Sony develops sensor capable of rendering color images at 0.005 lux

Or it can be light inside and the power goes out.

"...uses extended exposure times rather than..."
I wonder what this really means... How long is extended exposure time. It is intended for use in cars.

Even if the number of frames per second is slow and would make choppy video, slipping this thing in a Google glass eyeglass would be more interesting than Google's product itself.
Night vision with color

Smeggypants:

Putting this more clearly: Compared to the D4s and the Df, the Sony A7S is not a particularly good high ISO still camera.
At ISO 25,600 it has typically Sony cyan and magenta banding in the shadows.

It’s colour is not particularly good, even with very good lenses and shooting at lower ISOs.

Your reaction is simplistic.

The A7S, like the Canon 6D, is a very decent high ISO camera, but it’s not a great high ISO camera. And put a good lens on the Canon and the colour be better.

I went back and rewatched this video. After having used the A7S I find the video rather old school, i.e.: a video of fireflies is no longer amazing! And the Canon color is terrible!

It must be a reading comprehension problem then.

"While the A7s is still ok at 410k." I own an A7S and image quality at 410k is ???...

falconeyes:

The fact remains that there are problems with the Heisenberg principle, the math (theory) doesn't agree with all experimental and practical applications, pretty obvious.

Frankly, it is this dismissive attitude (taken by you) that impedes much progress in science and engineering.

Hint, any time math drives things to infinities or into the imaginary those are red flags for problems with the theory. And that's a very "ground up" apprehension of that theory.

Howaboutraw: howaboutanobelprize?

falconeyes:

Yawn, nothing I stated is particularly unknown or new.

That you're not familiar with these problems is a different question.

Slight perturbations are not the same as infinity, and the Heisenberg Principle predicts infinities with localized, stationary, electrons.

TheEulerID:

And what you've done is confuse Heisenberg and quantum mechanics. Plank is not the same person as Heisenberg.

The fact remains that the Heisenberg Principle says that the position and momentum of the electron can't be known together (since the equations blow up to infinity), and the problem is that electrons do exist stably in known places.

So in fact you're not real familiar with quantum mechanics.

"'The fact is that quantum mechanics is the most well tested fundamental theory in physics.'" This is quoting you, but likely Feynman. And he's famous for getting rid of those infinities with rather suspect math (he admitted as such).

I suggest you look into quantum mechanics before simply quoting others.

TheEulerID:

You've posted a way over simplified version of the Heisenberg Uncertainty Principle: I suggest you look at the math, the generation of infinities be easy to discern.

Right: "It has nothing to do with measurement perturbation. That's the "observer effect". There's an unfortunate history of confusing the two, not helped by some popularisations." But I was quoting.

"For reference, I graduate in physics at Imperial College, London in 1976. My name is Steven Jones, and if you care to check with them I'm sure they will confirm that." Yet again check the math, as the electron is more and more localized something blows upto infinity. (I more than think you missed something in your studies.)

In fact other people have noted the problems with localized electrons in various technology--including flash.

Escaping with "In any event, it's unnecessary to invoke Heisenberg's principle." doesn't do your argument anygood. Fact remains there are big problems.

TheEulerID:

You can use Wikipedia and work through the math. The point about infinities isn't real hard to see,

I'll look for the exact equation about an electron.

But division works this way, divide a constant by some number smaller than the constant and you'll get a bigger and bigger result. Drop that divisor to smaller and smaller fractions (or decimal numbers) and the result blows up to infinity. That's a localized (point) electron, with known momentum and position, ostensibly demonstrating the Heisenberg Uncertainty Principle.

I DID NOT raise the perturbation point.

The A7S isn't a particularly good high ISO camera.

My point remains that with a better understanding of "random" noise (something quantum mechanics invokes in place of understanding) there remains the real possibility of counting that other 35 percent of the photons.

And careful: the exclusive particle nature of the photon is more theory/belief (Feynmann's again) than established fact.

TheEulerID:

Here's Wikipedia on the Uncertainty Principle:

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Uncertainty_principle

I suggest you solve the first equation for either term on the left; this means putting say a zero momentum in the divisor--result infinity on the left.

"Inside the museums infinity goes up on trial."

Artak Hambarian:

Electrons, though not single ones, and not charge, jump and are held in flash storage, therefore those electrons are localized and have known place and momentum.

My guess would be that there's some excuses about flash storage not yet using single electrons--wait 15 years.

falconeyes:

Actually, most normal people learn this math between the ages of 12 and 14. It's real easy to understand.

