| Author | Thread |
|
|
03/23/2005 06:14:25 PM · #1 |
Why did Canon develop a new CMOS for the 350D?
If it had just released an 8MP sensor for the 20D, then why did they invest all the development cost & doubled manufacturing costs to develop a second almost identical one for the 350D? Just seems strange to me. |
|
|
|
03/23/2005 06:15:57 PM · #2 |
It's a cheaper version and slightly smaller thant he 20D sensor. If you shave a little bit, then you can potentially squeeze more sensors per wafer and thus, save the cost.
Originally posted by aKiwi:
Why did Canon develop a new CMOS for the 350D?
If it had just released an 8MP sensor for the 20D, then why did they invest all the development cost & doubled manufacturing costs to develop a second almost identical one for the 350D? Just seems strange to me. |
|
|
|
|
03/23/2005 06:36:20 PM · #3 |
| Smaller? I didn't know that - does that mean I'm working with a different crop factor, or is it only a minor thing? |
|
|
|
03/23/2005 06:51:28 PM · #4 |
Originally posted by e301:
Smaller? I didn't know that - does that mean I'm working with a different crop factor, or is it only a minor thing? |
The 300D, 350D and the 20D all have a 1.6 crop factor. The 1D Mk II has a 1.3 crop factor. All four camera have different sensors. The 300D 6.3Mp, the 350D with 8.0Mp and the 20D and Mk II with 8.2Mp
|
|
|
|
03/23/2005 06:55:17 PM · #5 |
Originally posted by paganini:
It's a cheaper version and slightly smaller thant he 20D sensor. If you shave a little bit, then you can potentially squeeze more sensors per wafer and thus, save the cost. |
Does anyone besides me think that it's really the same sensor ... just made to pull a smaller number of pixels to differentiate from the 20D (to not sabotage sales of the 20D)?
I'm not into conspiracy theories, but .... ya gotta wonder. |
|
|
|
03/23/2005 07:03:14 PM · #6 |
Actually, the dimension for 350D is smaller than 20D. Just slightly, but enough to make a difference in cost probably.
Originally posted by nsbca7:
Originally posted by e301:
Smaller? I didn't know that - does that mean I'm working with a different crop factor, or is it only a minor thing? |
The 300D, 350D and the 20D all have a 1.6 crop factor. The 1D Mk II has a 1.3 crop factor. All four camera have different sensors. The 300D 6.3Mp, the 350D with 8.0Mp and the 20D and Mk II with 8.2Mp |
|
|
|
|
03/23/2005 07:47:59 PM · #7 |
Canon's sensor sizes are a bit interesting. Here is some combined information...
Note that the pitch is calculated based on the net pixel count across the width, and the published width. It might be very slightly different than numbers you may see published elsewhere. I make not claim that these numbers are "precise", but they are certainly close enough for valid comparison.
Message edited by author 2005-03-23 19:49:40.
|
|
|
|
03/23/2005 07:57:48 PM · #8 |
So ths pitch is one hundredth of a micro finer than the 20D? How small are things going to get? I'm reminded of a printer friend who was owrking on some hyper-expensive gear a few years ago, when they discovered they were having difficulties caused by the molecular size of some additives in some inks.
e |
|
|
|
03/23/2005 07:58:49 PM · #9 |
Originally posted by kirbic:
Canon's sensor sizes are a bit interesting. Here is some combined information...
Note that the pitch is calculated based on the net pixel count across the width, and the published width. It might be very slightly different than numbers you may see published elsewhere. I make not claim that these numbers are "precise", but they are certainly close enough for valid comparison. |
Here's another take on it: //www.robgalbraith.com/ubbthreads/showflat.php?Cat=&Number=316936&page=0&view=collapsed&sb=5&o=&fpart=1Or at least with the 1D.
Message edited by author 2005-03-23 20:00:44.
|
|
|
|
03/23/2005 08:34:11 PM · #10 |
BTW, the sensor yield per wafer is almost imperceptibly affected by the difference between, say, the 10D and 350D sensor sizes. Using the common 200mm wafer size, you get 70 "10D-size" sensors vs. 71 "350D-size" sensors. That's based on actually fitting the snesor outline to the wafer.
For 300mm wafers, the numbers are 170 and 174 respectively. Not a great difference. There might be some increase in quality yield because of the reduced area, but the increased complexity would more than offset that.
|
|
Home -
Challenges -
Community -
League -
Photos -
Cameras -
Lenses -
Learn -
Prints! -
Help -
Terms of Use -
Privacy -
Top ^
DPChallenge, and website content and design, Copyright © 2001-2024 Challenging Technologies, LLC.
All digital photo copyrights belong to the photographers and may not be used without permission.
Current Server Time: 04/25/2024 01:59:44 AM EDT.
