no sir you have it all wrong your zeal on bringing the so called truth is mind boggling remember sony dat tec? or Betamax and the list is so long of failed items its scary.and digital cameras I got a box point and shoots plus the majic memory sticks don't even say sony is best its not.+1 these forums are less about photography and more about fighting...
I'll tell ya. The best thing I ever did was leave this nutsy forum and just DO photography. .
Just keep talkin. You are making my case for me.
Interesting that your website is still full of 7D wildlife images then, don't you think? Where are all the superlative Sony shots that blow Canon out of the water?
I suppose we'll be waiting a while for them, eh?
Hi Jon!Good to see the old vitriol and hate is alive and well here on CR. *sigh*
I have been doing astrophotography for years now, and it dominates what I do. ... Here is one of my latest works...
Thank you for sharing your experiences and knowledge. I sometimes really missed that.... I work with quite a few different kinds of cameras,
... Sony IMX183 sensor ... some of the most beautiful raw data I've ever worked with
... I now understand that Canon's sensors suffer from relatively high FPN ...
Good to see the old vitriol and hate is alive and well here on CR. *sigh*
I have been doing astrophotography for years now, and it dominates what I do. I work with quite a few different kinds of cameras, and have processed data from dozens of different kinds of cameras, including DSLRs as well as scientific CCDs, astronomy CCD and CMOS cameras, etc. Sensors from Canon, Sony, Panasonic, Kodak, OnSemi, Aptina, and others. I routinely work with signals orders of magnitude fainter than anyone doing terrestrial photography works with (fainter than starlight, and starlight is darn faint!!).
I know how to process just fine. I am intimately familiar with faint signals and how to extract the most from them, and how different cameras compare in terms of noise and signal quality.
Here is one of my latest works, in this case with a Sony IMX183 sensor, 2.4 micron pixels, at about 1.9e- read noise and gain of 1e-/ADU:
This is some of the most beautiful raw data I've ever worked with, and acquired with a relatively modest aperture...and with very tiny pixels. Canon data doesn't come close to this kind of quality. I've processed very faint signals from every major Canon DSLR on the market (I now understand that Canon's sensors suffer from relatively high FPN, which is more of a problem for them than other noise terms, and even with dark calibration, their FPN is often unstable and does not always correct properly). I also use a Panasonic sensor regularly, and it performs very well as well...and in some respects, is actually superior to most of the Sony sensors I use. The only thing that can top the Sony IMX183 and Panasonic M IQ is data from a KAF-16803 (originally Kodak, now an OnSemi CCD sensor with very large pixels and immense dynamic range) when paired with large telescopes...however the camera alone costs at a minimum ten grand, and telescopes that can deliver comparable results with this KAF camera tend to cost eight to twenty grand or more. The KAF-16803 also requires some fairly extensive total exposure time with long individual exposures when operated at similar image scales (here, ~0.82"/px for the image above).
Personally, I have been getting into astrophography as well. My understanding is that the most important gear is a good tracking mount and astroguider, and knowing how to process images and what type of images to take is far more important than camera choice.