http://www.sonyalpharumors.com/bad-news-sony-forecasts-significant-decrease-of-digital-camera-sales-due-the-earthquake-damage-ar-komamoto/
>In addition, Sony decided to terminate the development and manufacturing of high-functionality camera modules for external sale, the mass production of which was being prepared at the Kumamoto Technology Center, as a result of a reconsideration of the strategy of this business from a long-term perspective. Approximately 30 billion yen in expense is expected to be incurred due to this termination.
uh-oh fujikons, time to jump ship
Nikon are completely capalable of manufacturing their own sensors, and by that I mean renesas is which is part of the Mitsubishi group as well as Nikon (and Hitachi who make Nikon processors) at the very most it would be a slight inconvenience.
On another note, Fuji have a partnership with Panasonic and are working on organic sensors, I doubt they were ever thinking about using a competitors product long term. I highly doubt that Fuji would have trouble sourcing sensors regardless of their close partnership with Panasonic who manufactures a fuck load of sensors already.
Stupid thread
Still worthwhile having a thread for, very interesting as it'll induce more diversity into the camera market, as opposed to a small set of sony sensors being used in 2/3 of cameras sold.
>>2846621
I am more curious to know how this would affect Olympus? I know about Nikon sensor production and renesas but I dont know anything about Olympus.. Doesnt Sony own part of the company?
Olympus was using Panasonic sensors until they had all that trouble and then I thought Sony purchased part of the company and Olympus started using Sony sensors...
>>2846613
it's over.
fuji is finished and bankrupt.
>>2846630
>fuji is finished and bankrupt.
fuji's consumer imaging business is the tip of the iceberg for that company
it only exists because the top execs see it as a point of pride that fujiFILM maintain some kind of consumer photographic segment
most of their money comes from medical research and industrial applications
X-series is subsidized by the instax line
sony's being teetering on the edge of bankruptcy for far longer and with greater frequency than fujifilm has ever been
Organic sensor from Fuji is only a few years away X trans 3 will be a thing for another 4 years or so maybe it will be the next one or the one after so no big deal.
This is why even though they are a bit behind I'm happy Canon stuck with making its own sensors. I doubt what Nikon make will be as good as current Sony sensors so it looks like Nikon may lose its IQ lead.
>>2846617
>Nikon are completely capalable of manufacturing their own sensors [...] at the very most it would be a slight inconvenience.
While Canon had FF since 2002, Nikon managed to catch up only in 2007. That's 5 years of gap. In the digital photography world 5 years is huge, just to put it into perspective, 5 years ago Fuji was not a thing on the mirrorless market, mirrorless cameras were still glorified compacts for most users, the Sony NEX-7 was just coming to the market, etc.
I think Nikon might have had a hand in designing some of the Sony sensors, but they have no factories, nothing, and I think they lack expertise in the sector compared to Sony or Canon. That's not a small gap to fill, compared to Canon which is JUST (fucking finally) going into the right gear (did anyone notice that they built a new APSC sensor after about 6 years of rehashes? Yeah, they did.), this might mean a big shift in the coming years. Like, BIG.
>>2846689
The sensors for Nikon were shipped from Toshiba, up until the D7100. The D7200 had Sony manufactured sensors. Same architecture though.
Toshiba only just closed up its fabs so Sony got a qasi-monopoly on the majority of the camera market and are now exploiting it.
Canon is basically the only competitor now with many manufacturers depending on Sony for the sensors and are feeling a bit cucked right now I imagine.
>>2846698
Considering the D7100 and D7200 make exactly the same pictures, what exactly is the significance? They can go back to Toshiba if they must.
>>2846738
Same architecture, same fab technology, different plants. Basically the same sensor but one from another supplier.
Toshiba actually sold the plants to Sony, which is why we are in this situation.
Suddenly we can only trust in Canon.
I say any and all atrocities against Sonyfags and Sony posters are justified, let me get my pitchfork and torch.
Or they can just use Samsung, who have the newest fabs with the smallest process and would probably love to steal Sony's clients.
>Sensor fab business going well
>Camera business not going well despite sensor exclusivity
CLOSE THE DOORS! WHO CARES IF IT COSTS US MONEY IN THE PROCESS! SURELY THIS WILL SECURE OUR VICTORY.
>>2846744
This could actually work, unless Sony holds some key patents.
>>2846745
This guy called it a few days ago.
>>2844043
>>2846748
I wonder if they hold patents on BSI. That seems to be the critical jump right now in quality.
Also extremely interested in Panny/Fuji's organic sensor.
>>2846613
Sony sensors are overrated.
Nikon should partner with RED, that DRAGON sensor literally shits on everything from Sony.
All the while sigma sits on foveon and does nothing.
(and nobody cares)
>>2846763
Why would they want Foven? The fujixpana organic sensor is almost ready for prime time.
Actually its still a few years off..... But I remember panasnic posted a huge article about it recently, with images showing the benefits and that they have essentially slved the issues and could possibly see it in a camera by 2018. I suppose they will keep testing and tweaking until then.
>>2846763
I think what Sigma should do with Foveon is make it be able to go down to super-low ISOs like a native sensitivity of 25, and market a camera using the sensor to landscape and portrait photographers
>>2846613
>inb4 they mean smartphone sensors and the world continues as normal
>>2846689
To be fair, though, Canon's early FF sensors were really limited and exotic things. The 1DS was a specialty camera, almost more like current MF digital cameras in application than like the FF DSLRs we have now. Nikon definitely lagged behind in introducing FX, but when they did it was in a package that was more than capable of handing anything a photojournalist could throw at it, and it was the D3 and not the 1DS that really kicked off the FF revolution that lead to where we are now.
Man, talking about this makes me really miss the days when the D3 was new. It was such an exciting time to be a photographer and especially a Nikon sports shooter. We'd been lagging behind Canon for so long, and then suddenly the D3 came out of nowhere and overnight the sea of white lenses on the sidelines turned into black ones and I could strut around knowing that the big black thing on my shoulder was (cue Jeremy Clarkson voice) the best camera... IN THE WORLD!
There hasn't really been anything like that since then. It's just back to the neck-and-neck horse race and incremental upgrades, a few megapixels here, an extra stop of ISO there, maybe one more frame per second, etc. I guess Sony guys might have gotten a taste with the A7, but that's still a pretty niche camera with quite a few drawbacks, not like the D3 where it was better in every single way than any other comparable camera out there.
>>2846811
I'm a Nikon fag and you're totally crazy. The 5D kicked off the full frame craze, not the D3.
>>2846698
Wrong. The D7000 used a Sony sensor.
