With bigger chips, not only do you fit less chips on a wafer, If the defects stay the same (uasually do) then the percent of good chips drops dramaticly.
you also waste more silicon around the edges. A chip thats twice the size costs alot more then twice as much to produce
I for one am excited about the FF making its way into the mainstream of DSLR's. I just bought a 17-40 f/4 L that's begging for a 35 mm equivalent sensor to get the wide angles.
With 12+ MP it definitely makes it a step up from a 6 MP Rebel.
The wider/brighter viewfinder is appealing to me also. I also like the way the 20D feels so if this camera is similar I'm going to go for one.... Not anytime soon though given the cost.
I love Reichmann's quote: "The advantages to the photographer were minimal, other than the one big benefit of getting affordable DSLRs. But, because full-frame cameras were either excessively expensive, or nonexistent in an individual maker's lens mount, the emperor's new clothes syndrome came into effect, and some photographers started to believe that there as something inherently advantageous to reduced frame."
I knew, of course, that trees and plants had roots, stems, bark, branches and foliage that reached up toward the light. But I was coming to realize that the real magician was light itself.
Edward Steichen
"the emperor's new clothes syndrome came into effect, and some photographers started to believe that there as something inherently advantageous to reduced frame. Other than lower cost, there isn't much advantage, and consequently as chip yields improve and manufacturing technology advances we'll inevitably see the price differential for full-frame over reduced frame diminish. I'll leave it to your imagination what the implications of this might be for camera makers and photographers over the next few years."
My imagination leads me to consider that a FF sensor will be obtainable by a rank amateur like me. The 5D cuts the price differential in HALF! Whodathunkit? Not me, that's for sure..
Like I said, I'm having second thoughts about investing in EFS glass..
"the emperor's new clothes syndrome came into effect, and some photographers started to believe that there as something inherently advantageous to reduced frame. Other than lower cost, there isn't much advantage, and consequently as chip yields improve and manufacturing technology advances we'll inevitably see the price differential for full-frame over reduced frame diminish. I'll leave it to your imagination what the implications of this might be for camera makers and photographers over the next few years."
My imagination leads me to consider that a FF sensor will be obtainable by a rank amateur like me. The 5D cuts the price differential in HALF! Whodathunkit? Not me, that's for sure..
Like I said, I'm having second thoughts about investing in EFS glass..
People who write stuff about full-frame silicon becoming substantially cheaper over time have a fundamental misunderstanding of the semiconductor industry.
I was talking purely in terms of the silicon for the sensor. And bigger will always be more expensive. Even today, after all the progress, large pieces of silicon are still very expensive. They always will be. The price of a transistor drops over time but that is only because the transistor is getting smaller. Any given area of silicon is still pricey.
I'm an Electrical/Computer Engineer working in the software field, not a Micro Electronic Engineer working in the IC manufacturing field. But I have friends that are, and have rubbed enough elbows w/ them to be of the understanding that there are a number of factors that go into IC manufacturing yeild, not just the size of the IC itself. True, for a given, constant manufacturing technique, the larger the IC, the lower the yeild. But don't for a second expect that IC manufacturing techniques will stand still. They certianly haven't over the last few decades. Yeilds for a given process have been improving all the time. The yeilds and cost effectiveness of larger ICs is greatly improved with changes like for example moving from 5" wafers to larger 12" wafers. With consumer level PC microprocessors moving to larger and larger die sizes over time as we see more System On Chip and milti-core processors ICs, I think improved yeilds on larger ICs will continue to get some serious attention from the microelectronic industry. And I think photo sensors will either directly contribute to this, or at the very least get a free ride out of it.
In short, yeah, larger ICs cost more today.. But tomorrow I expect them to be cheaper. My question is how long is it before we get a FF sized sensor for what we pay for a 1.6x sized sensor today?! The 5D leads one to think it may be sooner rather than later. (Now obviously the 1.6x sensors will be even cheaper when that happens. It seems evident that one day we may very well have a ~$1000 FF body.. but at that same time we'll also see ~$200 1.6x crop bodies.)
"Full frame" is an arbitrary concept. I could use your very arguments against yourself and argue instead that we should have 2-1/4" sensors, ala medium format. Just think of the shallow depth of field, the selective focus, etc.
