# 6D Sensor... why?



## Canon-F1 (Sep 17, 2012)

can someone explain why the 6D has a new developed 20.2 MP sensor?

i mean, im tottaly puzzled why a new sensor?

if it would be a hybrid sensor.. ok.... but it´s not.
so why making another sensor an not using the 5D MK3 sensor?

i mean, it has to be more expensive to R&D yet another FF sensor then using and producing a existing sensor?


----------



## Gothmoth (Sep 17, 2012)

i don´t know.

but it better be a hell of a sensor to make up for the other shortcomings!!


----------



## preppyak (Sep 17, 2012)

Canon-F1 said:


> if it would be a hybrid sensor.. ok.... but it´s not.
> so why making another sensor an not using the 5D MK3 sensor?


If I had to guess, I'd say it's two things

1. It will be slightly worse than the 5dIII sensor, to keep the differentiation. The DR will be slightly less, the high ISO will be 1/2-1 stop worse, and the video will have more moire/aliasing.

2. There are still plenty of consumers who can't differentiate between spec sheets and rely on MP. So, now Canon has the logical upgrade path of 18mp for their APS-C, 20MP for their entry full-frame, and 22MP for their 5dIII. And the 1DX is differentiated by being $6k+

It's about the only way it makes sense to me, unless their was a reason to try and make it match the AF system


----------



## Gothmoth (Sep 17, 2012)

preppyak said:


> 1. It will be slightly worse than the 5dIII sensor, to keep the differentiation. The DR will be slightly less, the high ISO will be 1/2-1 stop worse, and the video will have more moire/aliasing.




well compared to sony/nikon they already lack behind (*).
there is no price to win in making a even "worser" sensor. 

and what you wrote about (moire, DR, high iso) why not using the 5D Mk2 sensor then?
the 5D MK2 is exactly as you describe it. 
no need to develop a new sensor, only to make it a bit worse then the 5D MK3 sensor. 

(*) and trust me i can tell from my customers that most of them buying a 2000-3000$ camera are well aware of that fact. but then im not a online retailer....




> 2. There are still plenty of consumers who can't differentiate between spec sheets and rely on MP. So, now Canon has the logical upgrade path of 18mp for their APS-C, 20MP for their entry full-frame, and 22MP for their 5dIII. And the 1DX is differentiated by being $6k+



again... from my experience the 2000-3000$ customers are not such noobs anymore.


----------



## psolberg (Sep 17, 2012)

simple. they wanted to protect the 5DmkIII. if they sold you the same sensor, they wouldn't be able to do that. They also can't go high MP if they want to stay low cost so they had to cripple the 6D or risk nuking their own 5DIII.


----------



## Gothmoth (Sep 17, 2012)

psolberg said:


> simple. they wanted to protect the 5DmkIII. if they sold you the same sensor, they wouldn't be able to do that. They also can't go high MP if they want to stay low cost so they had to cripple the 6D or risk nuking their own 5DIII.




imho that argument makes no real sense... the 7D has the same sensor as the 550D.

there is enough to differentiate the two models.
you don´t have to research and develop a new sensor for that.


----------



## Gothmoth (Sep 17, 2012)

dilbert said:


> Gothmoth said:
> 
> 
> > psolberg said:
> ...



that´s correct but it was a special case imo.

a sensor is not the only thing that differentiates two camera models.
the 1Ds3 had the bad luck that the 5D MK2 was good enough at that moment for most.

but with the 11 point AF system and all the other shortcomings, the 5D MK3 sensor would not make the 6D SUCH a better deal.

and still the question remains... why not using the 5D MK2 sensor then?


----------



## simonxu11 (Sep 17, 2012)

According to Canon USA the image format of 6D is 35.8mm x 23.9mm, 5D2 is 36mm x 24mm.
I guess Canon just trim down the 5D2's sensor a bit. Maybe the AF is also modified from the 9 point AF in the 5D2. In this way, Canon is able to use these 4 years old parts to create a new body, reduce the overstocked 5D2 sensors and AF module and cut the cost a lot. Three birds with one stone.


