54MP full frame sensor from Sony

Lowner wrote in post #16516125
And I see no evidence that they have grasped that essential matter. They seem oblivious and continue to chase the high ISO path excluding all else.

But what channels have you access to, that would make it reasonable that you should see any signs? There are lots of sites with Canon rumours just because Canon isn't known to leak information. And it isn't in Canon's interest to let people know before they are ready to ship units.

Continue to chase high ISO? Do you not realise that they can't avoid getting good ISO? They don't need to chase it. It happens automagically when they improve the sensors ability to capture lots of photons. Just that they have no good production method to produce a sensor that can read out multiple channels perfectly balanced - which is what gives banding at low ISO. At high ISO, the banding doesn't happen because the dynamic range decreases as the ISO is increased.

pwm2 wrote in post #16516223
But what channels have you access to, that would make it reasonable that you should see any signs? There are lots of sites with Canon rumours just because Canon isn't known to leak information. And it isn't in Canon's interest to let people know before they are ready to ship units.

Continue to chase high ISO? Do you not realise that they can't avoid getting good ISO? They don't need to chase it. It happens automagically when they improve the sensors ability to capture lots of photons. Just that they have no good production method to produce a sensor that can read out multiple channels perfectly balanced - which is what gives banding at low ISO. At high ISO, the banding doesn't happen because the dynamic range decreases as the ISO is increased.

I have no magic access, but I believe that if they were chasing the things that matter to me they would be telling the world, not just keeping silent. We live in a world that runs on advertising so its tell the world or die, especially in this current slump in camera sales.

So you are telling me that Canons only real advances recently have come as a bi-product of some other change?

Lowner wrote in post #16516588
I have no magic access, but I believe that if they were chasing the things that matter to me they would be telling the world, not just keeping silent. We live in a world that runs on advertising so its tell the world or die, especially in this current slump in camera sales.

So you are telling me that Canons only real advances recently have come as a bi-product of some other change?

How many cameras do you think Canon would sell during wednesday, thursday or friday this week if it was publically known that Canon would release a new "super sensor" in January?

Marketing people are known to be a bit shady with how they present information - their goal is to maximize profit and not to educate the customers. They aren't morons. They have zero interest in presenting information that would hurt their sales.

Lowner wrote in post #16516125
And I see no evidence that they have grasped that essential matter. They seem oblivious and continue to chase the high ISO path excluding all else.

Hmmm... It seems to me that, on this board anyway, criticism about Canon's high iso performance (or lack thereof) are very prevalent.. much more so than criticism on their lack of high-megapixel sensor.

hairy_moth wrote in post #16517513
Hmmm... It seems to me that, on this board anyway, criticism about Canon's high iso performance (or lack thereof) are very prevalent.. much more so than criticism on their lack of high-megapixel sensor.

That's because on this site here we seem to support the direction Canon has decided to take with its development. However personally I want something else, Canons fixations are of no interest.

And to answer the comment about not selling current products after announcing a new product in "whenever", I expect a manufacturer to be a little smarter about how it advertises its products.

Lowner wrote in post #16518189
That's because on this site here we seem to support the direction Canon has decided to take with its development. However personally I want something else, Canons fixations are of no interest.

And to answer the comment about not selling current products after announcing a new product in "whenever", I expect a manufacturer to be a little smarter about how it advertises its products.

They are more than a little smarter. Which means they don't let you know what they do before they are real close to a release.

By the way - you write "Canons [Sic!] fixations" but haven't really managed to show any fixation. Just a believed fixation from not realizing the relationship between low and high ISO performance.

Lowner wrote in post #16518189
That's because on this site here we seem to support the direction Canon has decided to take with its development. However personally I want something else, Canons fixations are of no interest.

Funny, I see it as the opposite. Historically, compared to Nikon, Canon has produced higher megapixel sensors than their rival, but Nikon had better low light/high iso performance -- and the board whined: we want better high iso...

