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.
So what? Canon will release some new sensors some day and they will be more advanced than Sonys sensors.
And then will Sony release new sensors.
And then Canon...
I think you got the idea.
Only tech-addicted photographers give a krapp about sensors - their clients don't, except they are tech-addicts as well.
1. I recall a lot of the Canon crowd crowing about Canon sensors for the first few years worth of DSLR releases, including pros too at times and I recall a Getty guy saying he was getting so tired of Nikon sensors being behind that he was seriously eyeing Canon (as he literally eyed my Canon body with envy). And in the cinema world, believe me some pretty damn serious pros talk about stuff like DR all the time and they take it very seriously. I don't recall Nikon users bending over backwards trying to say it was just a tech head thing, they owned it and maybe pointed to less crippled body features from what I recall.
2. To say now that Canon is behind on a certain aspect of sensors that that aspect could only ever matter to tech addicts sounds suspiciously like a fanboy making excuses and tossing cheap insults.
Now maybe you never shoot in scenarios where having more MP or more DR at this point would ever make a difference for you and you never plan to expand your shooting horizons and that is fine enough, but it doesn't mean that is the case for everyone and that it's 100% useless nonsense that matters to absolutely nobody but some tech addicts or those who takes pics of charts and black frame in a lab all day (and I'm curious who exactly these latter people are, because I've never met one myself).
You know you could just as easily have some 100% pure T&S tripod-based landscape shooter start mocking those who bought a 5D3 or 1 series for AF for being silly tech addicts because only tech addict could even need AF like that or AF at all right? I don't think that would make much sense.
You also realize that by far and away most of the people that started asking for more DR only because of limitations they found in the field not in some lab right? Sure you can shoot an infinite number of shots where it doesn't matter, and that is what we do for now, but you can also easily enough find tons of shots where 3 more stops down there would make a difference. It's not the end of the world and of course the overall body can do this and that, as an overall body I'd way take a 5D3 system alone than an A7R alone, in this particular case, for instance, but having access to more DR (and more MP) would be a nice extra to have for quite a few. Nothing wrong with trying to make a big push to wake Canon up so we don't have to wait another decade to get such expanded possibilities open to us too (or to start talk about the A7R which may very soon open them up to Canon lens owners in some cases).
You keep putting words in my mouth, arguing with points I didn't make. I don't have time to correct all of this. So just a few examples of how you twist things to make your point:"2. To say now that Canon is behind on a certain aspect of sensors that that aspect could only ever matter to tech addicts sounds suspiciously like a fanboy making excuses and tossing cheap insults."
—— I didn't say that
. I said DR is adequate for many photographers, including some of the best. If someone finds DR so lacking they should of course switch brands. With a healthy market for used equipment, that's easier to do than ever."... but it doesn't mean that is the case for everyone and that it's 100% useless nonsense that matters to absolutely nobody but some tech addicts or those who takes pics of charts and black frame in a lab all day ..."
—— I didn't say that
." Again, if someone finds DR so lacking they should of course switch brands. Many don't switch because DR is fine and they have other priorities. Many prefer Canon because the image quality is amazing for what they do. Of course some switch and that is a valid thing to do."You also realize that by far and away most of the people that started asking for more DR only because of limitations they found in the field not in some lab right?"
Perhaps, but some of those in the field can't seem to avoid getting underexposed birds against a bright sky — such a basic photographer error. The same for a mammal running into the woods. Having that happen "in the field" doesn't prove or validate a sensor deficiency. This are common photographic situations since the invention of photography, and photographers have addressed them with exposure adjustments rather than blaming them on a sensor "problem"."Nothing wrong with trying to make a big push to wake Canon up so we don't have to wait another decade to get such expanded possibilities ..."
I don't see a big push to "wake" Canon up. Instead I see people complaining about something that they could easily address by changing brands. They claim DR is so important that they would choose a Sony sensor over a Canon sensor "any day", and yet they keep using Canon. So that "any day" apparently hasn't come yet. I'm sure Canon is quite "awake", but they have to deal with diverse priorities and their own timetable for development.
As I wrote above, photographers can always use more of everything
, including DR. But DR isn't the be all and end all of image quality. (Clearly, if you are still using Canon, then you agree on some level.) Photographers can use more of absolutely everything — higher shutter speeds, longer battery life, wider apertures, lighter cameras, stronger cameras, more waterproof cameras, more flash power, more sensitive sensors, quieter shutters, bigger viewfinders, faster autofocus, more responsive cameras ... anything you can think of. That doesn't mean that all existing cameras have a "problem" or "deficiency".