True. But just like you have less interest in wide angle photography, I (and I suspect many like me) have less interest in medium format photography. For many, 35mm level equipment is 'good enough'. To be compadible w/ the decades of 35mm film lenses and equipment we've collected and used over the years is all many of us ask (at least today!)...
People who write stuff about full-frame silicon becoming substantially cheaper over time have a fundamental misunderstanding of the semiconductor industry.
Well then educate us! I see you're from Austin. Are you involved in IC manufacturing? Do you know details of the process Canon uses for their CMOS sensors? What, aside from the large physical size of the ICs, leads you to maintain that they'll always be quite expensive?
Well then educate us! I see you're from Austin. Are you involved in IC manufacturing? Do you know details of the process Canon uses for their CMOS sensors? What, aside from the large physical size of the ICs, leads you to maintain that they'll always be quite expensive?
As per system-on-a-chip goes, the biggest reason why that is making system prices lower is not because the cost of a large piece of silicon is dropping fast. Its because if you have multiple pieces of silicon, you also have multiple packages, and the package cost on silicon can be rather expensive, especially if its not plastic. Then you have the assembly cost of putting multiple packages on a board. It also has a power budget impact. Separate chips means signals leaving one chip and going to another. That means I/O drivers, and those eat power. So, separate chips means more batteries or less battery life. One chip means smaller battery or more battery life. Etc. So even if you spend more for the silicon when it is one giant chunk, which you do, your overall system cost is lower.
Larger die sizes help reduce cost because after you cut up that circular hunk into rectangular chips you have less throw-away waste.
I do not know the details of Canon's CMOS process, other than CMOS is gernally the cheap process technology out there. I'm also not involved with manufacturing, I'm a verification engineer, which means I work to make sure a part is designed correctly before we ever attempt to make the first chip.
In a nutshell, the price of a transistor has dropped rapidly over time not because the price per square inch of silicon has dropped rapidly. Its because the transistor is getting rapidly smaller itself, cramming more into each square inch. This has an impact on how fast, and how far the price of a full frame sensor can drop. The sensor, by definition, isn't getting smaller. So the only way it gets cheaper is by silicon itself getting cheaper by the square inch. And that happens slowly over time. This is why very big and new microprocessors are still very expensive animals. And when the price does drop, it is usually because the manufacturer has found a way to make it smaller, doing what is known as a "shrink".
Am I glad that Canon has two full-frame cameras, one of which is "reasonably" priced? Absolutely, because for some people it makes a lot of sense. Just not for me.
As per system-on-a-chip goes, the biggest reason why that is making system prices lower is not because the cost of a large piece of silicon is dropping fast. Its because if you have multiple pieces of silicon, ... One chip means smaller battery or more battery life. Etc. So even if you spend more for the silicon when it is one giant chunk, which you do, your overall system cost is lower.
All true, but then that wasn't my point. My point that was because of the growing demand for larger SOC and multi-core processor ICs, attention will be directed at making larger ICs cheaper. My guess would be by increasing the yield for a given manufacturing process. I see no reason why many of the tricks the micro and SOC guys learn to increase yeild can't be applied to image sensors as well.
My understanding of the semiconductor industry and foundry processes is limited but I think the industry got a big boost from telecom in the form of advanced chips for cell phones. The digital camera revolution has helped as well. I think processes are continually improved. The laser and optics technology used to etch the circuits in the silicon keeps improving with finer and finer resolution. THat means that more advanced circuitry can be packaged in smaller devices.
THe concept of system-on-a-chip does save a lot from an overall product. I was actually surprised to see how long this format has lasted and that so many lenses have started to be produced to support it. The smaller chips actually push the optical technology even further...I thought optics were reaching their technological limit more so than silicon so I expected the big camera makers to take advantage of their investments in glass and capitalize on the rolling silicon wave.
Anyway, one thing is for sure...it's nice to have the choices and with variety comes competition (and hopefully cheaper prices!).
This is why very big and new microprocessors are still very expensive animals. And when the price does drop, it is usually because the manufacturer has found a way to make it smaller, doing what is known as a "shrink".