----------



## Gothmoth (Sep 17, 2012)

simonxu11 said:


> According to Canon USA the image format of 6D is 35.8mm x 23.9mm, 5D2 is 36mm x 24mm.
> I guess Canon just trim down the 5D2's sensor a bit. Maybe the AF is also modified from the 9 point AF in the 5D2. In this way, Canon is able to use these 4 years old parts to create a new body, reduce the overstocked 5D2 sensors and AF module and cut the cost a lot. Three birds with one stone.



yeah... thought about it.

but please... NO.

selling the old sensor as NEW developed sensor to the public.
that would be too cheap even for canon... not?


----------



## sandymandy (Sep 17, 2012)

I dont think anything else besides different amount of pixels is a "new developement".

@ above me

This would be too cheap for Canon?

Just see what Leica did with their totally different *cough* M9-P. Remove a red dot and sell it for more cash to ONLY well earning customers...


----------



## UrbanVoyeur (Sep 17, 2012)

I think it is quite simple - this is the best Canon can do at this price point. I believe Canon is still struggling with the production yields of is high MP full frame sensors.

This 20 MP full frame could very well be the same sensor as in the 5D, but produced to less exacting standards, by either grouping/averaging or ignoring under-performing pixels. It is a common practice in sensor production. Sony does the same with its FF sensors.


----------



## K-amps (Sep 17, 2012)

simonxu11 said:


> According to Canon USA the image format of 6D is 35.8mm x 23.9mm, 5D2 is 36mm x 24mm.
> I guess Canon just trim down the 5D2's sensor a bit. Maybe the AF is also modified from the 9 point AF in the 5D2. In this way, Canon is able to use these 4 years old parts to create a new body, reduce the overstocked 5D2 sensors and AF module and cut the cost a lot. Three birds with one stone.



+1 !!


----------



## Gothmoth (Sep 17, 2012)

UrbanVoyeur said:


> I think it is quite simple - this is the best Canon can do at this price point. I believe Canon is still struggling with the production yields of is high MP full frame sensors.



_high_ MP fullframe sensors... *high* compared to what? 





> I think it is quite simple - this is the best Canon can do at this price point. I believe Canon is still struggling with the production yields of is high MP full frame sensors.



so they decided to put money in R&D to produce yet another FF sensor instead of using the 5D MK2 sensor?

*if* it is a new developed sensor and not some camouflaged 5D MK2 sensor.


----------



## K-amps (Sep 17, 2012)

Gothmoth said:


> simonxu11 said:
> 
> 
> > According to Canon USA the image format of 6D is 35.8mm x 23.9mm, 5D2 is 36mm x 24mm.
> ...



Taking the 5d2 sensor and making the edges redundant (either via firmware or otherwise) could be construed as a re-design...

You are talking about the company that uses the same 18mp APS-C sensor in multiple offerings... why are you surprised?


----------



## Gothmoth (Sep 17, 2012)

K-amps said:


> Gothmoth said:
> 
> 
> > simonxu11 said:
> ...



pretty obvious why i would be suprised.... don´t you think? 

they did NOT tell us that the 18 MP sensors are new developed each time a new model was released.... we knew the 550D, 60D, 600D and 7D have the same sensor (or 99,5% the same).

if what he wrote is true .... it´s more or less a lie what canon is telling their customers.
selling us a 5 year old technology as "new developed".


ps: i say 5 years old because the sensor development is is older then the camera.


----------



## meli (Sep 17, 2012)

simonxu11 said:


> According to Canon USA the image format of 6D is 35.8mm x 23.9mm, 5D2 is 36mm x 24mm.
> I guess Canon just trim down the 5D2's sensor a bit. Maybe the AF is also modified from the 9 point AF in the 5D2. In this way, Canon is able to use these 4 years old parts to create a new body, reduce the overstocked 5D2 sensors and AF module and cut the cost a lot. Three birds with one stone.



nice catch


----------



## preppyak (Sep 17, 2012)

I'm not well versed in sensor technology, but the pixel-pitch of this new sensor is significantly higher than the 5dII and 5dIII sensor, so, it leads me to believe its a new sensor in some format.


