Will Canon ever make a High Resolution/High Dynamic Range sensor?

Chopper Al wrote in post #17660062
Well, there is always this from Canon with ISO 4 million.

https://photography-on-the.net …/showthread.php​?t=1436236

Not particularly high resolution.

And high iso doesn't = high DR.

So, I'm not sure how it is in any way relevant.

I absolutely identify with Canon Shoe's dilemma. I recently got the 5DS R and am loving it. And I already have an a7R. I am starting to like the idea of sticking to that as a sort of one-two punch for landscapes. Not every landscape needs more than 12.4 stops, or isn't suitable for bracketed imaging, but when there is an especially challenging scene, then the a7R is there. It's still a reasonably high-resolution sensor - just 6 MP less than the a7R II. I also love the a7 platform for walk-around manual focusing my Zeiss lenses.

These are really tough choices and I am by no means completely settled in my own mind about it.

Heresy I know, but I'm convinced that a not insignificant proportion of those complaining about 'lack of DR' neither truly know what it is, nor have developed the basic exposure and processing skills to properly make use of what there is...

Of course, it's long been much easier to whinge about Canon's failings (or pick manufacturer and 'failing' of your choice) and look to buy new kit in an attempt to 'fix' things

Whoops, did I say that - best get my coat

Just take 1 image with a Canon and one with a Nikon/Sony body of a high contrast scene and see for yourself. I can bracket 9 images of a scene and not one will have as much information as the RAW file from the competition. You'll end up blending images in photoshop to get the equivalent

My problem is that I did exactly that, well actually quite a lot of images! The problem was that the Sonys were simply useless - by the time it achieved focus my subject had migrated! Whilst the Nikons I tried were much, much better they were still limited by the lens and their AF systems.
So do I have a stop or two more DR or do I have decent images? For those who shoot static subjects I am sure Sony has much to offer (but no good long lenses) and Nikon works very well for many many people - just too clunky for me. I was at a Red Kite shoot a couple of months ago and the photographer (semi pro) on my left was using a Nikon D4 with a Nikon 300 F2.8 VR the persistent hunting of their AF was getting embarrassing! I was using my 1DX and 300 F2.8 Mk1 = point focus, shoot and then choose the best composition. Even my friend on my right was doing a better job with a borrowed Canon 300 F4 L IS and her 40D with her 19 month old toddler in a sling jumping up and down on her back!
Lets get the camera system right for our individual needs before we worry about minor points like DR. Having looked carefully at the Sony offerings and tried several, their IQ was great - but they were simply FAR too limiting for differing subject types. Nikon offer the Sony sensor advantage but are not up to Canon when it comes to responsiveness and AF performance at the top end (they are probably better with their mid range bodies). So it's horses for courses, I am afraid that the Sony sensored cameras fell at the jumps for my uses.
If/when they get better I will consider them.

Of course! If I shot wildlife or sports, It'd be Canon all the way......they have that market on lock down. All sporting events seem to be about 90% Canon shooters, as well as national geographic

Common, that's an over-exaggeration The overall tonality of the Sony sensor is better in the lower stops: if we're assuming the first two stops in a 14 bit system, that's 6 shades of tone out of 16384 (absolute theoretical example granted, but when really utilizing total DR, the lower noise of the Sony is less significant). I haven't seen much examples of landscapes that leave me thinking "Wow, the Sony sensor is so much better...I couldn't have done that with my Canon". It does seem much better for those situations where you're in low light or accidentally under-expose, though. My friend that went to a D810 for work found the RAWs better for flash misfires as well as PP for medical photography (where you might be needing to pull up shadows in areas that aren't well lit from surgical lights).

I find a lot of images that the Sony/Nikon sensor does help tremendously especially with landscape and architecture. Over 2 stops of light seen by the sensor that Canon sensors cannot see is a pretty big deal. I'm really not sure if the new A7RII is quite there yet as to where I could shoot a wedding with it and call me strange, but I still like the feel of a full frame Canon in my hands as compared to a Sony body.

davesrose wrote in post #17661440
Common, that's an over-exaggeration The overall tonality of the Sony sensor is better in the lower stops: if we're assuming the first two stops in a 14 bit system, that's 6 shades of tone out of 16384 (absolute theoretical example granted, but when really utilizing total DR, the lower noise of the Sony is less significant). I haven't seen much examples of landscapes that leave me thinking "Wow, the Sony sensor is so much better...I couldn't have done that with my Canon". It does seem much better for those situations where you're in low light or accidentally under-expose, though. My friend that went to a D810 for work found the RAWs better for flash misfires as well as PP for medical photography (where you might be needing to pull up shadows in areas that aren't well lit from surgical lights).

I generally process my photos hard, and there are a few scenarios where you dont want to do HDR. Here are a few examples of the raws being thrashed:

6D

IMAGE LINK: https://flic.kr/p/nyru​3f

IMAGE LINK: https://flic.kr/p/rjSw​Rv

Yeah, that doesn't look like a game changer to me: neither image looks to be pushing the limits of 14 stops of DR (though they have different ISOs granted). Again, it could be that since I started with the 5Dc, the noise with the 5D3 seems much improved. I always try to ETTR when I can, so I don't push my shadows much most of the time. I also find that with the latest PS and Lighroom software, I can also bump up shadows more and eliminate some noise if it starts peaking.

From my friend's D810 RAWs, I am most impressed with shadow recovery with scenes that you can't control lighting (the really small niche of medical photography especially). I know many people do latch on to the DXO scores that claim their sensor DR is relevant to landscapes....since they don't publish their methods just seems you have to take it with a grain of salt. Personally, I think the current Sony systems aren't that much better with overall DR: all cameras are currently at 14bit systems. Where their low noise floors matters is situations where you have to push up shadows. For my "real" HDR environments, this would be pretty pointless as I'd have to bracket anyway (since I'd be clipping well beyond 14 stops).

I know Sony is advertising improvements in IQ from having a backlit sensor with the A7RII. From what I'm seeing, it's main advantage with Canon shooters is phase detection/ improved AF with Canon lenses. If it weren't so expensive, I would be tempted to buy it as a traveling camera Though looking at reviews and such, I'm also not really sold on the interface: from what I'm gathering, I'll probably think the controls too small (like the 5D3 with grip for interface and balance with long lenses). May try Olympus and an adapter to use a few old manual Canon FD lenses (think it's neat that they could get some more life with new mirrorless cameras).

It wouldn't help your photography, that's for sure.

Sorry, not sure what you mean...what wouldn't help my photography?

Canon_Shoe wrote in post #17657022
they're at least 2 stops behind the competition in DR which is just unacceptable and behind in ISO performance as far as noise is concerned. Sorry for the rant, just been waiting for years for Canon to answer the D800 and it seems they're further behind than ever......I guess I will continue to wait

Canon_Shoe wrote in post #17657771
Once you've had a taste of what Nikon/Sony is doing with their sensors, it's frustrating to look at your own Canon RAW files

Compare camera tests by dpreview.com and look at the DR and noise comparisons on JPG...making sure you turn OFF any processing software in each, and you discover that the fundamental performance of the cameras is pretty darn similar.
It is only when you turn on the noise processing or other processing software that the Sony sensors seem to be 'better' (and Nikon does a better job than Sony does, with Sony sensors)! Note the drpreview comment below the graphs of the noise.

a7R II. I am merely agreeing with you.