It's not just the shrink. Both process technology and the understanding of
the processor also contribute to higher yield.
But the fact remains that a large part does not yield as well as a
smaller part. The definition for size includes both area and transistor
count.
A shrink can have a negative effect on yield too (and in subtle ways).
Moderator Journeys/Sports/Big Picture :: Need some help with dgrin?
I take back what I wrote earlier in the thread about the s80. It appears they removed the RAW mode. I think they traded it off for the enhanced movie mode. $549 and they removed RAW, wtf? It was one of the best features of that line. Guess my s60 will be the point-and-shoot at my side for a few more years.
I knew, of course, that trees and plants had roots, stems, bark, branches and foliage that reached up toward the light. But I was coming to realize that the real magician was light itself.
Edward Steichen
That link you gave Andy...Luminous landscape.com, says this:
"This is a big size improvement over previous Canon screens, and is identical to the screen that Canon has put on the equally new 1Ds MK IIn."
Uh..1Ds? Didn't know they made a 1Ds Mk IIn!
I know..silly mistake.
The one thing I didn't like about the 300D when I had it was the ergonomics of the camera. Just didn't like it.
I would love to have a 5D....but decided to wait, make sure they get all the bugs worked out . In the mean time I just purchased a new 70-200 f/2.8 "L" IS and found a gently used 20D for $950 the previous owner of the 20D is planning on upgrading to the 5D next month. The 20D should arrive tomorrow!
I guess I'll keep the 300D for sentimental reasons...we have been to a lot of places together
"Your photography is a record of your living, for anyone who really sees."
Paul Strand
Comments
http://www2.imm.dtu.dk/courses/02206/java/yielddemo.html
With bigger chips, not only do you fit less chips on a wafer, If the defects stay the same (uasually do) then the percent of good chips drops dramaticly.
you also waste more silicon around the edges. A chip thats twice the size costs alot more then twice as much to produce
edit. explained better then I can: http://cnx.rice.edu/content/m11372/latest/
With 12+ MP it definitely makes it a step up from a 6 MP Rebel.
The wider/brighter viewfinder is appealing to me also. I also like the way the 20D feels so if this camera is similar I'm going to go for one.... Not anytime soon though given the cost.
I recommend reading Michael Reichmann's first impressions at http://luminous-landscape.com/reviews/cameras/5d-announce.shtml
Erich
"The advantages to the photographer were minimal, other than the one big benefit of getting affordable DSLRs. But, because full-frame cameras were either excessively expensive, or nonexistent in an individual maker's lens mount, the emperor's new clothes syndrome came into effect, and some photographers started to believe that there as something inherently advantageous to reduced frame."
I knew, of course, that trees and plants had roots, stems, bark, branches and foliage that reached up toward the light. But I was coming to realize that the real magician was light itself.
Edward Steichen
"the emperor's new clothes syndrome came into effect, and some photographers started to believe that there as something inherently advantageous to reduced frame. Other than lower cost, there isn't much advantage, and consequently as chip yields improve and manufacturing technology advances we'll inevitably see the price differential for full-frame over reduced frame diminish. I'll leave it to your imagination what the implications of this might be for camera makers and photographers over the next few years."
My imagination leads me to consider that a FF sensor will be obtainable by a rank amateur like me. The 5D cuts the price differential in HALF! Whodathunkit? Not me, that's for sure..
Like I said, I'm having second thoughts about investing in EFS glass..
People who write stuff about full-frame silicon becoming substantially cheaper over time have a fundamental misunderstanding of the semiconductor industry.
A former sports shooter
Follow me at: https://www.flickr.com/photos/bjurasz/
My Etsy store: https://www.etsy.com/shop/mercphoto?ref=hdr_shop_menu
In short, yeah, larger ICs cost more today.. But tomorrow I expect them to be cheaper. My question is how long is it before we get a FF sized sensor for what we pay for a 1.6x sized sensor today?! The 5D leads one to think it may be sooner rather than later. (Now obviously the 1.6x sensors will be even cheaper when that happens. It seems evident that one day we may very well have a ~$1000 FF body.. but at that same time we'll also see ~$200 1.6x crop bodies.) True. But just like you have less interest in wide angle photography, I (and I suspect many like me) have less interest in medium format photography. For many, 35mm level equipment is 'good enough'. To be compadible w/ the decades of 35mm film lenses and equipment we've collected and used over the years is all many of us ask (at least today!)...