----------



## Gothmoth (Sep 17, 2012)

preppyak said:


> I'm not well versed in sensor technology, but the pixel-pitch of this new sensor is significantly higher than the 5dII and 5dIII sensor, so, it leads me to believe its a new sensor in some format.



where did you find that info?
have they posted it on dpreview?


----------



## AJ (Sep 17, 2012)

meli said:


> simonxu11 said:
> 
> 
> > According to Canon USA the image format of 6D is 35.8mm x 23.9mm, 5D2 is 36mm x 24mm.
> ...



I wonder if those missing pixels could be activated with a firmware hack?

As it stands right now it's not really a FF cam - it's a crop camera with a 1.006x crop factor....


----------



## Omar H (Sep 17, 2012)

this camera doesn't make any sense to me, other than justifying that they do indeed have a ff entry level camera, so from Canon it would be a message to us in the range of stop bitching about the 5d3 price and get this if you don't like the price. s##w u anyways!

As things start to unveil, we might see the goodness in this camera, but I'd still go for a 5dII hands down, rather than this.


----------



## daniel_charms (Sep 17, 2012)

simonxu11 said:


> According to Canon USA the image format of 6D is 35.8mm x 23.9mm, 5D2 is 36mm x 24mm.
> I guess Canon just trim down the 5D2's sensor a bit. Maybe the AF is also modified from the 9 point AF in the 5D2. In this way, Canon is able to use these 4 years old parts to create a new body, reduce the overstocked 5D2 sensors and AF module and cut the cost a lot. Three birds with one stone.



Nope. I did some quick calculations and the number of _total _pixels on this sensor is less than the number of _effective _ pixels on a trimmed-down 5d2 sensor, so the pixel pitch is definitely different.

Besides, modifying a stock of existing components is, even if it's possible (and I really doubt that it is in this case), hardly cost-efficient. It's just plain easier to produce a new piece from scratch.


----------



## simonxu11 (Sep 17, 2012)

daniel_charms said:


> simonxu11 said:
> 
> 
> > According to Canon USA the image format of 6D is 35.8mm x 23.9mm, 5D2 is 36mm x 24mm.
> ...


I did my calculation as well, but I think canon also used other techniques (something difficuilt for consumers to find out) to achieve this. I don't think canon is that stupid to let us discover this just by any simple calculation.
All of these are just my speculation though.


----------



## extremeinstability (Sep 17, 2012)

5D II had 12,000 and 25,000 for the H1 H2 while 6D has 51,000 and 102,000 for H1 H2. Perhaps it's a trimmed down 5D III....not a trimmed down 5D II. Or just all new. Not that I know jack about creating sensors.


----------



## simonxu11 (Sep 17, 2012)

extremeinstability said:


> 5D II had 12,000 and 25,000 for the H1 H2 while 6D has 51,000 and 102,000 for H1 H2. Perhaps it's a trimmed down 5D III....not a trimmed down 5D II. Or just all new. Not that I know jack about creating sensors.


The main reason of this because 6d has the latest digic 5+ processor.


----------



## K-amps (Sep 17, 2012)

True... but since the pixel pitch "is" different, it cannot be the same sensor. 6.4 not same as 6.54 even if you put each sensor through a "visegrip"


----------



## ishdakuteb (Sep 17, 2012)

According to pixel size, this will be expected to produce less noise comparing to 5D Mark III (since both are using the same Digic 5+)... but let's see. However, to what i have known that every single new technology is an upgrade/improvement/and modification from early one... try to talk with R&D people and you will find out...


----------



## Canon-F1 (Sep 17, 2012)

ishdakuteb said:


> However, to what i have known that every single new technology is an upgrade/improvement/and modification from early one... try to talk with R&D people and you will find out...



really? :

well not every single new technology... but yes most new sensors are build on improved technology not entirely new technology.


