- It continues to shock me that Canon is top of the line for lenses, AF, and ergonomics (in my opinion), yet it continues to have poor sensors compared to the competition. I don't put too much faith in those DXO scores, but the dynamic range data out there, particularly in low ISO, gives compelling reason that Sony/Nikon sensors are a solid step ahead of Canon's. Heck, in some of these tests we're seeing lower price point sensors beat the Canon counterparts (D600 trumping the 5D3, for instance).
How many of those complaining about Canon's "poor" sensors have done a real world comparison as opposed to reading lab reports? I own a 5DII and a Rebel and recently rented a 5DIII and, together, a 6D and Nikon D600 and spent a few days switching between the D600 and 6D. Not once did I think the image created by the D600 looked better than its 6D counterpart, (I tend to prefer the colours conjured up by Canon, and I'm inclined to attribute the greater sharpness of the Canon photos to the superiority of the Canon lenses, but who knows?), and I found the D600 a pain to use. The Nikon sensor may have superior dynamic range, but I was able to restore detail to blown-out highlights in LR4 at least as well in the 6D as I was in the D600. The D600 may allow for better detail retrieval at the opposite end of the spectrum, but that's not something I tend to do and in the couple of photos I tried the differences struck me as trivial. Others may feel different, depending on how/what they shoot. But I certainly didn't come away from the experience with sensor envy, let alone Nikon lens envy (as for Nikon's ergonomics...); rather, I just bought a 6D.
(I have no comment on the relative virtues of current crop sensors; I used to own a Pentax K-5, which probably had the best sensor of any crop DSLR, slightly better in low light than that in my Rebel - the trouble is, you have to put up with inferior focusing, generally inferior lenses etc., etc.)