But I'll explain it again: as momentum goes to zero in the denominator position blows up to infinity.

You've confused yourself by citing non-Heisenberg Uncertainty principle parts of QU. It's standard to rely on something you may indeed understand if the basic point, backed up, challenges your preconceptions.

I suggest Wikipedia for the Heisenberg Uncertainty Principle, and solve the first equation for one of the two terms on the left and let the other term go to zero. This isn't subtle of complex math.

tripodfan:

Um, I didn't say "'exactly'" but that's the idea; flash storage holds electrons in a very tiny space.

And it's not like flash storage is the only problem for the purported ghost like existence of electrons.

"Clearing a flash cell relies on quantum tunnelling, and that is fundamentally based on the uncertainty principle."

As does storing data in flash storage.

The problem is that the resulting place to which the electron jumps is very certain.

Now I think you mean that the dual wave/particle nature of an electron allows for quantum tunneling. Not a point I dispute, the problem is that under known, and repeatable, circumstances the electron becomes a local particle.

If flash proved the Uncertainty Principle, the electrons couldn't be used to store data.

It is reasonably certain, though there are some problems going back to Millikan, that electrons carry a charge of a discrete value.

Then:

"...perceived problems with infinity (and dividing by zero) go back to at least Zeno...Modern mathematics has long dealt with those issues", not really. Or yes if you mean sweeping the problem under the rug.

falconeyes:

The problem is you're just communicating distraction.

Indeed, it is safe to assert that with a better understanding of the interaction of light and electrons (meaning broadly matter and a better understanding of what an electron is) better low light sensors can, and will, be built.

However, particularly given your resistance to asking questions and finding answers, I don't see these much better sensors arriving in the next five years.

I remind you here, that Canon and Nikon still have not matched the optical quality of Zeiss and Leica lenses, though other manufactures have. And yes this means a different understanding of light than you'd cite.

TheEulerID:

It's familiar block not just belonging to falconeyes. (He was just providing such a good example that I pointed out the connection.)

ahhh.. that makes sense.

I wonder if it has many clear (B&W) pixels to increase SNR similar to their LCDs.
A brighter reverse light would help too! Or how about a strobing reverse light synchronized to the sensor? Perhaps even strobing outside of visible light frequencies.

I think it's a little naive to say it has 0 to do with Digital Imaging. If it's useful and can sell and make a profit, divisions will cross.

It's almost as good as Canon and Nikon saying. There is no way a Electronic company like Sony and Panasonic could put digital sensors in SLRs.

@MikaelRisedal:
if you put it that way, then in truth:
rather, everything on the market is nothing new
same pixel fundamentals, rearranging the circuitry or point of adc changes relatively nothing. (all mfrs, no exceptions)

DR 14.5 EV (5DMkIII, 2012/13) is about better sensor processing more than it is about pixel 'improvements'.
sensors have changed little from DR 14.0 EV (5DMkII, 2007/8)

if you process a sensor ineffectively, or dumb it down, or underutilise it, you get inferior DR below 14 EV.

every mfr is guilty of this.

but then, users also play a big part in neglecting what's possible, and just settle for default sensor processing.

just improved sensor processing has made the biggest change for most mfr dcam sensors

Nope, wrong again. Canon doesnt have a single camera that has a DR over 12.1EV
http://www.dxomark.com/Cameras/Ratings/Landscape

lol.
DxOmark fanatics only worship ignorantly at the alter 'default noob' sensor processing.

totally ignoring multi-ISO (dual will do fine for now) or uncompressed RAW realtime sensor processing (with both older and current EOS dSLRs, mentioned already, no prototypes).

only serious 'post-processers' need apply.

others have even explored multi-shutter speed realtime RAW video capture sensor processing (going beyond DR 17 EV; possibly 20+) viewable in live preview (EOS 60D, unmodified sensor) via BETTER and FASTER processing.

again, no need to change sensors that much, just up the processing power and memory storage speeds ... this is KEY to achieving higher DR well beyond 16, 17, 20, 22 EV, etc

no new patents required.
just ramp up the processing

... if the mfrs are WILLING to include improved PROCESSING, that will deliver what we both need and want, where poor processing never will by any mfr.

