Ad
Ad
Ad
Pages: « 1 2 3 [4]   Bottom of Page
Print
Author Topic: Would you rather have the best sensor or the sharpest lens?  (Read 9866 times)
risedal
Newbie
*
Offline Offline

Posts: 28


« Reply #60 on: February 23, 2013, 04:44:19 PM »
ReplyReply

Canon does have a 0.18 µm generation CIS wafer fab process, featuring a specialized Cu back end of line (BEOL) including light pipes . It is possible to speculate that Canon may be preparing to refresh its FF CIS line to supply devices for a new FF camera system.

http://www.chipworks.com/blog/technologyblog/2012/10/24/full-frame-dslr-cameras-canon-stays-the-course/
« Last Edit: February 23, 2013, 04:53:31 PM by risedal » Logged
risedal
Newbie
*
Offline Offline

Posts: 28


« Reply #61 on: February 23, 2013, 05:09:11 PM »
ReplyReply

Canon can not today make FF sensors like Sony, Toshiba Panasonic  with column ADC and the  small pixel size today  . Canon needs go down even more with their manufacturing lines which are too coarse. For example  Sonys lines goes down to 90nm.
« Last Edit: February 23, 2013, 05:10:53 PM by risedal » Logged
LKaven
Sr. Member
****
Offline Offline

Posts: 850


« Reply #62 on: February 23, 2013, 05:23:39 PM »
ReplyReply

I defer to the details on Canon sensors.  I don't know all the factors involved for them.
Logged

John Camp
Sr. Member
****
Offline Offline

Posts: 1260


« Reply #63 on: February 23, 2013, 05:42:39 PM »
ReplyReply

Regarding the Lens Rentals tests, here is the key comment (the "third zoom" is a Tamron):

"The real bottom line here is that there are no losers. The resolution numbers all of these combinations show are nothing short of amazing. For example, all three zooms are equal to, or slightly better than, the superb Zeiss 50mm f/2 Makro Planar at equal apertures on the same camera."

Trying to figure out which combination is best is a fool's errand -- I doubt that there is anybody on this forum who could exploit the differences between these lenses, if mounted on cameras with precisely equal sensors, even without taking Photoshop into the equation. And given the level of photography that we're talking about, I suspect that there are few of us who don't use post-processing software.

So basically, this is an angels-on-the-head-of-a-pin argument.

Ask yourself another question: assuming that you always want to get the best feasible resolution for whatever situation you're in, which would be the best camera/lens combo for shooting gang-banger dope dealers in MacArthur Park? I personally would choose a Sony RX100, because either the Canon or the Nikon with a 24-70 could get me killed. The point being that the quality difference between the two lenses dwindles to insignificance when almost any real use is considered, even including landscape or still-life.   

   
Logged
BartvanderWolf
Sr. Member
****
Offline Offline

Posts: 3907


« Reply #64 on: February 23, 2013, 08:01:52 PM »
ReplyReply

My point was that Canon's resolution seems to be stuck at around 22MP with no sign that will increase. Canon's core market seems to different than that of Nikon's, aimed more towards high speed, high ISO and increasingly video. With the D800/E Nikon seems to be taking a different path.

Hi Keith,

I share that analysis. As a Canon shooter myself, I wouldn't mind an increase in sampling density (while retaining or improving Dynamic Range) but, frankly, my 1Ds3 keeps producing fabulous source material for the majority of required output. I have developed the technical (stitching and/or exposure bracketing) skills to push the envelope (if subject motion constraints allow) though. And those technical skills on average produce better quality than a single exposure ever could.

Cheers,
Bart
Logged
ErikKaffehr
Sr. Member
****
Offline Offline

Posts: 8023


WWW
« Reply #65 on: February 24, 2013, 01:26:15 AM »
ReplyReply

Hi,


It seems that Canon has different priorities. According to DxO-mark, the Nikon cameras using on chip converters gained a lot in DR, why development in DR was little at Canon. DR is the factor mostly negatively affected by reducing pixel size.

Canon already has the 7D. Would that sensor be upscaled to FF it would offer 46 MP. So Canon could do it.

My guess may be that Canon has slightly different focus than Nikon, geared more to high ISO, where they are very good. I guess that landscape shooters using tripod at base ISO are a minority.

Best regards
Erik


"So, back to the rumors of Canon allegedly readying a high resolution competitor to the Nikon D800 [3]. Will Canon finally move off that 0.5 µm generation? It is worth noting that September 2012 marked the 10 year anniversary of Canon’s announcement of the world’s first CMOS FF sensor, the EOS 1Ds. While Chipworks didn’t analyze that camera, every Canon FF sensor analyzed since has used the same 0.5 µm design rules. It is a credit to Canon that it has remained competitive by continuing to optimize its pixels fabricated in a relatively mature process.