>>2846813
The 5D was a terrifically compromised camera, though. Unless you NEEDED full frame, it was horrible, ridiculously slow with no buffer, shitty AF, nothing special at high ISO, no battery life. It was a special-purpose tool that was worse than competing crop cameras for most applications.
The D3 was different. It was better than crop cameras in every single way. It quadrupled practical ISOs overnight, it had a giant buffer that sucked down JPEGs like nothing anybody'd ever seen (especially after the upgrade program and the D3S), when paired with top-flight glass it felt like the camera was reading your mind and focusing before you slapped that awesomely springy AF-ON button. It was the camera that made FF mainstream.
>>2846823
It was designed to be a studio camera. Great image quality without all the needless frills for sports and such. And with that goal in mind, it was excellent.
>>2846910
Yeah, that was exactly my point.
I'm not bashing on the 5D, just saying that it was a niche camera that only made sense for maybe 5% of working pros. I say the FF tipping point happened with the D3 because it made every comparable DSLR out there obsolete overnight, which the 5D never did.
If cameras were cars, you could say that the 5D was Benz's original motor carriage, something that proved the technology but didn't change the world on the spot, while the D3 was the Model T, and put the technology in a complete and practical package that changed the way the masses lived.
When you say organic sensor what exactly do you guys mean?
>>2846961
Photodiodes with an organic layer (carbon based)
Drains less power, has better quantum efficiency, much less prone to noise
Much like LED vs OLED
>>2846823
>The 5D was a terrifically compromised camera, though.
It's still good today. It wasn't much of a compromise, except for the mediocre AF - which was something even the 5d2 still had and it doesn't make it really anywhere near "compromised" as much as people would like to believe.
The original 5d1 is still an amazing camera held back only by its lack of live view and by the usable ISO 1600 cap.
In any case, the D3 is a pro fullsize body camera and didn't change anything. The 5d was the first (I think?) time that FF sensors trickled down to the masses.
>>2846811
>We'd been lagging behind Canon for so long
And now you're lagging behind the 5DS R after you boasted on and on about Sony's 36MP sensor.
Why are you comparing the original 1Ds to the D3 when the 1Ds Mk III was its competitor?
>talking about this makes me really miss the days when the D3 was new
So Nikon hasn't came out with anything revolutionary since?
>>2846987
>And now you're lagging behind the 5DS R after you boasted on and on about Sony's 36MP sensor.
Agreed. And I never boasted about the 36MP sensor, never had any interest in the D800.
>Why are you comparing the original 1Ds to the D3 when the 1Ds Mk III was its competitor?
When I said "1DS," I meant the 1DS line in general, not any specific mark.
>So Nikon hasn't came out with anything revolutionary since?
Nope. They've really stagnated. That's part of why I left Nikon.
>>2847030
I wouldn't call the D500 stagnation, famillama
>>2846764
>organic sensor is almost ready for prime time
earliest production cam is 2020 mate
>>2846623
Sony sold their shares in Olympus a long time ago.
Today Sony offers 18 different sensors for 3rd party camera makers, 30 different sensors for industrial use, and 15 different sensors for smartphones.
And out of those 63 types of sensors, only 2 of them are 4/3 format.
That's why they sold their shares in Olympus, the format doesn't have a future in the various foundries around.
>>2846752
That conversation was in a completely different context.
That guy thought Nikon was vital to Sony's business, which simply isn't true.
Sony's fabs have their foundation in the market for smartphones and various security devices for industry usage. And in the future they will be a player in the automated car market.
Yes those additional sensor sale bring in decent money, but no, Nikon is just a small bean sprout next to those other giants.
camera modules ≠sensors
/p/ = retards
>tfw you made the Objectively Correct Choice by choosing the only True Photography Company not cucked and dependent on sony sensors
>tfw sonyfags entire market can and very likely will be sold off in part or entirely on the whim of the CEO who doesn't give a single flying fuck about photography and only cares about sony's overall profits
>>2847089
Fuji is just now introducing their XTrans3. The XTrans 2 lasted about 4 years. 4 years from 2016 is....?
>>2846925
>>2846823
>nikucks are busy fantasizing about the past because their company is fucking dead
>no sensors because cucked hard by sony
that's what you get for trusting the most jewish jap company
http://www.dslrbodies.com/newsviews/grim-nikon-financials.html
>going to be bankrupt soon
my sides
Looks like nikonfags are still mad that canon beat them to FF, even over a decade later.
>>2847258
>he can't defend his shit choices and shit brands
>g-g-go away
>bought camera with Sony sensor
>having fun with it
>learn to photograph with it, cherish it every day
>suddenly Sony decides to close off third party sensor supply
>my camera doesn't work anymore
>mfw
Oh wait, my camera still works. Jokes on you, faggots.
I think this thread should only worry pros who have lots of glass for a camera and need to upgrade to match competitors without wasting time changing systems.
That is not most of /p/ who just take snapshits
Listen to >>2847466
>>2847489
That doesn't mean they will stop sensor sales to 3rd party, please apply your brain and ignore sensationalist clickbaits like OP article.
>>2847491
Did something rustle your anus?
>>2847493
My girl freinds tongue and a fart. She's really into it and it makes my dick diamonds. I have on video from a sony sensor in nikon camera with sigma lens. Do you, do you want to see it?
>>2847549
Be careful not to cut your virginity with all those hard edges, familiam.
>>2847251
[EXIF data available. Click here to show/hide.]
Camera-Specific Properties: Camera Software Adobe Photoshop CC 2015 (Windows) Image-Specific Properties: Image Orientation Top, Left-Hand Horizontal Resolution 72 dpi Vertical Resolution 72 dpi Image Created 2016:03:01 09:18:02 Color Space Information Uncalibrated Image Width 1200 Image Height 630
For a long time people have been giving Canon shit for lagging behind in DR and slightly in ISO and for a long time I've been saying even though they are behind I'm happy they are making their own sensors as it's much more stable long term.
Well look who was right bitches.
>>2849163
>Well look who was right bitches.
Sony, Sony were right.
They made the best sensors available, and kept the best ones for themselves.
Sony have dominated ever since CMOS came in, it would be crazy to think anyone will overtake them any time soon, it's the only brand anyone should be buying into for this reason alone.
>>2849167
>it's the only brand anyone should be buying into for this reason alone
Yeah, let's all buy into a brand!
In fact, let me sell all my gear to buy a new Sony A6300 and A7RII. I know there's a few A series announcements coming up but I'll be a good goy just for you!
You didn't have to buy Sony just to use a Sony sensor. Why would you purposefully handicap yourself with a gimped camera when you're already gearfagging that hard?
>>2849167
>imblyign Fujisonic sensors wont surpass sonyshit
>>2849171
How is the A7ii series of cameras gimped in any way?
Why are you implying it's jewish to not want to spend EXTRA money on Nikon because they have to buy their kit off Sony.
