nm or 14nm in any Canon CMOS device for quite some time.


----------

