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

^That is where it will be interesting to see how the a7R II's BSI sensor might help it perform better at higher ISO than its predecessor. Remains to be seen.

David Arbogast wrote in post #17661584
a7R II. I am merely agreeing with you.

Ah, OK Yeah, grass is always greener with something then what you already have You know, after I got rid of my 5Dc, I later processed some of its RAWs with recent editions of Lightroom. It's color range and noise handling was better then what I remembered too!

David Arbogast wrote in post #17661587
^That is where it will be interesting to see how the a7R II's BSI sensor might help it perform better at higher ISO than its predecessor. Remains to be seen.

Here is what dpreview.com says about the sensor in the A7II vs. the Nikon D750, in a comparison of how well it handles 'pushing' in RAW dynamic range...

"As you'd expect for a modern full frame camera, the a7 II offers a good degree of exposure latitude, with a purple tinge only entering the shadow regions after a 5EV push. To put this in context, though, we need to see how it compares to another camera with the same sensor size.

Stacked up next to the Nikon D750, you can see it's performing similarly well with a 5EV push (the noise is extremely similar). However, push another stop and suddenly the Sony drops behind the Nikon. The difference isn't large, which is no surprise given they're both using Sony sensors, but perhaps because the Sony doesn't record its Raw files in full 14-bit like the Nikon, or because of higher read noise, you can't quite pull as much detail out of the shadows of its images. As our studio scene analysis showed, the a7 II's ISO performance is also lagging, so it's possible the sensor is a bit dated by Sony standards."

Next, dpreview.com tests 'ISO invariance'

"To test cameras for their noise floor and, therefore, their ability to save brightening for post-processing as opposed to in-camera, we've done something that may seem counter-intuitive: we've shot multiple images at the same exposure settings but using different ISO settings. The Raw files have then been brightness matched. The ISO 6400 shots, then, have 6 EV of hardware amplification performed in-camera, while the ISO 100 shots have 6 EV of digital 'amplification' performed in Raw processing software (ACR). A high dynamic range, low noise camera will show little to no difference between these shots, whereas a noisy camera will show a significant difference."

So let us look at Sony A7II vs. A7S vs. Nikon D750 vs. Canon 5DIII in this test...

• Nikon again does a better job than Sony, with Sony's own sensor
  
• The A7II is not a big improvement vs. the A7S
  

Wilt wrote in post #17662013
Here is what dpreview.com says about the sensor in the A7II vs. the Nikon D750, in a comparison of how well it handles 'pushing' in RAW dynamic range...

"As you'd expect for a modern full frame camera, the a7 II offers a good degree of exposure latitude, with a purple tinge only entering the shadow regions after a 5EV push. To put this in context, though, we need to see how it compares to another camera with the same sensor size.

Stacked up next to the Nikon D750, you can see it's performing similarly well with a 5EV push (the noise is extremely similar). However, push another stop and suddenly the Sony drops behind the Nikon. The difference isn't large, which is no surprise given they're both using Sony sensors, but perhaps because the Sony doesn't record its Raw files in full 14-bit like the Nikon, or because of higher read noise, you can't quite pull as much detail out of the shadows of its images. As our studio scene analysis showed, the a7 II's ISO performance is also lagging, so it's possible the sensor is a bit dated by Sony standards."

Next, dpreview.com tests 'ISO invariance'

"To test cameras for their noise floor and, therefore, their ability to save brightening for post-processing as opposed to in-camera, we've done something that may seem counter-intuitive: we've shot multiple images at the same exposure settings but using different ISO settings. The Raw files have then been brightness matched. The ISO 6400 shots, then, have 6 EV of hardware amplification performed in-camera, while the ISO 100 shots have 6 EV of digital 'amplification' performed in Raw processing software (ACR). A high dynamic range, low noise camera will show little to no difference between these shots, whereas a noisy camera will show a significant difference."

So let us look at Sony A7II vs. A7S vs. Nikon D750 vs. Canon 5DIII in this test...

Two things to draw from this...

• Nikon again does a better job than Sony, with Sony's own sensor
  
• The A7II is not a big improvement vs. the A7S
  

Wilt, why are we looking at comparisons to the a7 II? That is the economy model of the a7 series. We need to see how the a7R II does. That is what I am interested in.

David Arbogast wrote in post #17662062
Wilt, why are we looking at comparisons to the a7 II? That is the economy model of the a7 series. We need to see how the a7R II does. That is what I am interested in.

My error, caused by product names too similar to each other, and the fact that the A7RII is too new to have anything but a preview report on dpreview.