Why is it not a logical decision to invest in the only company that's dominated the technical side of digital photography and look to do so for the forseeable future.
>>2849176
>implying they will
>implying Sony aren't still improving their technology
>implying fuji isn't gimped toy trash
>>2849181
>imblyign fuji is gimped toy trash
>shoots a sony
tippity topkek
>Significant decreases in sales of digital cameras and broadcast- and professional-use products
Despite abject shilling sales have fallen short of projected targets because, although they know how to make sensors, they haven't got a fucking clue when it comes to high-end cameras and they were hoping brand recognition would be enough
>>2849181
>How is the A7ii series of cameras gimped in any way?
Lens selection, ergonomics, service and support, compressed raw, price, size, battery life. Just to name a few off the top of my head.
>>2849167
The idea of moving away from Canon with all my lenses, battery life, tracking AF, repair service and build quality for Sony is a very big joke.
Nikon are cucked by Sony so I don't see them as an option and Sony are Sony so no way am I investing when they always seem on the verge of bankruptcy also they dropped the nex and A mount. They also release a new body every year so they hold value like shit. My Mark iii is worth almost double the D800 that came out almost the same time.
In summery:
Canon make their own sensors they might be behind but its stable and DR and high ISO are not the biggest deals. The new gen of Canon (80D new 1D) have much better DR, not matching Sony but it's now only about a stop worst. Again I know in 15 years EOS mount will still be a thing and I can just upgrade my body every 5 years.
I have lenses in my system they neither Nikon or Sony have, sensors come and go but lenses are for 20+ years. 85 1.2, 50 1.2, 11-24, 8MM fish, the best 70-200 (Nikons has focus breathing, Sony's is nice but it goes on a Sony body, Tamron and Sigma same problem as Nikons)
Canon is financially far more stable than Nikon or Sony, both of them have had bad years profit wise the last 5 years while Canon 220 Billion profit in 2015.
Canon have the best repair service of the 3 and as someone who makes my income with my camera that's a huge deal to me.
My camera will still be the current model 3 years after buying it.
I personally use Fuji and Canon.
>>2849324
The D800 is still better than your 5D3, so it doesn't matter what the market believes your 5D3 is worth.
So even if Nikon gets cucked, they still have better sensors than Canon. That's how far behind Canon is.
>>2849325
Very subjective.
I shoot weddings, events, live music.
I get more from my better auto focus and 6FPS for that line of work. Also the lenses Nikon does not have.
If I shot studio and landscapes hand down the D800 is better but as a working photog you have to be able to take lots of different types of jobs.
Even last week I was paid to shoot a boxing match, the 6FPS was great. The D800 has lots of problems just google them.
Why is your only focus sensor tec? The final image is so much more than just the sensor. I think this kind of thinking is very rampant in the hobbyist community. DR and High ISO can be massively helped with off camera flash, something I use for most of my work.
>>2849331
>Also the lenses Nikon does not have.
Lenses which you probably don't use anyway. So what's the point of bringing that up?
Lenses, AF, it's plain dishonest to imply the D800 lacks in any of this, compared to how far behind Canon is on the sensor. It's false equivalency.
>>2849333
I've been buying into EOS for around 13 years now.
Look up AF vs tests vs the 5DIII the 5DIII fucks the shit out of it, its why they fixed it with the D800.
What is it you think the D800 can shoot that my 5Diii can't? Its like 2 stops of DR and 1/3 stop high ISO.
Again not the biggest deal when you're not just some shit poster hobbyist.
By all means look at my work - www.arron.photography show me a shot where using the D800 would have made a huge difference.
>>2849334
>By all means look at my work - www.arron.photography show me a shot where using the D800 would have made a huge difference.
It's not that having bigger dynamic range is going to make huge difference itself in most situations. You may get good results with 7D after all, I cannot understand why 5D* is a benchmark.
>>2849335
I use the 7D all the time for lots of work.
My current set up is 5Diii x2 a 7D on the Canon side and a XT1 + X100s from Fuji.
The 5Diii IS THE BENCHMARK buddy, If you meet lots of working pros in person the 5Diii is the most widely used tool in that circle. What's great about the 5DIII is its a great all round camera it can be used for many different jobs and do them very well. Its focus is great, its FPS will do for almost any job ect.
Nikon's D750 is in the same league in that sense If I was shooting Nikon I would be using it for most of my work.
The D800's are very different, they are not general purpose working cameras. I've never understood why people try to pit them against each other. There is lots of work the D800 is just not geared towards.
Again the high iso does not mean shit, no pro is shooting stupid ISO they are controlling light and keeping ISO as low as possible. DR can be negated with things like ND filters for landscapes ect.
But you can't magically fix the problems the D800 does have without buying a second body.
My argument is more that the 5DIII is a better all round all all purpose working photog camera and that is reflexed in the sales.
>>2849337
Reflected*
>and that is reflexed in the sales.
I think that's the kicker here, if Canon were so far behind then professionals would stop supporting them by now. Nikon is good but it's not good enough to beat what canon keeps throwing out
>>2849341
For sure!
There market share is only getting bigger, Nikon has had a really bad last 4-5 years in terms of overall profit and pro market share.
You also hear at almost every Nikon launch of something going wrong (D800, D600 come to mind) and them needing to do recalls.
Canon are the kings of stability, slower body rereleases, massive focus on glass ect and I can say whole heartedly that is what working pros want.
I don't want a new body shoved in my face every 2 years (Nikon) or yearly (Sony) I want lots of lenses and a new body every 4 years or so. It holds value better and I don't have to deal with the fuss of upgrading my work flow constantly.
>>2849337
>DR can be negated with things like ND filters for landscapes ect.
I would actually like to know what "etc" represents". There are no other ways of compensting for DR lack using single exposure except that one.
>The D800's are very different, they are not general purpose working cameras. I've never understood why people try to pit them against each other. There is lots of work the D800 is just not geared towards.
Take a look at 5Ds then. Even more specialised than D800 yet has base dynamic range smaller than one of few years old APS-C cameras.
>The 5Diii IS THE BENCHMARK buddy
wat
-------------
By the way, you totally forgot that this thread is about sensors and it's not like we'd like to hear how superior 5D2/5D3 used by PROES is.
>>2849331
The D800 shoots 6 fps m80.
>>2849348
ND filters for landscapes and flash for outside portraits. Covers anytime I need high DR.
>> wat
A majority of working pros use Canon and a majority of canon full frame sales come from the 5diii. What is hard to understand there?
>>2849350
>ND filters for landscapes and flash for outside portraits.
ND can be cancelled in post, flash influences the look of a photograph.
>What is hard to understand there?
