QuoteEvery photographer deals with certain sensor limitations, no matter what brand they are using.
Logical fallacy. Again.Quote[Certain sensors are no doubt better for certain applications, but many have found Canon IQ (including sensors) to be excellent for a wide range of applications.
The context of this thread is not that "Canon makes the worst sensors", but rather that Canon is getting beat in sensor technology.
I know plenty of great photographers who make great photos with Canon gear. But this has absolutely no bearing on the fact that the Sony sensors, from ISO 100-800 are more advanced than Canon's.
The title of this thread shows the confusion between DR and IQ. DR is not IQ. Sensor technology and IQ are not measured by DR alone, and especially not at lower ISOs alone.
One can say Canon is getting "beat" in one particular measure of sensor technology if one limits one's perspective to only those settings at which it is getting "beat".
You do realize you just said nothing at all, right?
Just dismissing, as you are doing, isn't saying anything.I'm giving Canon a year and a half to catch up in low ISO dynamic range.
The low ISO dynamic range exhibited in the Sony sensors would be a gigantic boost to how I shoot. Most of what I film is nature (I'm writing this from a tent in Glacier National Park, where it's below freezing). The ability to expose for sky in landscapes, and raise shadows in post with minimal noise would allow me to not fuss with GND filters in the field. Also, the absolute worst lighting conditions are when shooting wildlife. Underexposure is common when a large mammal retreats into woods or runs. Same for birds in flight. The shadow lifting capabilities of the fantastic Sony sensors would help with back-lit birds. A hunting golden eagle or sprinting grizzly bear or rutting bighorns really don't care if you're ready or not.
Those shooting in a controlled lighting environment such as arenas, sports fields, portrait sessions, etc may not desire this technological advancement. But for nature shooters, it is a tremendous leap forward.
I believe this post reveals your key problem with Canon sensors: you underexpose when a large mammal retreats into the woods or runs, or for birds in flight. Adjusting for back-lit subjects and for subjects with very bright or very dark backgrounds have been essential and common tasks for photographers ever since photography was invented. Fortunately, photographers today have a number of ways of adjusting exposure as quickly as these things happen. Whether you use aperture priority, program mode or manual, it just takes a quick twirl of a dial to adjust for these changes. Presumably, a photographer of birds in flight learns not to let the sky influence the exposure to make the birds underexposed. It seems that instead of doing this yourself, you are blaming Canon's sensor for not allowing you to miss the exposure as much as another sensor might.
Athletes outdoors are lit by the same sun as wildlife. They can run suddenly from sun to shadow and sun again. Indoors, subjects can walk/run into and out of shaft of sunlight from a window or skylight. Even artificially lit indoor events do not have uniform lighting from end to end. As a result, a photographer may need to make exposure adjustments throughout an event.
Yes, you often have to do that. The whole AutoISO thing also comes into play here too. There are scenarios where it is impossible, maybe it's running through dabbled sunlight and there is no way to adjust frame to frame, etc. so I could see where the essentially ISO-less nature of the Exmor sensors might be nice. And of course there are the more traditional scenarios maybe part of the animal and scene are hit by a sunbeam and part are not, sometimes keeping it super high key contrast looks best and it doesn't matter at all and sometimes 3 more stops sure could've helped.