Was using a FSI sensor in the R6 Mk2 a Mistake?

[JoeTheSnowPlowGuy]

Canon chose to use a front side illuminated sensor in the R6 Mk2. Its competition all use BSI sensors. While the noise handling in the R6 Mk2 is quite good, I wonder if utilizing a BSI sensor would have produced even better results.

 

[Japeg]

Canon chose to use a front side illuminated sensor in the R6 Mk2. Its competition all use BSI sensors. While the noise handling in the R6 Mk2 is quite good, I wonder if utilizing a BSI sensor would have produced even better results.

Yeah, but then they’d have basically put the r3 in a smaller body.

Canon doesn’t want to cannibalize its own camera sales, and for the last several years they’ve been convinced that they know better than we do about what we want.

 

[JoeTheSnowPlowGuy]

They could have solved that issue by putting a 30-32mp bsi stacked sensor in the r3.

 

[chipman]

That may be Canon's cutoff line for this year - if you want BSI you'll have to move up a notch to the R5 mk2.
Maybe the R6 will get BSI in the mk3.

 

[JustUs7]

Considering the R6II has a faster reading sensor and easily as much dynamic range as all its peer group, I’m going with not a mistake. Canon made a great sensor and is using it.

The stacked sensor is what gives the near zero rolling shutter. Not BSI.

 

[JoeTheSnowPlowGuy]

Who said anything about rolling shutter? The discussion was about using a BSI sensor for higher iso noise handling. The R6-2 noise handling is phenomenal. I question how much better it could be with a BSI sensor.

 

[JoeTheSnowPlowGuy]

That may be Canon's cutoff line for this year - if you want BSI you'll have to move up a notch to the R5 mk2.
Maybe the R6 will get BSI in the mk3.

Considering the Nikon Z6II is BSI, though I don’t think anyone will say it’s a better overall camera than the R6II. I just find it interesting that at the $2k price point Canon chose not to follow the competition with a BSI sensor. I wonder how the much anticipated Z6III will stack up to the R6II.

 

[Copterdoc]

Who said anything about rolling shutter? The discussion was about using a BSI sensor for higher iso noise handling. The R6-2 noise handling is phenomenal. I question how much better it could be with a BSI sensor.

I guess some will never be satisfied with the "value proposition" and will always seek and expect "perfection" at an economical price. I guess if you want the BSL you will need to look at a more expensive offering. Also the mention of "rolling shutter" was a comment on one of the values derived from the choice of this FSI sensor so I don't find it off-topic as it addresses one of the virtues of this sensor choice by Canon. JMHO

 

[JoeTheSnowPlowGuy]

It’s not about a ‘value proposition’ it’s just what the market is. Canon put out a great product with the R6.2. The use of an FSI sensor at a $2k price point camera is an interesting choice considering their competition chose to go with a BSI sensor. It’s a discussion. That’s what these forums are for…

 

[Copterdoc]

It’s not about a ‘value proposition’ it’s just what the market is. Canon put out a great product with the R6.2. The use of an FSI sensor at a $2k price point camera is an interesting choice considering their competition chose to go with a BSI sensor. It’s a discussion. That’s what these forums are for…

"Value propositions are what determines the market price and marketability of a product in a competitive environment. Canon made the choice they felt was best for that specific product. Considering their market share they seem to be able to keep things in perspective. The issue I see is that so many people are making assumptions as to why a particular design decision was made. There may well be considerations that you and I are unaware of. Having participated in the design of some complex aerospace products I often see these tradeoffs from a different perspective. The beauty of an open market is that if you are dissatisfied with the product you have you can find another that better suits your perceived needs. Again, JMHO