Canon needs a new APS-C sensor to stay competitive in terms of image quality

Say what you want about ergonomics, lens availability, etc, but I think one area in which Canon has lagged behind other companies is in their sensor designs. Canon has been using essentially the same sensor since the 7D, which is two years old now. Meanwhile, Sony's APS-C sensors (also used in Nikon and Pentax DSLRs) have totally turned the tables around. They've gone from playing catch-up to completely surpassing Canon's formerly legendary CMOS sensor design.

HTTP response: NOT FOUND | MIME changed to 'image/jpeg'

Aww look at those cute little mirrors and sensors in those cameras.

The sensor scores on Sony, although better than Canon, are a lot closer to the ones on Canon than the ones on the Nikon. Maybe the problem isn't just the sensor, maybe it's software too....

show me an image taken on a Nikon or Sony DSLR that shows these failings in dynamic range or color depth. Then I will be convinced. I haven't seen much real world difference considering how far apart these theoretical numbers fall.

After reading this post, my 7D suddenly is incapable of producing any worthwhile images.

http://www.dcresource.​com …hoto-gallery/DSC00056.JPG
http://www.dcresource.​com …hoto-gallery/IMG_0069.JPG

Roughly the same image...one is a 7D one is a A55...do you notice a big difference that makes you feel that Canon is failing with their sensors?

bolaberlim wrote in post #12044137
The sensor scores on Sony, although better than Canon, are a lot closer to the ones on Canon than the ones on the Nikon. Maybe the problem isn't just the sensor, maybe it's software too....

Read the original post. It's due to the pellicle mirror. Even with the light loss from that the Sony is still better than the canon which uses a normal mirror

Sdiver2489 wrote in post #12044217
http://www.dcresource.​com …hoto-gallery/DSC00056.JPG
http://www.dcresource.​com …hoto-gallery/IMG_0069.JPG

Roughly the same image...one is a 7D one is a A55...do you notice a big difference that makes you feel that Canon is failing with their sensors?

RAW sensor performance is hard to measure in one sample pic. But let me ask you this...do you see the benefit if being able to recover details that are 5, even 10 stops underexposed ? Try that on a 7 D

That's just one benefit of the huge dynamic range on these Sony sensors

http://216.18.212.226 …/FULLRES/E7DhHO​USEAWB.JPG
http://216.18.212.226 …0/FULLRES/D7000​hHOUSE.JPG

Same image...different cameras. Does one make you saw wow look at that detail and the other make you throw up? Only difference I see is a slight difference of exposure and slight difference in AWB.

996gt2 wrote in post #12044266
RAW sensor performance is hard to measure in one sample pic. But let me ask you this...do you see the benefit if being able to recover details that are 5, even 10 stops underexposed ? Try that on a 7 D

That's just one benefit of the huge dynamic range on these Sony sensors

Please share a Sony RAW file that I can recover 5 to 10 stops of information. I do believe if that's the case medium format camera makers are going out of business.

Oh and I'd love to see the noise on a shot that is 10 stops underexposed...

Sdiver2489 wrote in post #12044280
Please share a Sony RAW file that I can recover 5 to 10 stops of information. I do believe if that's the case medium format camera makers are going out of business.

Do a google search for pentax K5 raw file. There was a sample that was over 9 stops underexposed and could still be successfully recovered.

Edit: here it is

http://www.multiupload​.com/4TQCIKGKQS

Set exposure to +4, fill light to 100, brightness to 100.

Sit back and enjoy

If someone underexposes by 10 stops, they don't deserve the ability to recover

Of course I'm kidding and if a Pentax raw can recover from 10 stop underexposure and all maintain good image quality and low noise then count me impressed. However, I won't be running out to change my system because of it. I prefer to evaluate image quality and noise capabilities on properly exposed images.

Sdiver2489 wrote in post #12044274
http://216.18.212.226 …/FULLRES/E7DhHO​USEAWB.JPG
http://216.18.212.226 …0/FULLRES/D7000​hHOUSE.JPG

Same image...different cameras. Does one make you saw wow look at that detail and the other make you throw up? Only difference I see is a slight difference of exposure and slight difference in AWB.

+1, with the difference in exposure, it is hard to compare.

Sdiver2489 wrote in post #12044274
http://216.18.212.226 …/FULLRES/E7DhHO​USEAWB.JPG
http://216.18.212.226 …0/FULLRES/D7000​hHOUSE.JPG

Same image...different cameras. Does one make you saw wow look at that detail and the other make you throw up? Only difference I see is a slight difference of exposure and slight difference in AWB.

snj1013 wrote in post #12044366
+1, with the difference in exposure, it is hard to compare.

Yeah, like comparing 2 cameras at ISO 100 is a really good test at all...

By that faulty logic, you might as well compare a pic from a 20D to that from a 1D Mark IV and make the conclusion that their sensors are essentially equal since both perform about the same at base ISO...


Like I said earlier, the advantage of these new Sony sensors used in Sony, Nikon, and Pentax DSLRs is not easily seen in one JPEG, much less one at base ISO.

The Sony sensors are lower-noise, so ISO 1600 and above shots will look better compared to the 7D/60D/T2i/T3i. They also have much better dynamic range, so it's easier to recover under- or over-exposed details to produce a final result that more closely approximates what an actual human would see.

Since the lens is a huge part of the comparison, I hope you were able to adapt both cameras with the same lens, also process them with the same sensor otherwise you have zero argument.