It's hard to understand why you write something like this:
>What is it you think the D800 can shoot that my 5Diii can't? Its like 2 stops of DR and 1/3 stop high ISO.
It is a failed argument. You may continues this chain:
>>What is it you think the 5D3 can shoot that my 7D can't? Its like 1 stops of DR and 1 stop high ISO.
>>What is it you think the 7D can shoot that my 550D can't? Its like 0 stops of DR and 2/3 stop high ISO.
>>What is it you think the 550D can shoot that my 10D can't? Its like 2/3 stops of DR and 1 stop high ISO.
Every sensor improvement stretches your abilities more. You look quite stupid if you require to point out the specific usecase for every sensor improvement.
2 stops of DR means either much better shadow quality or much wider highlight range. If you want to see how you can benefit from them start photographing something else and try different image styles.
And bring the fuck out of sensor thread finally if you won't.
>>2849353
he already pointed out that for his use, 5d3 is perfectly fine.
as a matter of fact, digital sensor has been fine for years with DR.
You nikon/sonyfags love to jerk off to DR and ISO number when the threshold for 'sufficient' has been exceeded long ago by all systems.
at which point any increase is completely unimportant.
>>2849324
>summary is 3 times longer than post
Me thinks someone misses the definition of summary .
>My Mark iii is worth almost double the D800 that came out almost the same time.
This is actually good for the D800. If I was new and needed to buy something to get me started, I actually would most likely consider the camera that is almost half the price.
>>2849358
>This is actually good for the D800. If I was new and needed to buy something to get me started, I actually would most likely consider the camera that is almost half the price.
it's good for hobbyist. it's bad for pros who want to change body often to keep up with competitors.
>>2849367
But if you're one of those puros who don't want to change body often, then it has 0 effect on you.
>>2849369
it has some effect on you because your body's value is going down faster.
>>2849357
I was happy photographing with a bridge camera with RAW support and 11 stops of DR. Does not mean that I was not happy to switch to a camera with 14 stops of DR as well.
And it was neither Nikon nor Sony.
>at which point any increase is completely unimportant.
We are not discussing importance of DR increase ITT. You are first to mention it.
At any point of progress it is possible to find people happy with current technology - does not mean that newer technology won't be better though.
I cannot stress it enough: leave the thread if you are not interested in bragging about technology. It is what we do here.
>>2849373
No it doesn't affect you. At best if makes it cheaper for you to aqcuire replacements. It's a plus.
If you want to upgrade more often, then Canon wouldn't be an alternative anyway.
If you want to upgrade often then the D800 was the correct choice.
Vs.
If you don't want to upgrade often, then it wouldn't have mattered whether you pick either of them.
>>2849374
>I cannot stress it enough: leave the thread if you are not interested in bragging about technology. It is what we do here.
you should leave, gearfaggot
>>2849380
And now try reading OP-post.
>2008
>HAHA NIKON FAGS SUCK IT CANON HAS THE BEST SENSORS
>2016
>FUCKING NIKON KEKS SENSOR PERFORMANCE DOESN'T MATTER ANYMORE
tale as old as time.
Personally I love the 36MP sensor because that Dynamic range gives me the most amazing cloud porn when I adjust the HDR highlight/shadow sliders in post.
I don't want to imagine what it's like to be stuck on a 5D3.
>>2849407
>I don't want to imagine what it's like to be stuck on a 5D3.
Or, y'know, a 40D from 9 years ago.
>>2849412
Or even a 5D from 11 years ago.
>>2849414
Well I'm sure I would understand if you posted some of your amazing cloud photos you took with a 36mp sensor that made me feel that mine weren't adequate.
>>2849423
You have to have your hand on the sliders personally to know the difference. It's just amazing and a league above the Canon sensor.
>>2849427
But you can't tell in the results, is what you're saying? The results of your modern 36mp full frame sensor are SO indistinguishable from my results from my 9 year old 10 megapixel APS-C sensor that you won't even bother posting them?
But the "feel of the sliders" is where the difference is?
>>2849415
I don't FUCK the clouds, I just like to rub up against them real gentle like!
>>2849429
>indistinguishable
This is what people with inferior equipment actually believes.
Don't worry, soon you too will see the light. Canon won't be in stone age forever.
>>2849433
>This is what people with inferior equipment actually believes.
No no, I'M not saying it, by saying that I won't be able to tell in the results, YOU'RE saying it. I'm incredulous. With THAT MANY years between us, and that many more megapixels, and that much more dynamic range, I'm sure the results blow mine out of the water!
But you said that the only place I can tell is in the sliders...
>>2849436
That's the because the sliders makes the difference, when you adjust back and forth it displays the difference for you.
>>2849440
But you can't tell in the final photo. That's what you're saying? Because if you can tell in the final photo, show me! Show me your orgasmic clouds!
>>2849447
No you can't have my cloud porn.
>>2849451
MOOOODS!
oh, it's "cloud". I read something else there.
>>2846698
>The D7200 had Sony manufactured sensors
Wrong, D7200 is Toshiba.
>>2846744
Samsung is absolutely a good option. They had BSI APS-C before Sony as well.
>>2846762
Red doesn't manufacture the Dragon sensor, an Israeli company does.
>>2846811
No, it was the 5D that made FF big like >>2846813 said.
>>2846823
Are you sure you aren't thinking of the 1Ds? The 5D was a great camera with few real compromises. Great high ISO (for the time), not insanely expensive, better battery life than the 1Ds.
>>2846925
All FF digitals are niche, including the D3. Actually especially the D3 and other giant heavy FF cameras whose film SLR equivalent was the Nikon F5, a niche camera.
>>2849181
>How is the A7ii series of cameras gimped in any way?
Shit battery life, less rugged. But I think the A9 will address all the A7 series shortcomings.
>>2849324
>Nikon are cucked by Sony
Sony isn't the only game in town for good sensors. Toshiba and Samsung are even better in some respects.
>>2849347
>I don't want a new body shoved in my face every 2 years
No one is forcing you to buy their improved body?
>>2849591
>Toshiba and Samsung
They aren't good at making full frame BSI.
Maybe it's a good idea if you want Nikon to move back to APS-C.
>>2849591
Toshiba sold the sensor fabs to Sony last year.
>>2849597
It's trivial to scale up to full frame, but it only makes sense if there's a buyer willing to pay a premium. Though I guess it doesn't matter too much now that Toshiba's sensor biz is owned by Sony as >>2849598 said
>>2849598
Well there's always Samsung, On Semi, CMOSIS, TowerJazz, even Panasonic, etc. Though I'm more interested in what Canon's updated tech will be releasing.
>>2849615
>It's trivial
No it requires the best fabs with the best staff and processes to minimise errors during production.