With the introduction of the 1DX and 5DIII, Canon seems to have been addressing that marketplace criticism of bad low light/high iso performance; and now the community is complaining: we want more megapixels.

I began to look for some old reviews to verify my premise that Canon historically had higher megapixel sensors than their rival. I got side tracked when I found this comment in a review of the 5D classic from: http://photo.net/canon​/5D/

It might explain why Nikon has turned to Sony (a huge company with billions to invest in R&D) to produce their senors -- Nikon couldn't compete with Canon's R&D. The alliance does seem to up the ante for Canon.

I suspect that, back when the 5D came out, people could have postulated that Nikon had gotten so far behind the Canon Behemoth, that they could not recover; like what has been said about Canon and the Nikon/Sony alliance in this thread. But industry often has a way of turning things around -- like Nikon has with this Sony alliance. I wouldn't write off Canon just yet.

pwm2 wrote in post #16518267
By the way - you write "Canons [Sic!] fixations" but haven't really managed to show any fixation. Just a believed fixation from not realizing the relationship between low and high ISO performance.

The fixation is with low light performance and high ISO, the expression "shooting black cats in a coal-hole" springs to mind and there seem to be many here who want that. I am personally only interested in low ISO performance, including removal of the camera AA filter, world beating DR, no noise and smaller sensel sizes. I never use more than ISO400 and even that is a rare thing, ISO3200 could be some strange alien language as far as I'm concerned. The trouble is that Canon have never indicated that they are even thinking about these things. They dropped the 1Ds from their line which shows me that they are just not interested in the same things as I am.

Lowner wrote in post #16518439
The fixation is with low light performance and high ISO, the expression "shooting black cats in a coal-hole" springs to mind and there seem to be many here who want that. I am personally only interested in low ISO performance, including removal of the camera AA filter, world beating DR, no noise and smaller sensel sizes. I never use more than ISO400 and even that is a rare thing, ISO3200 could be some strange alien language as far as I'm concerned. The trouble is that Canon have never indicated that they are even thinking about these things. They dropped the 1Ds from their line which shows me that they are just not interested in the same things as I am.

But that is still not a fixation, since low and high ISO performance are related. You don't do high ISO while hurting low ISO performance.

The Canon sensors do have quite good low ISO dynamic range too, since extra DR at high ISO do give extra DR at low ISO. It's just that they have a technological issue that requires a very large retake to solve their readout issues that destroys the low ISO dynamic range.

But if you make this into a high ISO fixation, then you are specifically saying the reverse - i.e. that Canon have a fixation to destroy the low ISO dynamic range that tests already shows is there. No - Canon does not try to destroy the performance.

Please stop debating high ISO performance as if it was a stand-alone parameter, when it isn't. Make sure that you really do understand the interrelations involved - then you would know that it's silly to claim that they have a fixation with high-ISO performance.

They dropped the 1Ds? Well - they decided to not release a new camera model containing a new sensor that they just doesn't happen to have available to place in a new camera. The same day they do have a good sensor that solves the banding issues and gives full access to the low-ISO dynamic range, then you can be pretty sure that Canon will want to release a new high-MP camera will high usable low-ISO dynamic range. If it will be named 1Ds or 3D is irrelevant. Just that Canon can't release a camera with a specific goal unless they do have a sensor that fulfills that specific goal. And that isn't because of any high-ISO fixation.

You are constantly mixing apples with oranges. Canon knows where they are weak. They aren't ignoring this issue. But they can't release anything until they do have a ready solution available. That should be obvious.

pwm2 wrote in post #16518758
You are constantly mixing apples with oranges. Canon knows where they are weak. They aren't ignoring this issue. But they can't release anything until they do have a ready solution available. That should be obvious.

I know exactly what Canon need, they need the Sony sensor that Nikon are using in the D800E. The problem is that simply buying it in from Sony would not beat Nikon, just match them. So Canon at some stage are going to have to bite the bullet, spend major sums of money on a new sensor manufacturing facility. Its either that or roll over and buy in from outside, assuming they could even find a third party manufacturer. But you claim Canon are not ignoring the issue, I am less confident about that.

