jakey, we already know this. Canon people not only here know about worse shadow noise of their cams, but they are somehow locked to Canon systems, the same as I am. But you should realize that
1) It is not only shadow noise what should drive one to buy some cam
2) that not everybody can gain from this
3) there are other aspects, body ergonomics, but also things you cannot solve. Lets say I can borrow few L lenses for free. Do you believe some Sony sensor can overpower this advantage?
4) The rest of the system is usually more expensive outside Nikon and Canon
5) It might be some time, but wait for new Canon releases, as it really is about LAST company waiting for important releases. If it does well, there is not anything wrong, they do good, and you must realize there really isn´t any reason for 99% of population to jump on new sensor with higher DR every two or three years.
That way not only I would be very, VERY happy to have Canon sensors with APS-C 36Mpx and 15 stops of DR. Would jump on it immediately, but it doesn´t happen, and Sony sensors doesn´t save me from great pain with Sony cameras.
So what is it? What do you want to hear from us? I don´t understand....
I've acknowledged all of that.
What I've observed is people making claims that aren't true, most people not being fully aware of the facts, and thinking that Nikon can't do this, or can't do that.
Jon wanted examples and I posted some.
I don't want to hear anything from you. If it's useful information, use it, if it's not, ignore it.
The one thing that is frustrating is the talk of DR.
A clean sensor is far more than just DR. It's clean RGB channels from 0-100%, rather than 0-64% as I've shown on the Mk3.
I'll wager some didn't realise that read noise issue was so prevalent, so fast.
Take the info or leave it. Isn't it better 'out there' than not?
If not, and many think that way I'll happily leave for you.
This sort of hype holds court on both sides of the issue. We have all seen the nonsense (as in the Northrup video) where the shot is zoomed in to 100% and pushed several stops "so we can see the problem better". Yet the resulting image would be a total mess for both cameras (if they bothered to show it). IMO, this fits quite nicely into a paraphrased version of your statement "What I've observed is people making claims that aren't true, most people not being fully aware of the facts. being told that Canon
can't do this, or can't do that, when it clearly can when used properly".
All equipment has limitations. Some people have figured out how to work around them, for others these limitations are unimportant. Canon seems to have a limitation in this area, Nikon has limitations in other areas. This is mealy a feature of the Sony/Nikon architecture. If it is important to you, go buy the equipment. However, for many it apparently does not bring enough value to justify the cost of switching, is is just not that germane to what they do. So the problem is basically boils down to this: http://imgs.xkcd.com/comics/duty_calls.png