Lot's of critics of Canon DSLR sensors these days, any photo proof to support this?

gdanmitchell wrote:

All of the kerfuffle about this or that sensor being miles ahead or or behind some other sensor or one brand having "shortcomings" can be chalked up to breathless forumtography and/or publications exaggerating differences in order to make a story.

Yes, if you put camera A on a test bench and compare it very, very carefully to camera B, you can register some differences of various sorts. However, to paraphrase someone, not everything that can be measured matters, and not everything that matters can be measured.

In the grand scheme, there are several DSLR manufacturers make very, very good gear that works extraordinarily well. One month one or the other of them will come out with something new that incorporates certain updates and improvements, and they get bragging rights for a while. Then, before long, another manufacturer introduces their new thing, and it has new and improved features and they get the bragging rights.

But does any of this make a visible difference in photographs? Virtually never. I'm utterly certain that if we had a half dozen fine photographers, post-processors, and printers produce a handful of their prints - where half came from Brand A and half from Brand B - and hang them randomly in a gallery, that no one could tell which photographs were made with which brand.

The truth of the matter is that most photographers know how to use the gear they have to produce excellent work, and that they are rarely if ever hampered by owning one brand instead of another. And while they may discuss the latest technical developments and newest models, they tend to not get crazy passionate about them - and they quite often skip upgrades and use gear that the forumtographer might claim to be less than top notch. Yet somehow they produce excellent work.

Go figure.

Dan