They have simply been caught napping and Sony have overtaken them, even if Canon made a decision today, Sony will keep that lead for some while.

Lowner wrote in post #16518800
I know exactly what Canon need, they need the Sony sensor that Nikon are using in the D800E. The problem is that simply buying it in from Sony would not beat Nikon, just match them. So Canon at some stage are going to have to bite the bullet, spend major sums of money on a new sensor manufacturing facility. Its either that or roll over and buy in from outside, assuming they could even find a third party manufacturer. But you claim Canon are not ignoring the issue, I am less confident about that.

They have simply been caught napping and Sony have overtaken them, even if Canon made a decision today, Sony will keep that lead for some while.

I'm pretty convinced Canon made the decision at least one year ago. Maybe two. Just that the lead time is quite high before a new sensor is available after the decision is made.

Let's pretend Canon did source the Sony sensor (36MP). Is the A/D convertor part of the sensor, or a separate component/chip?
What i'm getting at is, they could still have the awesome Sony sensor, coupled with their noisy A/D convertor, and still have banding and noisy low-ISO? Just think how dumb they'd look then!

pwm2 wrote in post #16518758
But that is still not a fixation, since low and high ISO performance are related. You don't do high ISO while hurting low ISO performance.

The Canon sensors do have quite good low ISO dynamic range too, since extra DR at high ISO do give extra DR at low ISO. It's just that they have a technological issue that requires a very large retake to solve their readout issues that destroys the low ISO dynamic range.

But if you make this into a high ISO fixation, then you are specifically saying the reverse - i.e. that Canon have a fixation to destroy the low ISO dynamic range that tests already shows is there. No - Canon does not try to destroy the performance.

Please stop debating high ISO performance as if it was a stand-alone parameter, when it isn't. Make sure that you really do understand the interrelations involved - then you would know that it's silly to claim that they have a fixation with high-ISO performance.

What is their reason for allowing the read noise to get so significant? You mention a technological issue.

If Canon was able to limit their read noise, their sensors would be a lot more attractive.

I will say that looking at some of the comparisons between the 800D and the 5D mkiii, I'm wondering what Canon is thinking. If Canon is able to compete, then we will see their responses next year. If they are choosing not to compete or are incapable of competing, then next year will have a lot of colorful DSLR options.

1Tanker wrote in post #16519421
Let's pretend Canon did source the Sony sensor (36MP). Is the A/D convertor part of the sensor, or a separate component/chip?
What i'm getting at is, they could still have the awesome Sony sensor, coupled with their noisy A/D convertor, and still have banding and noisy low-ISO? Just think how dumb they'd look then!

No - the AD is part of the sensor, because of the need for extremely short signal traces.

Footbag wrote in post #16519424
What is their reason for allowing the read noise to get so significant? You mention a technological issue.

If Canon was able to limit their read noise, their sensors would be a lot more attractive.

I will say that looking at some of the comparisons between the 800D and the 5D mkiii, I'm wondering what Canon is thinking. If Canon is able to compete, then we will see their responses next year. If they are choosing not to compete or are incapable of competing, then next year will have a lot of colorful DSLR options.

Canon is producing their sensors in a fab that can only do quite large feature sizes, which affects how many conversion channels they can integrate and how close these can be placed to the wells that they are going to read out the data from. And they may also not use the technology that Sony has patented for how to design the read-out electronics to better balance the individual channels.

For a long time, we have seen incremental improvements in Canon sensors, where Canon have been trying to do as good as they are able to with the current production technology. We will not see any big-bang improvements until they are ready to bring a full new infrastructure online.

And there is zero indication that Canon will send out any information about such progress - they are extremely secretive about all new cameras released which is the reason for all rumour sites. So there is every reason to expect them to be silent about their work on new sensors until just before you will be able to order a new body incorporating this new sensor.