I Think its Time for Canon to Start Using Sony Sensors...

Karl Gnter Wnsch wrote:

No, it's not! Sony sensors have a rubbish characteristic. The photos need so much processing and the high DR is in fact detrimental to the image quality - only a very small range of photos benefit from the insane DR spread these sensors capture, for the rest the cost is the need to revert the idiotic balance the manufacturers struck and work around the problems this creates (tone value discontinuity being the worst)...

Well, ISO, DR and bit depth must be in balance. On Sony sensors this balance has been overly shifted towards DR.

Before digital sensors were rampant everybody who knew a bit about photography used Fuji Velvia or similarly balanced film emulsions, they had little DR (5 stops) but in 99.9% of the photos they simply worked to create stunning photos that were presentable out of the box. The casual snapshooter loaded a negative film with higher dynamic range but produced roll after roll of lackluster images and wondered why his photos weren't up to the standards seen in glossy magazines. Now it's the same story again: Sony sensors are the equivalent of those negative film emulsions - they produce lackluster images but because everybody now has the ability to develop the images you can work around some of the limitations. But I still prefer those sensors that need less work to generate a good photo in 99.9% of uses because the manufacturer struck the correct balance...

No, they just concentrate on what photographers need, good image quality for 99.9% of photos. The sensors are excellent, just not in moronic and irrelevant test setups like the DxO one.

This rubbish, synthetic measurement should be banned from being spread! It's misleading and has no relevance for real life use of the cameras!

--
regards
Karl Günter Wünsch