bclaff

Your conclusions are supported by my read noise data : If you are really concerned (I wouldn't be) I believe you can change the menu setting to whole ISOs instead of 1/3.

Sorry that Jim and I have taken your thread a bit Off Topic. I think it's a sign that it has run it's course. Interesting initial question which I'm thankful was why they are different as opposed ...

What about appropriately placed electrodes in a group of standard observers and performing measurements under different viewing conditions? I mean, do we really understand how images are perceived?

Well now you're just being silly ;-)

Intention (which you assume) does not make it so.

So explaining the differences due to the sensors without referring to otherwise identical images? Nice trick!

I agree with Jim that it would be hard to avoid technical language. Perhaps we should simply agree that background material to introduce the technical language would be accepted. As a student would ...

I think you miss the point that read noise and dynamic range are not factors that contribute to "perceptible differences". To reiterate in detail: Anti-Aliasing (AA) filter, if any. Infra Red (aka ...

You're probably referring to sensorgen . Unfortunately Bob no longer adds new data to that site so it is aging rapidly. On the other hand, I have substantially identical information at my site. You ...

I don't think it's naive :-) Right. We could add to the list things like Correlated Double Sampling (CDS), use of the Optical Black (OB) area, etc. These tend to be implemented differently from ...

Also, FWIW, increasing "precision" doesn't necessarily accomplish anything. Replacing a 14-bit ADC with a 16-bit one won't result in better smoothness. In fact generally we can't distinguish ...

Contrast is not a sensor concept. It's applied after raw data is converted to perceptual data. See the analogy. Gray scale representation of dynamic range is wrong. Dynamic range is simply two ...

The differences are real but those experienced photographers assume the wrong (scientific) cause and effect. These misconceptions are widespread are are generally benign. No. The smoothness of ...

FWIW, the low light performance of the A7S is largely due to DR-Pix technology developed at Aptina and first used in the Nikon 1 cameras. However, you continue to drift from your original question. ...

I agree. Guy's post is good because he includes a great deal of hands on experience with a number of cameras (although not a mixture of Canon and Sony as far as I can see). But from a technical ...

This has not so much to do with Image Quality (IQ) per se but simply with the ability to capture the scene at all. In general Canon sensors do not have good low ISO Dynamic Range (DR) which is ...

I was referring to algorithms and settings in the camera. These can never be made identical.

I don't think my dynamic range measurements speak to the original posters concerns. But my comments on the OLPF, microlens, and color sensitivity do. As well as the differences in firmware ...

Are you certain that the same sharpening algorithms and settings are being used? (I doubt it.)

FWIW, my measurements indicate that that highest analog ISO setting is ISO 2000 and above that digital gain is applied. And yes, essentially ISO invariant from ISO 200 to ISO 2000.