I don't see impossible when Canon users already achieve the stated DR I listed above.

simple physics and basic arithmetic escapes you when it comes to choosing optimal ISOs (more than one, simultaneously) for any given range of LV or EV.

if you are a typical RAW post-processor, you'll likely shoot 'mono' ISO (or mono-ISO-less for those who have only sensors limited to that)

but since post-processors seek to extract most out of their RAW to generate their JPEGs, opting to include multi-(dual)-ISO image capture is more effective in surpassing DR 14 EV (even on old 6+year old sensors) than completely excluding it altogether (unless, of course, you don't know how to do it = intentional ignorance? denial of what's already doable, etc)

dual-ISO or dual-Gain renders attributes such as signal noise, efficiency, color depth, resolution, redundant.

smarter/better processing sensor data straight off sensors is what matters more. doing it wrong on the sensor will not help (sensor is handicapped)

DGA used on ARRI ALEXA, is the same idea: better sensor data processing not pixels

@TrojMacReady:
Canon "uncompressed RAW" vs default compressed RAW
(all mfrs, including Sony/Nikon, cook their RAW; hence why it differs between the two, and proprietary, otherwise Sony pp software should work with Nikon pp software, and vice-a-versa)

in the old days, RAW was RAW, and very "uncooked" and looked 'unnaturally' flat. this isn't so today, any extreme contrast showing 'black blacks in a bright well lit scene' tells you the black were 'cooked' (pull processed) to look darker than what even the eyes can see with no difficulty, all such 'fake shadow detail hiding' RAW cooking is not that far off from the same process of JPEG generation, or live preview (pre-rigged contrast with heavy gamma tweaks). all pp of pre-cooked unnatural dark shadows in a clearly bright high contrast scenario RAW where 'push processing' is used to 'recover hid shadows' (otherwise visible to us) merely does is 'uncook' the pre-cooked RAW.

old cell-phone cams, webcams, and smartphone cams have been ...

... old cell-phone cams, webcams, and newer current smartphone cams have been doing EXACTLY this for as long as such tiny pixel tiny sensor dcams have been in existence to consumers. a pre-cooked RAW is also 'compressed' but less so than JPEGs.

this is why more info is still available on even pre-cooked, albeit less compressed RAW than 'presentation/viewable ready' JPEGs.

the fact anyone can SEE and DOWNLOAD a RAW file on DPR tells you it is COMPRESSED, and pre-cooked. this has been happening for a LONG TIME.

so far, DXO have NOT even accessed a truly uncompressed RAW file (capture) from Canon. nor has DPR. never mind do it regularly, or consistently.

Canon users using ML to unlock direct access to uncompressed RAW from EOS Canon dSLR sensors show dramatic native DR 14+ EV for strictly mono-ISO capture.

'multi-ISO' (dual ISO) is not the same thing because two ISOs are captured simultaneously rather than one.

for dual-ISO, one could venture further towards DR 17, 18, 20, 22+ EV

http://nofilmschool.com/2013/04/magic-lantern-raw-video-canon-5d-mark-ii-iii

put it this way: anyone thinking Canon sensors aren't (at least) DR 14 EV since 2007/08

are lazy (or not as RAW savvy) as post processors go
and way off the mark by over DR -2.3 EV

if one can achieve DR 14+ EV with VIDEO capture, think how much better stills could be, if the sensor capture is fully utilized, not grossly under utilized

the only reason why ALL mfrs have been pre-cooking contrast (tweaked gamma) into their compressed RAW is because the general consumer masses ignorantly think the FLAT look is REALLY uncompressed 'uncooked' RAW is 'bad', which scares away consumers, even prosumers/pros

for those 'in the know', who want MOST from their sensors in their dcams, have NO PROBLEM gaining full UNHID access to uncompressed/pre-uncooked even if it means paying more for FASTER/BETTER sensor processing, live preview, and buffering, memory storing of such files, SEEING the FLATNESS of RAW is very NORMAL

Baloney. All manufacturers "cook" ftheir RAW files to some extend. If you've ever worked with dedicated astrophotography CCD systems, then you know what raw RAW looks like, with all the pixel flaws in all their glory. And do a whole lot of "cooking" yourself. Canon also bakes optical corrections in some of its RAW files.
Black blacks to hide shadow flaws is actually a known Canon jpeg trick to hide its shadow issues in many of its older cameras. For processed RAW files, it's a choice, since the output medium tends to have far less DR, so you compress your values into a gamma curve of your choice.

As for your RAW compression theories, that currently (visually) affects extreme transitions between certain values at worst. But uncompressed RAW doesn't magically bypass the Canon ADC's and therefore deals with the exact same read noise, thus DR limitations.