>>2849615
>I'm more interested in what Canon's updated tech will be releasing
They have a 180nm process now.
The same process Sony used for the 36MP sensor, so in about a year or two, Canon will be able to make as advanced sensors as the D810 has.
>>2849628
So... Samsung?
>>2849631
They still need to prove themselves on full frame. It's very possible though.
>>2849630
>yeah, they probably just made that 120MP prototype sensor by sheer force of will, like in that book "The Secret"
>>2849669
They also made a 50MP sensor, and people weren't impressed, because you can't fit in the analog to digital conversion inside the sensor at 500nm or whatever old process it uses.
There will be no guarantee people will be impressed by their 120MP sensor either, unless it has the tech the 36MP sensor has.
>>2849628
No, they suffer with higher error rates with less than the best which makes it more $$$ whic is why " it only makes sense if there's a buyer willing to pay a premium"
>>2849631
They could. They're ahead of Sony when it comes to fabs.
>>2849632
They don't need to prove anything. It's not like there's some magic tech limitation that makes it easy for Sony and even fucking Canon to do FF but Samsung can't figure out.
>>2849630
i believe my eos m is 500nm.
:^)
>>2849699
Different foundries use different processes which may cause different characteristics and different error rates. It's just plain stupid to believe every foundries are equal.
>they suffer with higher error rates
Depending on how many errors there are, you might not even get a single functional sensor out of the batch, so it's not only a simple matter of costs.
>>2849412
wait, where's horizon in this photo?
>>2849703
Above the top of the frame. It's taken from the window of a plane, above the clouds looking down
>>2849357
>digital sensors are fine
>still less than half the dr of film
Get real faggot
>>2849367
Pros dont give 2 fucks that there 3k body is only worth 1.5k 3 years later. Fast depreciation is a good thing.
Tell me, how much is a 1 year old second hand, full frame body, with ibis for canikon? For sony its under a grand. Just saying.
>>2849433
As has already been said, canons lifespan is far too long. Enjoy the 5ds and 5dr and new 1dx for the next 5 years, all which get nailed to the wall by a 3 year old d800. Canonrumours.com must be a frustrating ordeal for regular readers.
>>2849699
>hurrr samsung have better sensor fabs than sony
You win dumbcunt of the thread.
If samsungs were better, why would nikon et al. Not be using them, instead of getting gouged by a main competitor?
>>2849591
If I don't buy the latest my gear loses value to fast. With my 5Diii I can sell it a month before the iiii is rumoured to be out before the norms know its coming for £1300 and add £1000 to the new body and I only have to do this every 4 years. It's not a constant cycle. I understand this is a very subjective problem to have with Sony but non the less it's my problem with them.
>>2849843
The reason they go down in value is often because the successor is that much better.
You never know, the next sensor Sony makes might blow the 42MP sensor out of the waters.
What I get from your post is basically: you don't want Sony to make a sensor that blows the 42MP sensor out of the water.
Or maybe you do, but you think it shouldn't be done too fast.
Sort of like being anti-progression.
I don't think I want to live in a world like that.
Every day it just seems more likely I have to abandon MFT and move to Sony. Now where's my a6300 with weather sealing and IBIS for a decent price point?
>>2849334
>That fucking carrot skin tone
>>2849855
Sony are welcome to make as many sensors and bodies as they like. And I like most of the market share am welcome to stick with Canon.
I care about lenses, more than sensors and for that Canon are currently king and that is reflected in the market share of the fullframe market.
>>2849414
The DR of those clouds is well smaller than DR of most 1,6x crop Canon sensors.
I like big DR but I do not like fags which say that it is universally important to have big DR as well.
>>2849334
http://www.arron.photography/#/cevents/
This is the only page I went to, and let me tell you, I found it disgusting and depressing.
>>2849906
That's absolutely fine, my clients are happy to pay me £75 an hour and enjoy my work. Nice opinion bro
>>2849909
>75 an hour
>600 a day
Glad i'm not you son, i dont get out of bed for less than £1k a day and most of the time im done within 5 hours.
Also, I'm not very good, but still as booked as i want to be.
>Also, I'm not very good
Yes, we know
>>2849875
what's that diagram?
>>2849960
I only have to work 20 hours a week and I earn 72k a year, call me whatever you want.
>>2849963
I work 1 hour a year and i make 75mil a quarter, call me whatever you want.
>>2849956
The diagram says he is happy he has many friends, and he thinks this means his camera is better than yours.
>>2849870
Try a Pentax K-50, K-S2 or K-3
>>2846617
Hitachi can easily make sensors, I have a Hitachi scanning electron microscope so if they can make that they can design/make a visible light camera sensor.
>>2850027
>if they can make this complicated thing then they must also be able to make this other complicated thing
so that's why intel is also making space rockets
>>2849701
Sure there are different error rates and foundries are different. No where did I say they were equal. But Samsung is further along than Sony - only Intel is ahead - and to think that they developed even denser APS-C BSI chips than Sony but might not even get a full frame single sensor from an entire wafer is fucking retarded.
>>2849797
>If samsungs were better, why would nikon et al. Not be using them, instead of getting gouged by a main competitor?
But Nikon did go with Toshiba for the D7200 which outclasses all Sony APS-C and even most Sony FF sensors for dynamic range. Samsung is/was a new player that probably wasn't looking to share its sensor in order to protect its NX series. Now that they're possibly out, we might other companies using them if Samsung decides to offer it. The full frame market has thick margins but is tiny compared to even just Samsung's semiconductor business.
>>2850066
>But Samsung is further along than Sony
Samsung is ahead in other fields, but not in CMOS process.
You're making the usual stupid mistake and think a foundry is a factory, it's actually more of a research center than anything, and the leading foundries specialise in their own niche processes, in this case Sony has the leading foundries for CMOS.
>>2850069
>Samsung is ahead in other fields, but not in CMOS process.
This is what Sonytards actually believe. Tell me, what node is Sony on?
>>2850072
Let me guess, you are one of those idiots who believe Samsung can make 14nm CMOS, just because they can make 14nm cpu logic, aren't you...
>>2850075
Answer the question, what process is Sony on?
>>2850081
I have to post the answer because you can't google it yourself?
>>2850084
45nm, there was that so hard? And as you pointed out, Samsung is at 14nm. Now you probably know that at the super small processes, sizes aren't uniform but it's a good indicator of who is ahead in CMOS. Comparing Sony and Samsung ... well it isn't Sony.
>>2850090
Holy fuck, you're dumb.
>>2850092
>>2850096
>b-b-but ur a moron. ur so dumb. Sony has the leading foundries for CMOS even though they're a second rate player in the semiconductor market. Sony is better than Samsung.
