Do Sensors Make the Camera?

[sdsr]

3. The smears on the Hassleblad Lunar is that it is a dressed-up Sony. So why isn't a Nikon D810 smeared for being a dressed-up Sony?

Probably because the Hasselblad Lunar doesn't merely use a Sony sensor - it's essentially a now-discontinued Sony Nex 7 (the whole camera, not just the sensor) with hideous Hasselblad artefacts (grip, etc.) stuck on parts of the exterior and a fancy case, for which they charge c. eight times as much as the Sony original. (I imagine it sells, to the extent it does, merely because it's expensive; if it were as cheap as it looks....)

As for the rest, Jrista and others have said all that needs to be said, probably. Depending on what you shoot you may well find that the differences among various sensors are pretty trivial. I happily use Canon FF & APS-C, Sony FF & APS-C and Olympus M43 (a model with yet another Sony sensor, though that isn't why I bought it). My preference for Sony among these is partly for those instances where the sensor makes a difference, but mainly because I prefer mirrorless to dslr.

 

[dtaylor]

If the 5D III is not cleaning up as well as your 7D, there is something very wrong with your 5D III, or there's a setting off in your software. I use Lightroom for processing, and with the most recent version, the difference between Canon FF and 7D detail recovery is massive.

I wouldn't necessarily say massive, but concur that a 5D3 recovers better then a 7D.

Yeah, I think it's clear Canon is going to sit tight with their conservative designs. More and more they are becoming like Toyota, competent and comfortable, but living off their peak of 2001-2005.

Can Canon change their ADC arrangement to eliminate deep shadow noise without running afoul of Sony's patent? Can they do so with their current fab situation (whatever that might be)? Are the yields economical at this time given that this is a feature much debated on forums, but only actually used by a small minority?

 

[bgran8]

Do sensors make the camera?

-It's the most important part for me as a landscape photographer.

 

[dgatwood]

Can Canon change their ADC arrangement to eliminate deep shadow noise without running afoul of Sony's patent? Can they do so with their current fab situation (whatever that might be)? Are the yields economical at this time given that this is a feature much debated on forums, but only actually used by a small minority?

Which Sony patent, specifically?

 

[David Hull]

Re: Do Sensors sell the Camera?

Let me rephrase the question a bit for you...

And answer that by saying that since the 5DII, I haven't seen a Canon camera with a sensor that was significantly better enough for me to want to buy it or recommend it to anyone.

if you recommend a camera system based upon a sensor, then i wouldn't want a hear a recommendation from you anyways.

i would look at whether or not the system fits the person, support, service, used market in the area, what they want to shoot; and recommend based upon that.

a sensor? wont' be as relevant as the above would be in 2-4 years time.

In 2-4 years time, I expect people with Sony/Nikon cameras to be taking and editing photographs that Canon people simply can't - at least not with the same level of detail and color. I fully expect Sony/Nikon cameras to have 15, if not 16, bit ADCs in 4 years time. As for the system? They'll fill that in. The vast majority of users don't need more than a handful of lenses - thus "a system" that has macro, T/S, etc, is meaningless to the average photographer that will buy a camera plus lens kit and use that for the next n years without buying anything else. How many people is that? There's a thread on here somewhere... the number of people that buy extra lenses is less than 10%. i.e the "system" is meaningless to 90%+ of the people that buy Canon cameras.

All of this Sensor Hype is probably meaningless to that crowd as well just the same as it is to 90% of those buying Sony and Nikon equipment. If this were all that important, Nikon cameras would be selling a lot better than Canon and that is not what we really see.

 

[MichaelHodges]

Re: Do Sensors sell the Camera?

All of this Sensor Hype is probably meaningless to that crowd as well just the same as it is to 90% of those buying Sony and Nikon equipment. If this were all that important, Nikon cameras would be selling a lot better than Canon and that is not what we really see.

The problem with that comparison is you use the sensor every single time you take a photo, and not "the system".

 

[Loswr]

Re: Do Sensors sell the Camera?

All of this Sensor Hype is probably meaningless to that crowd as well just the same as it is to 90% of those buying Sony and Nikon equipment. If this were all that important, Nikon cameras would be selling a lot better than Canon and that is not what we really see.