Still waiting for a valid single shot full resolution 14 EV Canon example to examine.

Oh, a link about video and low res stills. Failed attempt.
Also, didn't you claim that 12MP do not suffice for a DSLR or even a compact? The stills in that link fall well short of even 12 MP. Never mind the other flaws mentioned and hack required.

But I admire your dreams. ;-)

exactly.
lo-res stills or video is inadequate, especially for low-light higher res shooting.

why make appeals to settling for less, and NEVER ask for BETTER SENSOR PROCESSING?

physics only limits light sensing systems, all gains in last 7 years (decades!?) have plateaued long ago from ALL mfrs

but not processing 'grunt' (number crunching is about ADDING processing power that need not hit limits of physics)

this is the last frontier wrt significant gains in dcam imagery, smarter sensor data processing with higher fidelity.

keeping in mind video, even 2k, 4k, 8k, etc are all low res relative to hi-mp stills

don't ignore the fact what can be done with video (example) is same for hi-res stills. (if you don't look, you will remain in denial, its all out there, if interests is there, if you're uninterested in DR 14+ EV stills, you don't have to pursue it)

yup. but Canon has a process allowing ACCESS to uncooked RAW.
one can do the same with Powershot uncooked RAW, too.

again: only a noob seeing uncompressed RAW, its flatness, and all the other bizarre stuff uncooked, presumes its 'all bad' MINUS ALL processing. no mfr is immune from this, this is why all mfr hides this mis-perceived 'badness' of the most unaltered uncooked uncompressed RAW.

solution: better sensor processing 'smarter + more grunt' (faster, etc)

interchanging sensors from any mfr back to 7 yrs ago, and you'll be shocked the exact SAME RAW cooking will give the EXACT same results by the same mfr.

once everyone of us, as consumers, realize the RAW pre-cooking antics of all the mfrs, the sooner they will stop all this illusion of fake DR and fake ISOs.

and give it all to us, as "optional".

basically, most RAW today, is a kind of 'big higher-bit JPEG' with various flavours of contrast, gamma, color gamut, pre-cooked in.

I prefer my RAW minimally tampered, so as long as I can include ... multi-gain live realtime sensor processing in-camera, optional lens correction, etc. (processing)

@TMR:
I never said video is same as stills. just you.
wrt: dual-ISO (Canon or others)
I specifically said what CAN BE DONE with video (lo-res) CAN ALSO BE DONE with STILLS (obviously, much higher res, and any loss in vertical res is negligible, since most are likely to downsize 20mp for regular viewing size (whatever suits you: 10mp, 8, 6, etc)

@TMR:
RAW at one ISO will not be same as RAW at another ISO
gamma flatness is irrelevant here, unless you really believe in ISO-less sensors, which are really just one-ISO sensors cooked to varying degrees of fake 'other' ISOs.

most one-only ISO sensors are more likely ISO 1600 judging by noise in low light for so called 'ISO 100' fixed in post.

@TMR:
you still miss the point.
one could put ANY pixel from ANY mfr, of ANY year (new or old)
rearrange it so NO line skipping occurs (like in ARRI ALEXA)
and take sensor data readings a la ARRI ALEXA DGA, even off of old 5DMkII pixels, put adc 'anywhere', and you could get TWO gamma curves covering DR 20+EV.

all you are doing is agreeing, the SOLUTION is in the PROCESSING of sensor data, not in making the sensor pixels 'better' (which contributes less than better processing)

QED

@TMR:
read again:
making any appeal to video being lower res as inferior does not apply to higher res stills

and when video for uncompressed RAW (mono-ISO) looks this good
one can forego with dual-ISO in less extreme scenarios, like indoor+outdoor daytime scenarios:

http://www.cinema5d.com/magic-lantern-did-it-24fps-raw-video-from-the-canon-5d-mark-iii/

http://nofilmschool.com/2013/05/raw-video-canon-5d-mark-iii-24fps

Either you have trouble reading or just like to resort to straw man arguments. The video hides the flaws for being lower resolution and possibly temporal NR. Full resolution stills (without cutting vertical resolution, crawling moiré and aliasing or extra blurring) with 14 EV of DR is not possible with Canon cameras.

dual-iso anti-aliasing (moire) weakness in video doesn't apply as much to stills (photo mode):

DR 14+ EV via DUAL ISO capture: stills vs video
http://nofilmschool.com/2014/01/magic-lantern-more-dynamic-range-canon-dslrs-free

and ANY downsizing, from cleaner HDR 20+mp stills, makes your point worthless, given everyone always appeals to hoping to hide noisy higher 24-36mp stills in low light by downsizing (noise can still be seen, except for good light shots)

http://nofilmschool.com/2013/07/magic-lantern-dynamic-range-canon-5d-mark-iii-7d

take note of reference to ARRI ALEXA, as I have before, wrt DGA.
I am pointing 'better processing' as key to achieving greater DR (HDR)
more so than mere pixel design or adc placement

The flaws still apply to stills too, as does the major loss of vertical resolution (and color information) and the fact it requires a hack.