>>2849956
iirc it's a chart showing on what cams the winning images of various major photography were taken
maybe last year?
can't remember
>>2850102
You can have THE leading CMOS process, without necessarily having the best chip.
There is process and there is design, what do you think will happen if the design is gimped, for example Sony decides to remove the analog/digital conversion in their CMOS?
They would get the inferior end product, but that doesn't mean they don't have the leading CMOS process.
>>2850102
Use your critical thinking skill for a moment. Does the NX500 actually have a sensor that is 4 DXO points better than the NX1?
>>2850106
>You can have THE leading CMOS process, without necessarily having the best chip.
Of course, but I think it's clear that Samsung clearly has the raw capability to produce the latest designs and has already demonstrated an ability to create the best sensor at APS-C. Its manufacturing capabilities (as with most semiconductor fabs) are well ahead of what is needed to produce full frame and anyone who says otherwise with shit like "Sony has the leading foundries for CMOS" or "Depending on how many errors there are, [Samsung] might not even get a single functional sensor out of the batch," is a delusional fanboy.
>>2850110
If it has 2/3 stop better dynamic range and color depth while maintaining the same low light performance, yes it is better. The NX1 camera might be better, but obviously they've improved the sensor and/or associated circuitry a bit with the NX500. That's the beauty of quantitative testing.
>>2850090
>Samsung is at 14nm
Everybody is at 14nm becasue everybody uses the exact same chip machines made by ASML.
There are no magic Sony/Samsung processes, just little tweaks and different designs.
>>2850122
If that's the case, then bravo Samsung for creating a superior sensor at a larger process. Obviously if Samsung wanted to, it could fab on its latest node where Sony can't come close, but they don't need to. Then again, having the best sensor wasn't enough to keep them in the dSLR market whereas I'm buying another Sony despite its retarded fanbase.
>>2850128
Anon it's how you use those machines, and which processes you use them for., not the fact that they are the same machines.
Everybody also use Brick wall buildings, but that doesn't mean anything.
That's why there are foundry alliances, they share each others research, Sony is in alliance with Toshiba and NEC, that's why you see Toshiba sensors perform with very similarly to Sony sensors.
Samsung is in alliance with IBM and Globalfoundries, they specialise their research into Memory and CPU logic, it's a completely different discipline than CMOS.
>>2850131
>If that's the case, then bravo Samsung for creating a superior sensor at a larger process
Not necessarily. The A6000 could be 90nm CMOS, or even 180nm.
It's the A6300 that is 45nm, and that's why your DXO comparison is really stupid and not indicative of reality.
>>2850135
Like I said: there are some tweaks, which account for a few % performance difference, sure.
But nobody is radically better than their competitors becasue the basic tools are identical.
And you certainly can't say Samsung is better than Sony "because they are at 14nm".
>>2850128
The point, if you follow the thread, is that Sony doesn't have a monopoly on good sensors and that any modern semiconductor company, especially a top tier one like Samsung, would have little technical difficulty competing. There aren't any magic processes, yes, but an ancient process is hurting Canon whereas 65nm was all that was required for Samsung to take the APS-C crown.
>>2850141
>And you certainly can't say Samsung is better than Sony "because they are at 14nm".
That wasn't even me. That's the other guy going full retard.
I wonder if he actually thought the NX1 was 14nm...
>>2850143
>The point, if you follow the thread, is that Sony doesn't have a monopoly on good sensors and that any modern semiconductor company, especially a top tier one like Samsung, would have little technical difficulty competing.
Then we agree.
>an ancient process is hurting Canon whereas 65nm was all that was required for Samsung to take the APS-C crown.
They are virtually identical.
We are talking about one sensor maybe being a few % better than the other in some areas.
Again: all companies can make the same quality sensor........except for Canon apparently.
(btw: I'm not sure if Canon uses the ASML machines yet, I do know the 5Dinausaur was made on Canon's own machines but I assume they ended that foolish endeavor?)
>>2850139
The DXO comparison is indicative of reality and that reality is that the capability to produce competitive sensors exists outside of Sony semiconductor.
You can buy an NX1 or NX500 and enjoy more dynamic range and color depth than any Sony APS-C sensor except possibly the A6300. That's the reality. Maybe the Sony's tested were at larger process sizes and that would make sense. But if it was as >>2850122, then Samsung's achievement is all the more impressive.
>>2850149
DXO shows the end result of good design, and good process.
That's why it's wrong of you to use it as indicator of who has the best process.
>>2850148
>Then we agree.
Indeed. But good luck trying to convince the Sony nuthuggers in this thread.
>We are talking about one sensor maybe being a few % better than the other in some areas.
It depends, Canon's full frame has lower dynamic range than even Sony's """"1-inch"""" sensors. It's a two stop difference comparing Sony's FF to Canon's which is fairly significant.
>>2850150
>That's why it's wrong of you to use it as indicator of who has the best process.
But that's not what I was using it for. It's to show that the anon who said "Samsung is ahead in other fields, but not in CMOS process" is pants on head retarded along with anyone who thinks that Samsung "might not even get a single functional sensor out of the batch"
Samsung has the tools and know-how to produce competitive sensors PERIOD.
>>2850151
Man, it was you who instigated the 14nm pissing contest as if it had any relevancy.
>>2850155
>It's to show that the anon who said "Samsung is ahead in other fields, but not in CMOS process" is pants on head retarded
But it was the truth.
A truth you might not have liked, but true none the less.
Samsung is leading in other disciplines.
Sony is leading in the CMOS research.
>>2850156
It does in the sense of showing whether a company has a key capability of competing with Sony Semiconductor. And a company which is AHEAD in the process race is MORE likely to have that capability. Again, it was addressed to the anons who said "Samsung is ahead in other fields, but not in CMOS process" and that they "might not even get a single functional sensor out of the batch"
>>2850159
>And a company which is AHEAD in the process race is MORE likely to have that capability.
But the company who is ahead is sony, not Samsung.
We're talking about process for image sensors, not ARM cpus.
>>2850157
>Sony is leading in the CMOS research.
You do know that CMOS covers more than just CMOS sensors, right? What are you even talking about here? My cameras use Sony and Toshiba sensors, so I'm quite happy with Sony's performance. But I understand that Samsung, and probably several other companies, are capable of matching and/or surpassing Sony. Which is why the OP's idea that Sony not selling its sensors somehow dooms everyone else. It doesn't.
>>2850161
>But the company who is ahead is sony, not Samsung.
You keep saying that, but what is your proof? On APS-C, Samsung beats Sony though now that Sony owns Toshiba's image sensor unit, they'll retake the DR lead. On the small sensor front, Samsung and Sony are on par if the use of both Samsung and Sony sensors in the S7 says anything.