As per system-on-a-chip goes, the biggest reason why that is making system prices lower is not because the cost of a large piece of silicon is dropping fast. Its because if you have multiple pieces of silicon, you also have multiple packages, and the package cost on silicon can be rather expensive, especially if its not plastic. Then you have the assembly cost of putting multiple packages on a board. It also has a power budget impact. Separate chips means signals leaving one chip and going to another. That means I/O drivers, and those eat power. So, separate chips means more batteries or less battery life. One chip means smaller battery or more battery life. Etc. So even if you spend more for the silicon when it is one giant chunk, which you do, your overall system cost is lower.
Larger die sizes help reduce cost because after you cut up that circular hunk into rectangular chips you have less throw-away waste.
I do not know the details of Canon's CMOS process, other than CMOS is gernally the cheap process technology out there. I'm also not involved with manufacturing, I'm a verification engineer, which means I work to make sure a part is designed correctly before we ever attempt to make the first chip.
In a nutshell, the price of a transistor has dropped rapidly over time not because the price per square inch of silicon has dropped rapidly. Its because the transistor is getting rapidly smaller itself, cramming more into each square inch. This has an impact on how fast, and how far the price of a full frame sensor can drop. The sensor, by definition, isn't getting smaller. So the only way it gets cheaper is by silicon itself getting cheaper by the square inch. And that happens slowly over time. This is why very big and new microprocessors are still very expensive animals. And when the price does drop, it is usually because the manufacturer has found a way to make it smaller, doing what is known as a "shrink".
Am I glad that Canon has two full-frame cameras, one of which is "reasonably" priced? Absolutely, because for some people it makes a lot of sense. Just not for me.
A former sports shooter
Follow me at: https://www.flickr.com/photos/bjurasz/
My Etsy store: https://www.etsy.com/shop/mercphoto?ref=hdr_shop_menu
Portfolio • Workshops • Facebook • Twitter
THe concept of system-on-a-chip does save a lot from an overall product. I was actually surprised to see how long this format has lasted and that so many lenses have started to be produced to support it. The smaller chips actually push the optical technology even further...I thought optics were reaching their technological limit more so than silicon so I expected the big camera makers to take advantage of their investments in glass and capitalize on the rolling silicon wave.
Anyway, one thing is for sure...it's nice to have the choices and with variety comes competition (and hopefully cheaper prices!).
Erich
http://consumer.usa.canon.com/ir/controller?act=NewsDtlAct#103z10
It's not just the shrink. Both process technology and the understanding of
the processor also contribute to higher yield.
But the fact remains that a large part does not yield as well as a
smaller part. The definition for size includes both area and transistor
count.
A shrink can have a negative effect on yield too (and in subtle ways).
cancelled with amazon, scott tallyn told me he's gonna have some of their first shipment- he's usually right about these things
Portfolio • Workshops • Facebook • Twitter
linky
Portfolio • Workshops • Facebook • Twitter
luminous-landscape linky
enjoy.
Portfolio • Workshops • Facebook • Twitter
And a very articulate view of full-frame vs. APS sensor size.
Thanks for posting the link.
I knew, of course, that trees and plants had roots, stems, bark, branches and foliage that reached up toward the light. But I was coming to realize that the real magician was light itself.
Edward Steichen
"This is a big size improvement over previous Canon screens, and is identical to the screen that Canon has put on the equally new 1Ds MK IIn."
Uh..1Ds? Didn't know they made a 1Ds Mk IIn!
I know..silly mistake.
The one thing I didn't like about the 300D when I had it was the ergonomics of the camera. Just didn't like it.
the ergos on the 20D, 1Ds Mark II, 5D, and 1D Mark IIN are all really nice imo. much improved over the ergos on the 300d - i agree with you there btw.
Portfolio • Workshops • Facebook • Twitter
I guess I'll keep the 300D for sentimental reasons...we have been to a lot of places together
Paul Strand
http://www.michaelhansen.com