The "mono ISO" uncompressed RAW tricks only have to do with shifting the saturation curve a bit towards the right. Gaining between 0.3 and 0.5 EV isn't exactly the game changer you make it out to be.

And again, you said 12MP wasn't enough for a DSLR, yet here you're advocating downsizing to hide noise?

Your whole point about ARRI systems has nothing to do with your initial Canon claims to begin with. Others, such as RED, use different exposure times, which is quite hard (ahem) to do for photos from cameras that still have to rely on physical shutters due to their sensor designs.

nope.
no downsizing to hide noise. that's what only 24-36mp noisy stills require but fail.

the half-loss in vertical res isn't as extreme as needed to 'almost' hide noise in low light hi-mp Sony/Nikon stills.

downsizing being the norm for 24-36mp LDR Sony/Nikon shooters, means any downsizing of 20mp Canon HDR shooters evens out, except Sony/Nikon are stuck with LDR video, and LDR stills (mono-ISO)

remember: uncompressed RAW DR 14+ EV does not require dual-ISO

but dual-ISO goes beyond just DR 14+ EV (it processing dependent, not sensor pixel dependent)

again: I'm pointing out processing needs improvement a la ARRI ALEXA (what works for lo res works for hi res) DGA principle.

Sony/Nikon are STUCK without capability to go beyond adc DIFFERENTLY, because it put it on-sensor (unchangeable, without sensor changes).

putting adc off-sensor means only adc processing needs changing (or replacement, firmware, etc), and less changes to sensor pixel fundamentals are needed.

just look below to Canon's refining of NOISELESS low-light FF CMOS video ...

no excuse, anymore, for feigning ignorance of what is happening in low-light FF Canon sensors 'done right' ... not done wrong in a rush like with SONY.

I can wait for any product done right, never for one or two, etc, done poorly rushed to market too early

2007/08: Canon DR 14.0 EV 5DMkII/7D (if you know what you're doing)
2012/13: Canon DR 14.5 EV 5DMkIII (if you know what you're doing)

amazing what 'old tech' can do, UNCHANGED, IF you know what you're doing ... HDR stills/video capture ... or clean 1080p Low-Light video capture

what others have YET to do with stills or video

next ... repeat for both low-light AND hdr stills/video capture combined, not separately

you know, in ONE model, not a pile of misses in an excess of multiple iterations

@ijustloveshooting:
anything that improves vision in ultra-low light with greater clarity is better than doing it poorly in low-res. (including vision for safety applications)

@RichRMA:
neither Sony A7/R/S, nor A77 II, nor APSCA6000/A5100 can keep up with Canon FF in low light (5DMKIII/6D)

nor Nikon D4s/D810

that leaves Sony/Nikon with nothing but compromises on low-light IQ at hi-ISOs. plus offering highest ISOs mean nothing if the IQ is so horrendous, the setting is strictly for bragging rights (they're now king of worst low-light IQ)

if anyone is easily fooled by a useless 'max' hi-ISO settings producing unusable images, then Sony/Nikon will be ideal for them.

@kangoo1707:
A7S excels at low light strictly LO-RES, and NO ROOM to hide its NOISE in any downsizing options, unless you look at web thumbnails.

it also has NO upscaling options, where CREATIVE CROP is commonplace.

as for resorting to higher 24/36 mp that fare worse in low light, its detail in low light is so bad, only massive downsizing, which obliterates the mushy details, can hardly help either.

one only need confirm this on DPR's comparison tool.