>>2850162
this
>>2850162
>But I understand that Samsung, and probably several other companies, are capable of matching and/or surpassing Sony
That isn't what I'm arguing at all.
There was a stupid guy who said Samsung has the best CMOS process, because they have 14nm ARM cpus.
And that had to be corrected.
>>2850165
>now that Sony owns Toshiba's image sensor unit, they'll retake the DR lead
See>>2850135
Sony never had a lead over Toshiba. And Toshiba never had a lead over Sony. They are a foundry alliance, they share the research between them, if one of them makes a new breaktrhough technology, it's shared with the other.
Samsung doesn't have access to that. They are in a different playing field.
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=TwgdPRa7fdc
>>2850193
>Sony never had a lead over Toshiba. And Toshiba never had a lead over Sony. The actual sensors they produce have different characteristics e.g. the Toshiba APS-C sensor in the D7200 has higher DR than Sony's APS-C
>>2850190
>Samsung has the best CMOS process
In terms of raw capability, they are ahead of Sony, so yes, they do have the best CMOS process at least compared to Sony. You seem to think Sony has a better process and keep repeating it but provide no evidence.
>>2850193
>Samsung doesn't have access to that. They are in a different playing field.
You have no idea what you are talking about.
>>2850205
>The actual sensors they produce have different characteristics
That's because Toshiba made their sensor to Nikon's design/specification. The new Nikon sensors leapfrogged the older A6000 sensor. Because guess what, Nikon has access to Sony's research when they use Toshiba as well, that's what foundry alliance means.
>You seem to think Sony has a better process
That's because Sony has 45nm CMOS sensors.
It's your turn, show me Samsung's brand new 45nm CMOS sensor and maybe I will give you a point.
>>2850213
>Samsung doesn't have a 45nm image sensor
>therefore Samsung can't produce one even though it has capabilities far finer than 45nm
As you or some other anon says, Samsung is using 65nm for its sensors. But don't delude yourself into thinking it couldn't take advantage of its finer processes. Canon is just now moving to 180nm which they are assuming will be good enough.
>>2850213
And other companies can also produce sensors to Nikon's specs just fine. Samsung is probably the size of Sony and Toshiba combined but it doesn't matter because even a smaller company can produce a better sensor than Sony/Toshiba (the guys who did the Red Dragon)
>>2850223
>But don't delude yourself into thinking it couldn't take advantage of its finer processes
They can't. You can't take 14nm process for computer CPU and use that for image sensors.
>And other companies can also produce sensors to Nikon's specs just fine
Only within foundry alliances. For example you can just take a TSMC chip and port it to Globalfoundry process just like that. The research necessary for that takes years, because different foundry alliances use different technologies and research.
>For example you can
*can't*
>>2850232
>You can't take 14nm process for computer CPU and use that for image sensors.
Sure, and there's no need for it. Image sensors are different, no disagreement there, but a company that does have image sensor knowhow like Samsung and has access to higher precision semiconductor manufacturing WILL be a viable source to similar quality or even superior sensors to Sony.
>>2850244
>a company that does have image sensor knowhow like Samsung and has access to higher precision semiconductor manufacturing WILL be a viable source to similar quality or even superior sensors to Sony.
That sort of shit takes time Anon.
Sony and Toshiba took 9 years to develop their current 45nm process for mass production.
So this foundry business is something you need to plan 10 years ahead for. That's why you see Foundries specialise into their own niche, because you can't spread your resources thin and hope you will dominate in every field, it requires extensive research and planning.
That means 10 years ago, Samsung estimated they needed a good 65nm CMOS process, and that's where they are today.
Samsung IS a big player in the image sensor world, they just aren't ahead there, because they spent their resources elsewhere.
>>2850248
>That sort of shit takes time Anon.
Naturally, but I doubt it's 10 years. Do you have a source for that?
>they just aren't ahead there,
Again by what metric? When they introduced their APS-C sensor, they beat Sony handily. With the smartphone market where the cutting edge is, they are about equal.
>>2850264
http://www.geek.com/chips/nec-joins-sony-and-toshiba-for-45-nm-561581/
Did I say 9 years? oops, 11 years.
>When they introduced their APS-C sensor, they beat Sony
The A6000 isn't Sony's high end CMOS technology.
>>2850274
>http://www.geek.com/chips/nec-joins-sony-and-toshiba-for-45-nm-561581/
That's for 45nm in general if they are comparing it to Intel. But if we're going by general process size capabilities :^) You probably don't want to die on that hill though.
>The A6000 isn't Sony's high end CMOS technology.
Maybe. But if you are on /p/ buying an APS-C camera, a Samsung sensor is a fine alternative to a Sony one which is what this thread is about. And if Sony got destroyed tomorrow, other manufacturers would fill the need though it would, as I said before, cost $$$
>>2850290
Great they reduced power consumption by 30% and reduced chip area by 50%! Totally sounds like image sensors and not regular chips.
>>2850277
>Samsung sensor is a fine alternative to a Sony
No one argued otherwise.
My main beef comes when one of you said Samsung has the leading CMOS process.
It turns out they didn't.
Then one of you said that they could easily kick butt and transform their 14nm logic process into 45nm CMOS process really quickly.
It turns out they can't just do that either.
And here we are.
>>2850293
CMOS = image sensors
>>2850295
>CMOS = image sensors
baka
>No one argued otherwise.
um, that's actually the argument being posed by OP
>>2850298
OP is a retard who thought camera module means sensor. We're kind of past that.
>>2850304
>thought the slide referred to image sensors
It does. CMOS process is for image sensors.
2009 500D APSC.
This dynamic range shit is getting retarded as fuck. Learn how to light and DR is never a problem anymore.
[EXIF data available. Click here to show/hide.]
Camera-Specific Properties: Equipment Make Canon Camera Model Canon EOS 500D Camera Software Adobe Photoshop Lightroom 6.2 (Macintosh) Maximum Lens Aperture f/2.8 Image-Specific Properties: Horizontal Resolution 240 dpi Vertical Resolution 240 dpi Image Created 2016:05:28 23:45:05 Exposure Time 1/500 sec F-Number f/4.0 Exposure Program Manual ISO Speed Rating 100 Lens Aperture f/4.0 Exposure Bias 0 EV Metering Mode Center Weighted Average Flash Flash, Compulsory Focal Length 50.00 mm Color Space Information sRGB Rendering Normal Exposure Mode Manual White Balance Auto Scene Capture Type Standard
>>2850312
>It does. CMOS process is for image sensors.
No, it CAN be for image sensors. But CMOS is used for processors and RAM and other silicon too. And when that slide is talking about reducing chip area as an improvement, what kind of silicon do you think they are talking about? Are you really that stupid?
>>2850328
You're confusing yourself. RAM is a lot of things, you don't want to go there.