----------



## Tcapp (Sep 17, 2012)

Just wait, Canon is going to shock all of us and give us a sensor with ZERO banding in this 6d. That can be its big selling point. I think that is the SINGLE biggest thing canon can do to improve their sensors.


----------



## UrbanVoyeur (Sep 18, 2012)

Gothmoth said:


> _high_ MP fullframe sensors... *high* compared to what?


Compared to the 30+ MP senors from Sony.



Gothmoth said:


> so they decided to put money in R&D to produce yet another FF sensor instead of using the 5D MK2 sensor?
> *if* it is a new developed sensor and not some camouflaged 5D MK2 sensor.



You missed the last part of my post where I suggested is might be the same sensor die as the 5D MkIII, but with a greater number of pixels failing to make the grade. These would then be averaged together as a single pixel. If you do that across a sensor you get very respectable performance but with a lower total MP count.

This sensor could also be the "failures" or less than top performers from the yet to be announced 36-40 MP FF sensor die that Canon has been working on. This makes more sense given the large pitch which could be the result of nearest neighbor averaging. If that's the case, then Canon should be ready with a 36-40 MP camera before summer 2013.


----------



## Gothmoth (Sep 18, 2012)

UrbanVoyeur said:


> Gothmoth said:
> 
> 
> > _high_ MP fullframe sensors... *high* compared to what?
> ...



so a canon 22 MP sensor is a high MP sensor compared to sonys 30+ pixel sensor.. no that makes sense. 




> You missed the last part of my post where I suggested is might be the same sensor die as the 5D MkIII, but with a greater number of pixels failing to make the grade. These would then be averaged together as a single pixel. If you do that across a sensor you get very respectable performance but with a lower total MP count.



not possible because of the pixel pitch.


----------



## UrbanVoyeur (Sep 18, 2012)

Gothmoth said:


> so a canon 22 MP sensor is a high MP sensor compared to sonys 30+ pixel sensor.. no that makes sense.


Sorry for my poor communication skills. I am NOT saying that at all. 

I think that Canon has trouble producing high MP FF sensors (30-40 MP) and that yet another FF camera (6D) in the 20 MP range is evidence. I think the Canon yields from the 30-40 MP die that are usable at full resolution are extremely low. If they could produce a higher than 20 MP FF sensor at this price point would. So far it is too expensive to market the Canon 30-40 MP sensor. Sony appears to have overcome this problem, as seen in the new Nikon and Sony FF's.



> You missed the last part of my post where I suggested is might be the same sensor die as the 5D MkIII, but with a greater number of pixels failing to make the grade. These would then be averaged together as a single pixel. If you do that across a sensor you get very respectable performance but with a lower total MP count.





Gothmoth said:


> not possible because of the pixel pitch.



Then perhaps it is from their 30-40 MP sensor die. I don' think Canon would go through the trouble of developing an new interim 20 MP die when they are so close with the 30-40 MP die. It makes more sense to use those rejects.


----------



## Octavian (Sep 18, 2012)

Tcapp said:


> Just wait, Canon is going to shock all of us and give us a sensor with ZERO banding in this 6d. That can be its big selling point. I think that is the SINGLE biggest thing canon can do to improve their sensors.



+1

And add to that and correct me if im wrong but as someone stated that the low light image quality might not be as good as a MkIII, HOWEVER in general doesn't a larger pixel size aid in low light capability? this may well yet be a good sensor indeed but why they cut it a bit is odd?


----------



## BXL (Sep 18, 2012)

Maybe it's a complete different sensor because the 6D aims at a different market segment? Lower MP, hopefully lower noise at low and high ISO as well? The 6D aims imo at landscape and available light photography and in both areas everyone would welcome lower noise. 

Landscape photographers are looking forward to exceptionally good-looking images at low ISO levels. They also don't need a very sophisticated AF (but would like to have GPS). Another area is architecture photography - again high quality images at low ISO levels and no AF since T/S-E lenses don't have AF. The other area is AL photography, there you want low noise at high ISO levels and for AL the most important AF point is the center cross point.