... one only need confirm this on DPR's comparison tool:

ISO 25600:
http://tinyurl.com/lowlight-man-FF-vs-FF
http://tinyurl.com/lowlight-girl-FF-vs-FF

(or pick your favorite APSC, 1.5", 4/3", 1", etc, sensor size)

good NR does not mushy up fine details nor add 'zombie scar' (SONY) digital artifacts

some noise 'grain' is acceptable as long as it's not overly flawed with chromatic 'rainbow' (Nikon) noise

meanwhile, Zeisschen is living in Sony 'almost wonderland'
:)

@bwana4swahili:
13 months before A7S compromise, unfit for my needs, Canon has running sensors making the A7S look dead out the door, no thanks.

the A7S is a minor low-res 12mp variation update on Nikon's lo-res 12mp D3s, with higher unusable max ISOs. both having gigantic light gobbling pixels (nothing new here)

if you like the A7S low-res so-so low light IQ, good for you.
it falls short for my higher res needs in low light.

Canon's low light sensor is running in space/astronometrics systems ...
it'll trickle down to the everyday consumer, in good time.

no rush. given no competition.
although, I would like to have it now, rather than NOTHING from EVERYONE ELSE SO FAR.

@Rishi Sanyal:
your resorting/reliance on DOWNSIZING which hides flaws, distorted/lost finer details is your 'achilles heel'

UPSIZING to SEE what are the potential (creative crop) options, fidelity of details intact, not concealed nor distorted, is the ultimate test of superior IQ (lens choice availability notwithstanding)

uniform noise grain changes nothing if it cleans up with superior NR.
ideal, if NR is already excellent SOOC.

I don't doubt D810 has improved over D800/D800E, but their NR is worst overall. D4s is better, but it exacts a heavy price in retaining LESS finer detail.

5DMkIII/6D offers best balance of both hi-res without worse NR or worse noise in low light.

your 'real world' comparison (revisted before) demonstrated flaws in your notions of 'low light' (actually, not so low)

worse, gross highlight blowouts in all the selected testing images tells us you are exposing incorrectly, and hardly optimally.

@kangoo1707:
if you switch to RAW (aka: kango-jpgs)
RAW ALWAYS LOOK WORSE THAN JPEG in low light at higher ISOs

what use is a worse 'unprocessed' unfinished RAW file UNFIT for presentation!

JPEG is your end target, not RAW
if you need extra pp software to fix your RAW so it no longer looks worse than a JPEG SOOC, one might as well go all the way, and choose dual ISO RAW processing and include Low Light HDR images (stills or video) too.

or

settle for inadequacies of LDR of mono-ISO capture, requiring pp fixes, too.

@FodgeandDum:
my pointing to Canon FF sensor was a fair reminder (given everything below showed similar repeat 'unawareness' and regurgitated ignorance of what is truly leading edge in ultra low light)

only afterwards, did others just get mad at me for nothing.

a simple 'like' if you agree would have sufficed
if you disagree, no need to troll/attack my point (I shared info that was ULTRA-LOW LIGHT related, so ... I remained on topic)

Dpr should seriously consider hiring you Daniella.

End target is JPEG?!? What the hell are you blabbering about?
And upsizing? Oh well.. upsize those canons to 36MP of Nikon D800 and see where that upsizing gets them to :S
And please stop reffering to stuff that isnt on the market. By that Panasonic and Fuji are waaaaaaay ahead of everything else with their organic sensor.

@Rishi:
The real world comparison you posted only shows 1 thing: That the latest Sony sensors are marginally better than an almost 3 year old and cheaper Canon Camera. And by marginally I mean you'd have to look with a magnifying glass. I'd say they are almost on par.
Too bad they didn't compare it with 6D because the 6D performs also marginally better than the 5D3.
And pls dont compare it with D4s ... the D4s costs about double as much as a 5D3 so its like comparing a Ferrari vs a Mercedes.

@Sdaniellea: If you only work with JPG ooc, the 5D/6D may be the right choice for you.
But claiming that its sensor has better noise performance than an 810 based on the cameras JPG engine is simply wrong:
http://tinyurl.com/pgltffy
810 has clear advantage over 6D.
Upscaling the 6D image would even make it worse.

You are right about the Sonys, though.

@Rishi: I don't really get, why you're constantly throwing in Nikon, when this thread is about Sony allgedly being light years ahead of Canon in terms of sensors. Because Nikon develops nothing, they're just optimizing stuff someone else did.

@Pallke: Yo mama is WAY behind. Do you have any constructive proofs for your claim, or just based on personal opinion? Because the comparisons posted here show Canon is actually on par, with cheaper cameras.

@ Shiranai:

Are you bored or unhappy?

Seems rather that you are bored, because you're just trolling around and take a dig at sdaniella instead of sharing anything useful in the discussion.