« on: February 08, 2015, 07:55:03 AM »
I appreciate they've not made a massive leap like Sony did, but if they have improved the sensor quality by matching the DR of the current 5D III then if the same tech was used on the lower-res 5D III would it not increase the DR of that sensor? Not massive jump agreed.
The comparisons with a MF sensor from an outcome perspective are fair, especially as Canon are marketing it as a competitor. But for most people it is quality at a price point. And a $3.6K vs $8.6K excluding lens is surely like comparing the Audi to a Porsche? If money is no object, a Pentax is better. But then so is a Phase One.
Ultimately Canon did their research and produced the best possible with their resources. None of us know why the off-chip ADC is still there, nor the 180nm or 500nm process.
In reflection, what were the chances that Canon were going to produce a step-change in the 5Ds having just launched the 7D II?
I would be surprised if a A7r II has a step-change increase in DR over the A7r. If it matches it, given the higher resolution, will people be disappointed?
I'm looking at the A7rII as a possible replacement for my Nikon, to use as a smaller back up camera. As long as it has at least as much DR as the present A7R has I will pull the trigger on it.
I think that Canon are making a rod for their own back by promoting it as competing with medium format. It isn't all about resolution.