IMO the 6D targets a very specific market and if they developed a new sensor to reduce noise, this DSLR could be spot on for that kind of photography.


----------



## Gothmoth (Sep 18, 2012)

BXL said:


> Landscape photographers are looking forward to exceptionally good-looking images at low ISO levels. They also don't need a very sophisticated AF (but would like to have GPS). Another area is architecture photography - again high quality images at low ISO levels and no AF since T/S-E lenses don't have AF.



but they also want DETAILS.. as much as they can get.. that´s why i still shot MF sometimes.

that is why the D800 looks so good when your a landscape photographer... 20 MP for 2099$ don´t cut the cake.


----------



## Bosman (Sep 18, 2012)

They had to design a new sensor, using a 4 yrs old sensor would get them flamed from here to eternity. The new sensor has to be the strongest part of this camera for it to work. As you can see if the body can be this small with gps and all the other crap they stuffed in there, putting it in a d series is plenty doable. That will only happen if Sony or Nikon do it in their flagship cameras. Canon follows far more than it leads.


----------



## K-amps (Sep 18, 2012)

Bosman said:


> They had to design a new sensor, using a 4 yrs old sensor would get them flamed from here to eternity. The new sensor has to be the strongest part of this camera for it to work. As you can see if the body can be this small with gps and all the other crap they stuffed in there, putting it in a d series is plenty doable. That will only happen if Sony or Nikon do it in their flagship cameras. Canon follows far more than it leads.



The tech is basically the same as 4 years ago. the 5dii and 5diii RAW files show similar levels of noise, the magic happens in Digic 5+ and the jpeg rendition, thats where the 5d3 surpasses the 5dii. The sensor has not changed much. With the 6D they have probably juggled a few variables form the 5d's and with a larger pixel pitch, we can expect better RAW noise performance than both the 5D's... this will not be due to new technology, rather via tried and tested trade-offs of MP vs Noise.


----------



## Bosman (Sep 18, 2012)

K-amps said:


> Bosman said:
> 
> 
> > They had to design a new sensor, using a 4 yrs old sensor would get them flamed from here to eternity. The new sensor has to be the strongest part of this camera for it to work. As you can see if the body can be this small with gps and all the other crap they stuffed in there, putting it in a d series is plenty doable. That will only happen if Sony or Nikon do it in their flagship cameras. Canon follows far more than it leads.
> ...


I agree, the gapless lens tech on the sensor is prob the only improvement to the actual sensor but the digic processors and in camera software are what has made the bigest impact.


----------



## K-amps (Sep 18, 2012)

Bosman said:


> K-amps said:
> 
> 
> > Bosman said:
> ...



Agreed. with the 5d3's larger MP, noise would have been worse, so the gapless microlenses made up for that difference and it ended up being a wash.

I would have liked Canon to offer a "E" version...


----------



## LetTheRightLensIn (Sep 18, 2012)

UrbanVoyeur said:


> Gothmoth said:
> 
> 
> > _high_ MP fullframe sensors... *high* compared to what?
> ...



That wouldn't work out, you'd just have a ton more hot pixels and I've never heard of a manufacturer calling poorly made 22MP sensors that have 2 million dead pixels a 20MP sensor. And just think, they list the image dimensions, how do you get that change with random dead pixels here and there throughout?

It does seem weird, since you'd think just re-using 5D3 sensor would be more efficient. But I can't imagine they would do something that would cost them money so you'd think it would somehow have to be some sort of masking off or less masking off of another sensor or maybe they found a way to somehow pump these ones out more cheaply because something about them makes them noticeably less expensive to make than say the 5D3 or 1DX sensor.

Or maybe they did have a low ISO DR breakthrough but what on earth were they thinking to be so slow to get they needed that and not get that tech in the 5D3 and 1DX? Those user bases will raise a storm, if just a few months later a low end FF has a sensor that blows the ones they have away. It would at least give one a lot of faith about the 5D4 though. Something would seem to have been supremely poorly thought out and planned in Canon management.


