That's unlikely to be simple clock speed change as DR increased with the A7RIII.The Sony sensor might involve nothing more than a clock speed change (which can be enabled by manufacturing process improvements with the same circuit design) or even a change downstream.
Which one do you think will be felt the most incremental between :New is new. The 5Ds 50mp and 5D IV 30mp sensors never existed before. Incremental is incremental. The 42mp and 24mp Sony sensors clearly existed before the third generation, and the third generation clearly built upon those previous designs. And it's hypocrisy for Sony fans to say a Canon incremental sensor is 'old and reused' while praising an incremental Sony sensor for being a revolution.
- going from 4,3fps to 5fps in servo, with still no liveview feed in between frames in continuous drive,
- or going from 3fps with AF/AE/liveview feed with 12bit files to 8fps with AF/AE/liveview feed with 14bit files ?
It's just logic. The only reason you drop the bit depth in continuous mode on a camera that can produce 14bit files otherwise is if you want to halve the readout speed. And the only reason you'd do this on a mirrorless camera is to allow it to do what it relies on its sensor to do (AF, AE, liveview feed).You know this is the reason? Citation?
You wouldn't have been had you known how readout speed is a problem for Canon.The original M does not. I was surprised to find out that the M5 does.
Gave you a good reason why it isn't (can't read the sensor for both image information and phase information at the same time). One reason why you aren't getting AF in 120fps @720p. It's just a mixed bag, right now, on stills cameras.It kinda is. But the point was the engineering complexity which suggests Canon is not as far behind as forum posts would suggest.
DPAF may be complex from an engineering point of view. But it doesn't seem to require techniques that Canon will eventually have to adopt if they want to increase the readout speed of their sensors. That Canon's sensors show design complexity in one area doesn't mean that they show complexity in the one area where they're currently lagging.
I disagree with you assessment. The reason I always bring up the issue of blue channel noise under warmer TCs is that not only is this is the sort of lighting where you're very likely to be actually taking pictures, it's also something that will affect how a picture looks regardless of its print size. The way Lightroom deals with this is by turning darker areas magenta. The way C1 and DPP deal with this is by reducing the blue channel's saturation - resulting in a loss of colours.LOL! Your images show the exact opposite. All three 25600 images look worse.
But let's make the point clear with some screenshots of an area that has some real detail. Being a full stop behind means the D850 and A7r III should look just as good at 25600 as the 5Dsr at 12800. Let's see...
Nope and nope. They both look worse set 1ev higher. I bet if dpreview had underexposed the scene 1ev and pushed in post for an effective 25600, the differences would be minor.
I thought you were talking about the 5DSR. Indeed the 5DIV is more competitive in measured terms. But it's got banding at extreme pushes. That said the 5DIV is enough for me.Canon's best DR sensor is the 5D IV sensor, and it's behind by one stop.