Camera rumors for 2016?
- Thread starter Giriki
- Start date
That doesn't make sense. Moving to a tighter manufacturing process is important only if you increase the MP count. So tell me, what process is being used to make the 5Dsr sensor as it is 50mpix and thus considerably denser than the sensor used in the D800?
Also that article is rubbish. Did he really use the same lens in both the A7r, 5dmkII and NX1, then claiming the NX1 is best because the image is larger? Oh my...
Samuel H
Major Contributor
RE: manufacturing process
I know it's not comparable to the processes used for manufacturing microprocessors, so comparing with pentiums and such makes very little sense. The only useful information you can get out of that is in terms of how many years it took to go from one to the next, and only as a very rough indicator. But state-of-the-art for image sensors today is completely different from state-of-the-art for processors, and thery are both state-of-the-art. There's no point in comparing those numbers. I think.
Now, about the benefits of a smaller manufacturing process: it makes your circuitry smaller and leaves more space for the photosites themselves, and also allows your circuitry to work faster. The space advantage is relatively small for big photosites such as the ones found in DSLRs, that's why Canon can still decide to use an ancient process for their DSLR sensors even while they use a more modern process for their smaller sensors. In any case, in terms of space BSI is even better than smaller process. About the speed advantage, I just think it's there because manufacturers talk about it, but I'm not completely sure how important it is in practice.
Also, the Canon DR disadvantage is not related to the use of an old process, but to a design choice that uses off-sensor ADCs. Maybe they'd have to go to a newer process to implement on-sensor ADCs, but the higher noise floor appears because the analog signal has to travel relatively far before it gets digitized. Again, my understanding. I could be wrong about all this.
I know it's not comparable to the processes used for manufacturing microprocessors, so comparing with pentiums and such makes very little sense. The only useful information you can get out of that is in terms of how many years it took to go from one to the next, and only as a very rough indicator. But state-of-the-art for image sensors today is completely different from state-of-the-art for processors, and thery are both state-of-the-art. There's no point in comparing those numbers. I think.
Now, about the benefits of a smaller manufacturing process: it makes your circuitry smaller and leaves more space for the photosites themselves, and also allows your circuitry to work faster. The space advantage is relatively small for big photosites such as the ones found in DSLRs, that's why Canon can still decide to use an ancient process for their DSLR sensors even while they use a more modern process for their smaller sensors. In any case, in terms of space BSI is even better than smaller process. About the speed advantage, I just think it's there because manufacturers talk about it, but I'm not completely sure how important it is in practice.
Also, the Canon DR disadvantage is not related to the use of an old process, but to a design choice that uses off-sensor ADCs. Maybe they'd have to go to a newer process to implement on-sensor ADCs, but the higher noise floor appears because the analog signal has to travel relatively far before it gets digitized. Again, my understanding. I could be wrong about all this.
FWIW, Sony managed to make a 23 MPX 1/2.3" sensor for its latest smartphone. 1/2.3 is 29mm2. 1" is 116. MFT is 225. APS-C is from 330 to 370. S35 is 464. Full Frame is 856-864. Now, if one does the basic math and assumes a little, this would mean that Sony can manufacture a 686 MPX FF sensor by using the same process as the one found in its latest smartphone. Chances are Sony won't do it - yet - but this shows that having an 8K (42+ MPX in 4:3) sensor on MFT and beyond is already well within technological capabilities of the industry leaders.
Bassman2003
Veteran
Good conversation going here. I was thinking smaller process = more flexibility = more speed & less heat.
combatentropy
Veteran
The photosite is not the smallest thing to etch. The smallest thing is the smallest part of a transistor of the circuitry within each photosite. As Samuel H (and now Bassman2003) said, finer lithography will let you make the circuitry smaller. This will leave more room inside the photosite for siting photo. Less noise, less power, more dynamic range, better light sensitivity, and more cowbell.
Sony, Canon, Blackmagic, Digital Bolex, AJA, Panasonic and Kinefinity have all showed their cards for now. And yet, there's no camera in the 5-6k range that ticks enough boxes for me. And no, URSA Mini is not a 5-6k camera, more like 10k to get it operational.
Samsung is the only hope.
Samsung is the only hope.
NorBro
Major Contributor
The regular 4K URSA Mini EF had its price dropped to $3K a week ago. Just to operate it - a battery plate, 2-3 batteries and a card will put you around $4K. Well under the $5K-$6K budget. Even the 4.6K can put you around $6K.
Just saying since you specifically mentioned the Mini.
Just saying since you specifically mentioned the Mini.
Yeah, but I'm not sold on the old sensor. But sure, URSA Mini 4K package without the EVF (shoulder kit, batteries, CFast 2.0 card, VariND etc.) is in the 5-6k range.
Cameras and other electronic products are often "crippled" this way. It's just the nature of the biz. The hardware costs are usually very close and the feature set is what separates the various models from each other. The dividing line, as it were, is arbitrary. It's decided by the very top of the executive branch from a lot more info than available to anyone outside the HQ.
I am reading tea leaves just like pretty much everyone else here (aside of those who get their hands on the beta versions).
IMO, Sony is due to update their F-line. It's already three years old and various rumors have them with the F65 going down to the F55 body. F5 could/should get the A7RII sensor and an oversampled 15 MPX 4K with less rolling shutter. F65 replacement should get the Sony made medium format sensor for 8K at some point. This sensor is currently inside Pentax 645Z and Hasselblad.
Canon will bring out 5D MKIV and 1D X MKII, both of which ought to have 4K, albeit with different crops and recording bit rates. They should also announce C500 MKII by the NAB'16. That one ought to have 6K in an s35 sensor.
As history shows, one can look at the top of the line models and approximate how long it will take for the technology to trickle down to the more affordable gear. A two year gap in this biz is a solid rule of thumb.
combatentropy
Veteran
Ergonomically the new FS5 is hard to beat. Manufacturers should print out a large picture of it and tack it to their wall. Not that it's really anything revolutionary. It's just a perfectly reasonable application of making things as small and as lightweight as possible while staying big enough to fit a lens mount, XLRs, ND filters, and the human hand. (Are you taking notes, manufacturers who have colors in their names?)
From there you add global shutter, milder and milder codecs (until ProRes and Raw fit on commodity cards as cheap as SD (I guess Blackmagic already shows that it does)), and then you just lower prices year after year.
That is how the future should progress. In fact that future should already be here. What's hard to predict is how many irrational detours the camera makers will take, stumbling around in the dark as if intoxicated.
From there you add global shutter, milder and milder codecs (until ProRes and Raw fit on commodity cards as cheap as SD (I guess Blackmagic already shows that it does)), and then you just lower prices year after year.
That is how the future should progress. In fact that future should already be here. What's hard to predict is how many irrational detours the camera makers will take, stumbling around in the dark as if intoxicated.