Canon does have a 0.18 µm generation CIS wafer fab process, featuring a specialized Cu back end of line (BEOL) including light pipes (shown below). It is possible to speculate that Canon may be preparing to refresh its FF CIS line to supply devices for a new FF camera system. Samsung and Panasonic currently use Cu fabs to produce APS-C and micro 4/3 CIS devices. It seems that Canon is destined to do so for APS-C and perhaps ultimately FF. Part III of this series will discuss CMOSIS/STMicroelectronics’ combined effort to produce FF CIS using sub 0.18 µm design rules for the first time.

Aside from the pixel process, there are also design considerations for Canon. Of the Canon DSLRs analyzed, the imaging chip has remained analog, with Analog Devices’ analog front end (AFE) chips handling A/D conversion en route to the Digic-branded ISPs. Perhaps the column-parallel ADCs favored by others can’t be implemented using 0.5 µm design rules, but more likely Canon is satisfied with its system design and performance.  In the spirit of speculation, if Canon does migrate to a more advanced node for fabrication, could the transition coincide with a major overhaul of the CIS and system design?"

Canon does have a 0.18 µm generation CIS wafer fab process, featuring a specialized Cu back end of line (BEOL) including light pipes . It is possible to speculate that Canon may be preparing to refresh its FF CIS line to supply devices for a new FF camera system.

http://www.chipworks.com/blog/technologyblog/2012/10/24/full-frame-dslr-cameras-canon-stays-the-course/
« Last Edit: February 24, 2013, 06:27:53 AM by ErikKaffehr » Logged

KLaban
Sr. Member
****
Offline Offline

Posts: 1739



WWW
« Reply #66 on: February 24, 2013, 03:46:02 AM »
ReplyReply

So basically, this is an angels-on-the-head-of-a-pin argument.    

John my post

"I'm having hallucinations involving a Canon 5D111 with a 17mm TS-E attached. Night sweats over whether I should go for the better sensor (D800/E) or the preferred lens (17 TS-E)

was intended as a mischievous over-simplification. For now I haven't a horse in this race but will be placing my bet in the not too distant future. Either way I'm likely to back a winner.
Logged

risedal
Newbie
*
Offline Offline

Posts: 28


« Reply #67 on: February 24, 2013, 07:24:20 AM »
ReplyReply

Erik
the sensor from Canon is almost good as from Sony/Toshiba. Canon are little bit after in real QE  with 50% compare to the best Toshiba 65%  Sony 56%.
The problem starts when Canon reads out the signal from the sensor , here Canon have long analog signal path way.And this shows at base iso with high read out noise, pattern noise banding and therefore 11-11,7 stops DR compared to others like Sony with 14 stops and even little more.

To use the latest APS line and make a 24x36mm sensor with the same structure as the 18Mp sensor in 7d  will  be expensive, and time consuming because APS line will be occupied,  Canon has no steppers, lenses to expose a 24x36mm area in one time with smaller geometry as its needs for a new sensor tech as Sony, Toshiba, Panasonic  with for example  column wise ADC on-board the chip. Canon can stitch sensors but also that is time consuming and costly
Canon has neither the whole  assembly in house, the turn themeselves to Fujitsu
Compared to Sony who has 5-7 lines and down to 90nm  (and even smaller) Canon has two older lines
« Last Edit: February 24, 2013, 07:50:26 AM by risedal » Logged
Fritzer
Full Member
***
Offline Offline

Posts: 211


« Reply #68 on: February 24, 2013, 12:31:38 PM »
ReplyReply

Hi,

I would choose a good lens with the best sensor over the best lens with a lesser sensor. Why? Because I don't think there is a lot of difference between lenses, at least stopped down to f/8, where I shoot. A sensor with higher resolution will take sharpening better, produce less artifacts.

On the other hand, if I was shooting high ISO, free hand and so on I would try to find a lens that is sharp at maximum aperture and a camera with very good AF.


Very good point .

Sensor first, always ; with film, you always wanted to have good lenses, and that hasn't changed much - but with digital, a decrease in sensor quality and size can't be made up as easily as using a less grainy film .
Also, sharpness and resolution depends a lot more on sensor quality than it ever depended on choice of film .
Logged
Pages: « 1 2 3 [4]   Top of Page
Print
Jump to:  

Ad
Ad
Ad