When Sony, Toshiba and Nec develops a CMOS process, you can count on it being for image sensors.
Here's a hint for you, the most modern Sony sensors are only partially CMOS. The rest of the chip is CPU logic for on-sensor image processing, and even stacked RAM on the underbelly.
>not shooting on film
>>2850338
It depends on what RAM you're talking about.
http://www.tsmc.com/english/dedicatedFoundry/technology/mtm.htm
Embedded DRAM for example has their own specialised process.
>So they are happy they are at 45nm so they can reduce their image sensor chip area by 50%?
There is something you're misunderstanding here. Just because they can reduce the chip size, it doesn't mean they are going to.
And for your information, it's actually a huge advantage to reduce the physical area of the on-sensor processing circuitry.
>>2850344
>There is something you're misunderstanding here. Just because they can reduce the chip size, it doesn't mean they are going to.
If that slide were an announcement for image sensors, they wouldn't be talking about making the chip area smaller. And with BSI, reducing the on sensor circuitry size gives much smaller advantages.
Embedded DRAM is made with CMOS which is what the graphic refers to. I have a feeling I'm being trolled.
>>2850355
>which is what the graphic refers to
No, look on the left side. The graph is trying to tell you TSMC is offering a large range pro processes for image sensors, right from 500nm to 40nm.
On the right side, they offer specialised process for embedded DRAM right from 89nm to 40nm.
These two processes are different ones.
>they wouldn't be talking about making the chip area smaller.
Yes they would. Because a modern sensor is so much more than what you're used to thinking of.
>>2850367
And what are all those processes? CMOS.
>Yes they would. Because a modern sensor is so much more than what you're used to thinking of.
Needing to be smaller? Nope.
>>2850371
They are different processes.
>Needing to be smaller?
Not the whole sensor, but parts of it that are for processing and buffering needs to be smaller.
>>2850333
>http://www.reuters.com/article/us-sony-chips-idUST27285720070407?pageNumber=1
"Sony to leave three-way microchip development pact
Sony Corp (6758.T) said on Saturday it has no plan to pursue further development of advanced microchips in a three-way pact with NEC Electronics and Toshiba, in a potential blow to the Japanese chip sector's bid to join hands to better compete with overseas rivals.
Sony, Toshiba Corp (6502.T) and NEC Electronics Corp (6723.T) said in February 2006 they would co-develop technologies to make system chips with circuitry width of 45 nanometers, sharing hefty costs and pooling technological expertise."
G-g-guise 45nm was about image sensors not microchips.
>>2850376
They are ALL CMOS processes. There are differences in production, yes, but they are all CMOS based.
Also Sony decided to build 45nm in 2006, got 45nm working for its Cell processor in 2009 and obviously transitioned its 45nm fab to image sensors fairly recently. So the 10-year faggot, probably (you), is wrong as usual.
>>2850385
>45nm working for its Cell processor
The CELL is a SOI thing, it wasn't build on Dony's fabs.
Actually, Samsung's foundry is better suited to produce CELL processors than Sony's own foundry.
>>2850395
>Actually, Samsung's foundry is better suited to produce CELL processors than Sony's own foundry.
Of course it is but Sony wants to keep in-house capacity and now that they have 45nm fabs they adapt them for image sensors. 45nm might be old for chips but it's pretty advanced for image sensors.
In any case Sony's 2006 announcement of a partnership with NEC and Toshiba to get to 45nm very likely wasn't for a 2015 introduction of image sensors as one anon was suggesting.
>>2849956
The Cameras That Captured Winning Shots in World Press Photo 2016
>>2846823
Fuck I loved my 5D. The Mk II was orders of magnitude more usable, but the original 5D images had character, whereas the Mk IIs files were excellent but a little sterile. One of the reasons I moved to XF
>>2847061
>six years to follow up the D300s
>not stagnation
>>2850540
5D was a great camera, a quantum leap from the 1Ds and especially Kodak frankenbodies that were full frame. Definitely a larger leap than from the 5D to the also excellent 5DII
>>2850568
Emphasis on "was"
>>2849911
Where's your site that backs that up?
>>2850739
Yeah it sucks how the sensor has deteriorated in all of them and the photos they take is so much worse now than it used to be.
>>2850786
Nah, they take the same photos as then, but for the same money you get much better sensors and more importantly much more accurate AF.
Sensor alone does not make the camera but play a role in IQ.
>>2850787
So if the sensor hasn't deteriorated... Then that must mean that they're still great cameras...
>>2850318
150 posts l8r Canon babies continue to say that their cameras are sufficient for them. Reusing b8 duznt make you gr8.
>>Learn how to bump dat contrast so that shadows are not a feature anymore and DR is never a problem anymore.
fixed that
>>2850789
In comparison to a modern entry level camera? Not that much.
Being usable and being great are two very different things.
>>2850791
I don't just use Canon...
I own Fuji, Pentax, Canon and Olympus stuff.
Sensor in my Fuji's is very close to what's inside Nikon and I am telling you my 500D from 2009 IF you know how to light, gives great dynamic range.
>>2850826
Not every situation is ideal, this is why sensor technology improves at such a rate towards better SNR in the higher ISO ranges.
Base ISO operation is usually studio and landscape territory, in those situations any dinosaur can perform. In the other uses not so much.
>>2850826
There are many situations in which lighting is not possible.
There are many situations in which lighting ruins the scene.
This thread is about sensors, not lighting. No matter which camera you own now, be it D70 or 500D or K-7, I will keep saying that. It's just Canon nominative Canon owners are most noticeable throughout the thread.
>Pentax K-1 delays
>Nikon 1 delays
lol
>>2849237
Don't forget shit build quality
>nicucks are on maximum damage control because they are hemorrhaging money
>muh dynamic range is all that matters
>meanwhile, garbage autofocus and framerate cucks you from action shots
>sony cucks & shills think they can match mother fucking S A M S U N G
rofl
the only thing that has kept sony alive and not utterly assfucked by samsung is that samsung has averted its gaze from camera sensors
>>2851199
So, D7200 and D810 and D750 do not have Sony sensor riet?
>>2851553
that has literally nothing to do with what i've posted
Samsung is a fucking monster that cannot be stopped except by equally large giants like Apple or Google.
If they wanted to destroy sony in photography/sensors they could do so very easily, but they make so much money elsewhere they don't bother
>>2851556
>that has literally nothing to do with what i've posted
Yes it has. You said something about "matching" and I mentioned cameras which match and surpass Samsung NX1 and NX500 at least in still imaging.
inafter impotential sage (is it disabled? I though it was hidden from field only)
>The Sonykiller
>>2846613
tfw I won't be able to buy Pantacks K-1 because I cannot but it now