The problem with that comparison is you use the sensor every single time you take a photo, and not "the system".

Which is exactly the point. You use the sensor every time you take a shot, so if Canon sensors were so inferior, Canon would not have remained the market leader.

How do those touting Exmor advantages demonstrate them? They underexpose by 4-5 stops then push the shadows back up. While there are valid reasons to do that, it's an 'advantage' that's totally useless to the vast majority of dSLR buyers.

 

[Don Haines]

I believe that the lens has far more impact on your photo than the sensor......

 

[unfocused]

For me, the sensor is probably the least important part of the camera.

It's been that way ever since I bought a 7D and it continues to be the case with my 5DIII. I have never, ever felt limited by the sensor.

Lenses? Yes. I have owned lenses that I felt were limiting what I could do. When I felt that way, I got new or different lenses. Don't feel that way any more.

Before I had radio control strobes I felt a little limited (largely by my lack of technical skill though). Now I have 600RTs and any limitations I feel now reflect my own need to work on my skills, not on any limits of the speed-lights.

If I had to choose five or 10 things to upgrade on a camera body, the sensor wouldn't make the cut.

Why? Because all sensors from all brands and all formats are so good today that the differences are just plain insignificant. If there were truly a camera out there with a "crappy" sensor, it would be a different story. But even new cell phones have pretty damn good sensors in them.

I guess I don't have much sympathy for people who write encyclopedia-long posts obsessing over how disappointed they are because they pointed their cameras directly into the sun and didn't get perfectly exposed shadows in the foreground. That's pretty much the epitome of first-world problems as far as I'm concerned and I'm kind of embarrassed for them.

 

[MichaelHodges]

Re: Do Sensors sell the Camera?

Which is exactly the point. You use the sensor every time you take a shot, so if Canon sensors were so inferior, Canon would not have remained the market leader.

Right now, Canon sensors are absolutely inferior at low ISO. This is fact.

I'm not really interested in who sells the most hamburgers. If I was, I'd be shooting grizzlies with iPads and you probably wouldn't hear from me soon.

How do those touting Exmor advantages demonstrate them? They underexpose by 4-5 stops then push the shadows back up. While there are valid reasons to do that, it's an 'advantage' that's totally useless to the vast majority of dSLR buyers.

Fortunately, technological improvements aren't based on this.

The low ISO DR of the Exmor's is extremely beneficial for landscape and wildlife shooters. I know a few shooters who even tossed their GND's. Simply expose for the sky and lift your shadows later on with minimal penalty.

This is a good thing.

 

[Loswr]

Re: Do Sensors sell the Camera?

I'm not really interested in who sells the most...

The topic of the thread is, "Do Sensors sell the Camera?" The answer is, in general, no.

 

[MichaelHodges]

True. Most people buy iPads and iPhones to shoot with. So I guess that makes them superior cameras to Canon DSLR's?

 

[Loswr]

True. Most people buy iPads and iPhones to shoot with. So I guess that makes them superior cameras to Canon DSLR's?

If it does, then Canon's dSLRs are superior among all other dSLRs.

 

[MichaelHodges]

True. Most people buy iPads and iPhones to shoot with. So I guess that makes them superior cameras to Canon DSLR's?

If it does, then Canon's dSLRs are superior among all other dSLRs.

I'm relieved you used the word "if" there. 8)

 

[Orangutan]

Re: Do Sensors sell the Camera?

Right now, Canon sensors are absolutely inferior at low ISO. This is fact.

I'm not really interested in who sells the most hamburgers. If I was, I'd be shooting grizzlies with iPads and you probably wouldn't hear from me soon.

How do those touting Exmor advantages demonstrate them? They underexpose by 4-5 stops then push the shadows back up. While there are valid reasons to do that, it's an 'advantage' that's totally useless to the vast majority of dSLR buyers.

Fortunately, technological improvements aren't based on this.

The low ISO DR of the Exmor's is extremely beneficial for landscape and wildlife shooters. I know a few shooters who even tossed their GND's. Simply expose for the sky and lift your shadows later on with minimal penalty.

