Why a new sensor for the 6D?

There are plenty of threads about the good and bad of the 6D. I think it's a good overall addition to the market. It isn't want some people wanted, but it makes sense and will certainly sell.

My question is about the new sensor. Why exactly would Canon go through the trouble to develop a brand new sensor for this? They have a perfectly capable 18MP sensor in the 1DX and a 22MP sensor on the 5DIII. I can see why they didn't use the 5DII sensor because of the lower max ISO, but other than that, is it really cheaper to develop a new sensor for this that it would be to just use one of the existing sensors? Will the reduced cost of development of the new sensor be offset by a reduced production cost as compared to the other two sensors? I just don't quite get that. Any thoughts?

Perhaps the reasoning will become clearer once the camera hits reviewers and we see how the new sensor does with regard to banding and high-ISO performance.

protect 5D3 sales?

Great question. Everyone is obsessed with the AF and other features, but the actual part of the camera responsible for capturing the image is rarely even mentioned.

I'm sure the IQ will be very good, but because this is still an unproven sensor, I'll be holding out until after the camera has been thoroughly tested.

aximrocks wrote in post #15009573
protect 5D3 sales?

Maybe, but I'd assume they'd need to sell a LOT of 5D3s to make up for the extra R&D and production costs of a new sensor for just one entry-level camera.

stsva wrote in post #15009560
Perhaps the reasoning will become clearer once the camera hits reviewers and we see how the new sensor does with regard to banding and high-ISO performance.

This. ^^. Canon has been lagging in the IQ department for some time and recent releases have not done much to improve their position. Maybe they have fixed some of their problems and the new sensor was just not ready for the MkII.

kfreels wrote in post #15009423
There are plenty of threads about the good and bad of the 6D. I think it's a good overall addition to the market. It isn't want some people wanted, but it makes sense and will certainly sell.

My question is about the new sensor. Why exactly would Canon go through the trouble to develop a brand new sensor for this? They have a perfectly capable 18MP sensor in the 1DX and a 22MP sensor on the 5DIII. I can see why they didn't use the 5DII sensor because of the lower max ISO, but other than that, is it really cheaper to develop a new sensor for this that it would be to just use one of the existing sensors? Will the reduced cost of development of the new sensor be offset by a reduced production cost as compared to the other two sensors? I just don't quite get that. Any thoughts?

My thoughts on this are "Why not?" As mentioned already it provides some demarcation between this new entry level body and the two more serious bodies. I see that as reason enough.

hell, if they had dropped any of the 1DX, 5D3 or 5D2 sensors in the 6D there'd be an outcry of Canon making the 6D a parts bin special.

I'm interested to see how it performs over the next 6 - 12 months

Virto wrote in post #15009616
Maybe, but I'd assume they'd need to sell a LOT of 5D3s to make up for the extra R&D and production costs of a new sensor for just one entry-level camera.

Well now that the 5d3 is being found for $2800 instead of $3500, I'd say they got a good head start....

With the $700 price different from what you can find the 5D3 for when it was released and now, I'm gonna say the same will happen. Not the $700 price difference but somewhat of a price decrease. Maybe $350ish. I'm thinking we will see deals of $1850 or so in the next few months after it's released.

RHChan84 wrote in post #15010293
With the $700 price different from what you can find the 5D3 for when it was released and now, I'm gonna say the same will happen. Not the $700 price difference but somewhat of a price decrease. Maybe $350ish. I'm thinking we will see deals of $1850 or so in the next few months after it's released.

The price of the MkIII fell 20% pretty much over night. Figure a 20% drop for the 6 once the early adopters are done pealing bills out of their wallets then your looking at closer to $1680

It's probably the same as the 5D3, just cut slightly smaller and thus a few less pixels.

tagnal wrote in post #15010332
It's probably the same as the 5D3, just cut slightly smaller and thus a few less pixels.

This could be a way for Canon to utilise chips that don't make the grade for 5D3 and that would otherwise go in the bin. Intel did similar with the Celeron range.

tagnal wrote in post #15010332
It's probably the same as the 5D3, just cut slightly smaller and thus a few less pixels.

I actually did the math and it doesn't quite fit. The pixel pitch is all wrong. Actually if the common wisdom applies that the larger the pixel pitch, the better the noise handling then the 6D might be the best of the bunch as it has a 6.5micron size per pixel as opposed to a 6.4 for the MkII and a 6.2 for the MkIII.

gjl711 wrote in post #15010328
The price of the MkIII fell 20% pretty much over night. Figure a 20% drop for the 6 once the early adopters are done pealing bills out of their wallets then your looking at closer to $1680

That's true. Not a bad price for those who want to look into FF. And with the $1k different between the 5D3 and 6D, the 6D looks more attractive.

So basically this is asking " Why does Canon need to inovate? They should use what they have already forever".

Its probably got something to it that is not proven yet. Its pretty common to add new things to the lower cameras till it is refined and proven, then gets moved to the upper cameras.