Why a new sensor for the 6D?

Mark1 wrote in post #15010524
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.

Totally agree.

Innovation is the name of the game, and during the development of the 5D3 sensor some new possibilities may have become apparent. With a bit of luck they may have decided to go with a weaker AA filter.

Whatever, to me it sounds like an ideal entry level FF camera or a very acceptable backup for thos of us who can't afford a second 5D3 or 1Dx.

My guess is that it has more to do with cost than innovation. A lower density probably means higher yields and lower costs.

smythie wrote in post #15009684
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.

The T2i, T3i, 60D, and 7D all use the same sensor. No one complains. The upper model is still seen as king, the lower models get the halo effect, and it provides substantial R&D savings. This is an odd choice.

I don't know why they just didn't leave the MKII around at the lower price there isn't much difference between the 2 cameras.

6d will be cheaper to produce than a 5d2, I'm assuming the sensor is cheaper to make too, but it may have some nice tweaks on the low ISO shadow banding front.

For those who are not semiconductor professionals, a new sensor in the same process (CMOS) is merely a new set of masks (reticles) that are worth, say, $100k.

All the other process equipment remains the same so it can be used for the 1DX, 5DIII etc.
I'm assuming the 7D, 60D, 650D, etc. are part of a different process flow (simpler, cheaper) but still use the majority of the same capital equipment of the fab.

So, to answer your question:
Why a new sensor?
Why not? It's almost "free". Almost.

andrikos wrote in post #15011275
For those who are not semiconductor professionals, a new sensor in the same process (CMOS) is merely a new set of masks (reticles) that are worth, say, $100k.

All the other process equipment remains the same so it can be used for the 1DX, 5DIII etc.
I'm assuming the 7D, 60D, 650D, etc. are part of a different process flow (simpler, cheaper) but still use the majority of the same capital equipment of the fab.

So, to answer your question:
Why a new sensor?
Why not? It's almost "free". Almost.

Best answer I"ve seen so far. That's what I'm after. What you are saying is that the cost isn't as high to develop a new sensor than I suspected.

This is a 'new' sensor?

IMO no, it's not. It's the same old technology with a different MP count. How hard can that be really? Actually I don't know, but maybe using 18MP would make people see it as the 1Dx sensor whether it is nor not and they wanted it less than the 5DIII, but not the same as the 5DII.

I'm not at all surprised.

You dont think there may need to be some slight redesign of the photosites, op amps, ad convertors, read channels, microlenses, bayer/aa filters etc etc for this? not just a little...?

Do people think sensors invent themselves?

I bet ISO handling is all that is changed i.e. improved.
6D is a revolution c/w to older line, not like 5Diii that is only a face-lift.
I can't wait to get the news of 5D iv with all the similar goodies of 6D such as internal WiFi connectivity GPS etc.

RobDickinson wrote in post #15011629
You dont think there may need to be some slight redesign of the photosites, op amps, ad convertors, read channels, microlenses, bayer/aa filters etc etc for this? not just a little...?

Do people think sensors invent themselves?

Quite right...as I said above, we can't stop innovating and improving. I would be happy to see a different aa filter and any other improvements that they might have made.

Some people chose to take the negative view against Canon, yet are happy to use the great equipment thay produce.

saintz wrote in post #15010633
The T2i, T3i, 60D, and 7D all use the same sensor.

That statement alone can answer many questions as to why they made this new sensor. Canon may be using this new sensor for several models that will all be in or around entry level FF for a few years. They didn't want to put the same tech as the 5d mk3 nor the 1dx simply because they want the separation, and why use the aging 5dmk2 sensor it wont make much sense.

That's my 2 pesos anyway

sonek00 wrote in post #15011799
That statement alone can answer many questions as to why they made this new sensor. Canon may be using this new sensor for several models that will all be in or around entry level FF for a few years. They didn't want to put the same tech as the 5d mk3 nor the 1dx simply because they want the separation, and why use the aging 5dmk2 sensor it wont make much sense.

That's my 2 pesos anyway

Those aren't bad pesos at all. Makes sense to me.

That's my 1 peso anyway

saintz wrote in post #15010633
The T2i, T3i, 60D, and 7D all use the same sensor

No they dont. 7D has more read channels than the 60D which has more than the T2i/T3i

samsen wrote in post #15011676
6D is a revolution c/w to older line, not like 5Diii that is only a face-lift.

5d3 is in no way just a facelift of the 5d2.
New Processor
New sensor
New Viewfinder
New AF system
New metering
New LCD
New button layout

Only thing that hasnt changed is the battery. 5d3 is a huge change over the 5d2.

IMo the 6d is more like what the 5d classic was, an xxD with a FF sensor and a couple of tweaks. The 5d3 is much more of a pro body.

ejenner wrote in post #15011569
This is a 'new' sensor?

IMO no, it's not. It's the same old technology with a different MP count. How hard can that be really? Actually I don't know, but maybe using 18MP would make people see it as the 1Dx sensor whether it is nor not and they wanted it less than the 5DIII, but not the same as the 5DII.

I'm not at all surprised.

Sure it is. The photosites are closer together than the 1DX but further apart than on the 5D3. Every photo site then is in a different place.

While I understand fully the need to innovate, what I don't see is a need to innovate new tech for entry level gear. The norm in this regard is to innovate at the top and let tech filter down. Is this sensor better than the 1DX sensor? Better than the 5D3 sensor? If not, it isn't "innovation". It is a method of cost-cutting or marketing.

So that's why I ask - is the cost to manufacture this sensor lower by a margin great enough to justify the development cost? Or is it just a marketing decision? I doubt 5d3 users would care if their sensor was in this body. It's all the other features they pay for. A dumbed down camera with the 6D specs and the same sensor you would think would be an easier sell and a less expensive cost since it is already designed.

I doubt they have plans for more 20MP full frame cameras. That makes no sense at all.

The only thing I can see that makes sense is if the cost of the sensor itself is significantly lower than the other two sensors. If that's the case, you have to wonder where that cost savings comes from and if it is something that might show up in IQ.