Michael, I think you may be missing the point of those (including me) who keep saying "but Canon sells more." I think everyone agrees that better IQ at any/all ISOs is a "good thing." That's not the point. The point is that you, Aglet and other pro-Exmor folks keep reminding us of your personal needs. That's great, and I wish you all the best in finding the gear that helps you do the job. The difficulty is that Canon will not change their technology based on your personal needs, nor based on the needs of a minority. They are not artists seeking the best quality product, they are a for-profit corporation. Canon is interested in profit, and takes a certain strategy to achieve it. The strategy, which has been quite successful relative to their competitors, is to make very reliable products and systems that appeal to a large market segment, and support that with strong marketing campaigns.

If Canon products do not satisfy your needs you should buy another brand, you can't expect Canon to deviate from a successful business practice to suit a minority need. This is not a question of art, it's a question of money. Because I accept this fact I'm not offended that Canon's sensors are inferior at low ISO (they are). I wish they were better, but my wishing makes no difference.

 

[josephandrews222]

Just chiming in...have not read the entire thread.

There is no question that the sensor can make-or-break the camera. Put a 5DIII-quality sensor (quality, not size) in an EOS M3...AND tweak the focus abilities of the beast...and I am all in. Anyone who says the sensor doesn't make the camera...well I guess it is semantics. To me the sensor is an integral part of the camera. So yes, it makes the camera.

 

[MichaelHodges]

Re: Do Sensors sell the Camera?

Michael, I think you may be missing the point of those (including me) who keep saying "but Canon sells more." I think everyone agrees that better IQ at any/all ISOs is a "good thing." That's not the point. The point is that you, Aglet and other pro-Exmor folks keep reminding us of your personal needs.

Isn't everyone "pro-better sensor"?

At least I hope so within the context of a forum dedicated to tech and gear rumors.

That's great, and I wish you all the best in finding the gear that helps you do the job. The difficulty is that Canon will not change their technology based on your personal needs, nor based on the needs of a minority. They are not artists seeking the best quality product, they are a for-profit corporation. Canon is interested in profit, and takes a certain strategy to achieve it. The strategy, which has been quite successful relative to their competitors, is to make very reliable products and systems that appeal to a large market segment, and support that with strong marketing campaigns.

No argument here.

If Canon products do not satisfy your needs you should buy another brand, you can't expect Canon to deviate from a successful business practice to suit a minority need. This is not a question of art, it's a question of money. Because I accept this fact I'm not offended that Canon's sensors are inferior at low ISO (they are). I wish they were better, but my wishing makes no difference.

Yeah I'm not jumping ship. I prefer the Canon system. That said, as a first time user, the DR of the Sony sensors would make me think twice about Canon's commitment to sensor technology in the long run.

 

[Orangutan]

Re: Do Sensors sell the Camera?

Yeah I'm not jumping ship. I prefer the Canon system. That said, as a first time user, the DR of the Sony sensors would make me think twice about Canon's commitment to sensor technology in the long run.

I think it's more a commitment to getting the most money out of an investment in facilities. As I've written before, I'm certain that Canon can and will deliver better sensors when the market requires it. They may walk backwards into that better sensor tech if their P&S line is forced to reduce output, and they re-purpose those facilities for DSLRs. (mentioned by someone else earlier, I forget who)

 

[MichaelHodges]

Re: Do Sensors sell the Camera?

I think it's more a commitment to getting the most money out of an investment in facilities.

Wow, not the best marketing pitch:

Canon: When you choose one of our DSLR's, you know we've made a commitment to getting the most money out of an investment in facilities.

 

[dtaylor]

Re: Do Sensors sell the Camera?

How do those touting Exmor advantages demonstrate them? They underexpose by 4-5 stops then push the shadows back up. While there are valid reasons to do that, it's an 'advantage' that's totally useless to the vast majority of dSLR buyers.

It's essentially an emergency recovery tool for badly underexposed photos. High quality landscape work...where extended DR is often needed...is simply not produced this way. You bracket and blend/HDR, or use GND filters.

This goes back to the reason for the common advice to ETTR: there are few tonal values in the deep shadows. Sometimes I am surprised and find that I can process a single file where I shot expecting to HDR. But if I have to push shadows more then 2...maybe 2.5 stops...I find that the problem is not Canon sensor noise, but the simple fact that the tonality and detail is sub par vs. a properly produced shot.