----------



## LetTheRightLensIn (Sep 18, 2012)

20MP vs 21MP vs 22MP pixel pitch will have ZERO noticeable difference on SNR....
I'm picky and pixel peepy as heck and there is no way I'd be able to tell if the same exact tech was used on a 20MP a 21MP and a 22MP sensor, not remotely.

(And did the D800 not prove a thing? 36MP and very, very good high ISO.)


----------



## K-amps (Sep 18, 2012)

LetTheRightLensIn said:


> 20MP vs 21MP vs 22MP pixel pitch will have ZERO noticeable difference on SNR....
> I'm picky and pixel peepy as heck and there is no way I'd be able to tell if the same exact tech was used on a 20MP a 21MP and a 22MP sensor, not remotely.
> 
> (And did the D800 not prove a thing? 36MP and very, very good high ISO.)



You are even more hardcore than I am...


----------



## K-amps (Sep 18, 2012)

LetTheRightLensIn said:


> UrbanVoyeur said:
> 
> 
> > Gothmoth said:
> ...



He was probably thinking CPU's and yields.... Sensors / Monitors don't work that way


----------



## UrbanVoyeur (Sep 19, 2012)

K-amps said:


> UrbanVoyeur said:
> 
> 
> > You missed the last part of my post where I suggested is might be the same sensor die as the 5D MkIII, but with a greater number of pixels failing to make the grade. These would then be averaged together as a single pixel. If you do that across a sensor you get very respectable performance but with a lower total MP count.
> ...



In sensor production, it is not all or nothing when it comes to pixels. Yes, there are dead pixels and hot pixels, but that's not what I'm talking about. More common problems are noisy pixels, non-linear pixels and low ISO pixels. Very often these can be corrected using the average value of a group of adjacent pixels, rather than rely on just that one. Or by comparing them to nearby pixels and using an offset. Sometimes the only solution is to ignore the output. Typically, these problem pixels are not uniformly distributed - they tend to cluster, while the rest of the pixels may be perfect. 

Since you can't use a sensor that is high res everywhere except the lower right corner where the problem pixels are, any solution must be applied uniformly to the whole sensors. Even if it means ignoring or averaging the output of perfectly good pixels.

Each sensor produced is tested and the response of each pixel measured. If a model of averaging, offsetting or ignoring problem pixels is found that will produce a lower resolution but perfectly performing sensor, the model is a applied and the sensor is used at the lower MP count. This is how many small, compact camera sensors are produced. I also think it is where the SLR AF sensor come from.

It is not necessary to apply the same correction model to every problem pixel on a given sensor as long as you end up with a uniform distribution of good pixel clusters. On a single sensor, there may be a mix of non-linear pixels, noisy pixels and pixels that only respond at high or low light levels. As long as the corrections gives results in a consistent and uniform pitch, say groups of 2, 3 or 4 pixels, it can be tailored to correct each problem separately. Various correction models can be tested mathematically to find the optimal solution - cleanest output, highest MP count. The results are stored in sensor correction array map that is ROM on the chip.

This method has limitations. Too many problem pixels in one area or across the sensor, and all correction models fail - the sensor is discarded. But is is quite possible to start with a sensor that won't pass at 24 MP but with correction, will work at 12 MP. Or start with 40 MP and get 20 MP. Not all the corrections are simple averaging, so the relationship between the starting point and ending point is not always a factor of 2 or 3.


----------



## Marsu42 (Sep 19, 2012)

Canon-F1 said:


> can someone explain why the 6D has a new developed 20.2 MP sensor?



The reason imho is very, very simple: To put the specs below the 5d3 (22mp) and 5d2 (21mp). The design of the 6d is purely marketing driven (af, x-sync) - if they couldn't get away with simply recycling the 5d2 sensor and didn't want to cannibalize the 5d3 a "new development" was the only option.

I still expect to 6d to have very low banding/ read noise, but this is not only due to sensor design w/ Canon tech but has to do with the rest of the camera electronics. As for dr/iso, I'm curios to see the reviews, but I don't think it'll save the 6d from forgetfulness.


----------

