Stupid comparison. The Sony is more than 2 years newer than the 5Ds. Sony fanboys are funny though, thanks for making me laugh today!I believe that there is some degree of relationship between ADC clock speed and DR. Slow clock speed is preferred. The A7RIII's sensor reduced by half the readout speed while improving DR.
Possibly but I don't think so. That said with Sony' A7 series the sensor isn't always the bottleneck (the A7III's sensor, for example, can pump out more than 10fps 14bit shots given its scan time in silent shutter mode).
Canon's cameras, on the other hand... that's the sensor. The M50 has a silent shutter mode and it's quite slow. We'll know soon enough about the R.
Well that's not how I would describe it. They're just leading in some areas, behind in others.
DPAF could be seen as "leading". Even if it's mixed blessing right now for stills cameras, it's the future anyway.
If Canon's colour rendering is partly done to Canon's CFA design, then there could be that as well (At best it's only partly since there are so many factors affecting colour rendition that the sensor is only a tiny part of it).
All Canon cameras seem to behave well with long exposures. Cameras using Sony manufactured sensors seem to be either hit or miss - although it doesn't seem to be related much to the sensor's specs (The Pentax K1 seems great while the A7R is rubbish).
But they're lagging in more than one area otherwise :
IMO the most pressing thing right now for Canon is readout speed, as it affects mirrorless cameras' basic operational qualities. They're doing amazing things to hide these problems (for example, Jared Polin falling for Canon's trick of freezing the EVF image when there's a blackout or showing a slideshow of the previous shot taken, to mask the existence of the actual blackout, something they perfected with the M50), but at some point it will clearly start to look bad for them.
- banding patterns and uniformity at low ISOs
- readout speed
- dual gain architecture (noise performance, particularly for small pixels cameras)
The existence of a patent or a prototype doesn't mean that Canon can produce a particular sensor for a specific price. BSI and stacked sensors, which are a requirement for fast readout speeds long term, seem to require to introduce in the sensor production process steps that used to be quite foreign to sensor manufacturing until now. It would probably require a significant investment from Canon to enable these production processes industrially, ie at cost. Not just as a research process. What's remarkable from Sony is that they've actually been able to produce these sensors at cost and put them in actual products.
I have little doubts that Canon could do it. But for them the investment would possibly be way more disproportionate with expected revenues that it's a lot less attractive to plunge for it now.
The silver lining for Canon users is Canon's decision to sell their sensors to third parties. This could help justify the investments a little bit more.
Let me be even clearer for you. Below, DPreview's test scene in tungsten mode, 5DSR vs A7RIII. First, without chroma noise correction :
View attachment 180432
Then, with the minimum amount of noise correction possible for each file so that most color blotches are eliminated :
View attachment 180433
See what's happening to the blue pants on the 5DSR file ? Well that's because the blue channel's noise is so elevated that C1's colour noise reduction algorithm has to undersaturated it so that it doesn't modify the grey point. DPP behaves similarly. LR's approach is to let the grey point shift (in general towards magenta).
That blue channel noise issue is far more important than nearly everything else for most people's low light photography. It wreaks havoc at all print sizes, even small ones, and it's most likely to occur under the sort of lights people tend to shoot at higher ISOs.
There's a whole stop of noise performance difference between the two in that regard.