5 ms·

> Canon makes their own sensors, which are good in absolute but not relative terms, which appears to hold them back in performance It's a little early to stat

> Canon makes their own sensors, which are good in absolute but not relative terms, which appears to hold them back in performance It's a little early to state this. Once the R5 and R6 come out we'll have a better idea of their capabilities as those are slated to have their new tech (8K video etc etc).

arghwhat 6y ago
Even with the current sensors it's true: Things like dual-pixel auto-focus has put Canon sensors ahead of the competition for a long time. (Dual-pixel AF doesn't just give way better AF, it also avoids artifacts from dedicated phase detect pixels that other cameras have.)
- ISL 6y ago
  True -- as a DSLR-user, with focus happening off-chip, I miss the superior dynamic-range of the Sony sensors more than the DPAF. If I were making video, I suspect I'd be singing the same tune. DPAF is excellent.
  - csharptwdec19 6y ago
    Which TBF hints at the reason Sony does have all of this nice image sensor technology. While they've been a newer player in the Camera industry, they've been doing professional digital video for far longer (SW EP2 was shot on Panavision-modified Sony cameras.) That's on top of their long lineage in the pre-digital-recording TV Market.
- sudosysgen 6y ago
  Sony does make DPAF capable sensors for phones, but for some reason (probably IP!) they don't use them on their FF cameras.
  - arghwhat 6y ago
    The wonderful world of patents. On an unrelated note, I do believe that Canon has also pulled a patent on quad-pixel AF. Patents being awful aside, quad-pixel AF would be awesome: every pixel becomes a cross-type focus sensor. (For the uninitiated, focus sensors are usually either horizontal or vertical, and cannot detect features that are perpendicular to them. Cross-type sensors are a combination of the two to increase the detection capability.)
    - ksk 6y ago
      Not disagreeing, but just to counter your point a bit, the Sony A9 has zero cross type sensors, but it has the best on-sensor PDAF system currently on the market. Conceptually, I totally agree with you that cross type sensors are BETTER than non cross type sensors, and dual cross-type are even BETTER, but its rarely as simple as that in the real world.
      - arghwhat 6y ago
        "Best on-sensor PDAF system currently on the market" is a non-scientific statement, but I'll certainly agree with you that it's great. However, in less optimal situations (e.g. low light, low contrast, and contrast perpendicular to the detection direction), it's my personal experience that current non-cross-type PDAF solutions fail, requiring 90 degree rotation to focus, which wouldn't be needed for cross-type. That, or use of an alternate focus subject if one is available. It's more of an issue on smaller, less light sensitive sensors. The super high-end sensors are more likely to find something to focus on even when things are suboptimal. But, alas, I'm a hobby photographer, and the 4500 USD an A9II costs is a bit more than I'm willing to spend.
        ksk 6y ago
        Cross-type has nothing to do with low light or low contrast. Sorry, I don't understand what point you want to make. There are dozens of things that affect focusing, or to be more specific - focusing speed, focusing accuracy, focusing repeatibility, etc. Many of these factors are tied to the lens. For e.g. Outer focusing points on a poorly made "consumer" lenses, generally, are not very accurate when you're close to MFD, and the focusing system tends to hunt a lot. STM focus motors are not designed for focusing speed, but they are designed for repeatibility. Also, most low light focusing and low-contrast focusing is hampered because of the high read-noise from the line sensors. I have the A9II and it has the best focusing system I've ever used. I thought the 1DX II was accurate, but this blows it away. Haven't tried the 1DXIII though.

arghwhat 6y ago

Even with the current sensors it's true: Things like dual-pixel auto-focus has put Canon sensors ahead of the competition for a long time. (Dual-pixel AF doesn't just give way better AF, it also avoids artifacts from dedicated phase detect pixels that other cameras have.)

ISL 6y ago
True -- as a DSLR-user, with focus happening off-chip, I miss the superior dynamic-range of the Sony sensors more than the DPAF. If I were making video, I suspect I'd be singing the same tune. DPAF is excellent.
- csharptwdec19 6y ago
  Which TBF hints at the reason Sony does have all of this nice image sensor technology. While they've been a newer player in the Camera industry, they've been doing professional digital video for far longer (SW EP2 was shot on Panavision-modified Sony cameras.) That's on top of their long lineage in the pre-digital-recording TV Market.
sudosysgen 6y ago
Sony does make DPAF capable sensors for phones, but for some reason (probably IP!) they don't use them on their FF cameras.
- arghwhat 6y ago
  The wonderful world of patents. On an unrelated note, I do believe that Canon has also pulled a patent on quad-pixel AF. Patents being awful aside, quad-pixel AF would be awesome: every pixel becomes a cross-type focus sensor. (For the uninitiated, focus sensors are usually either horizontal or vertical, and cannot detect features that are perpendicular to them. Cross-type sensors are a combination of the two to increase the detection capability.)
  - ksk 6y ago
    Not disagreeing, but just to counter your point a bit, the Sony A9 has zero cross type sensors, but it has the best on-sensor PDAF system currently on the market. Conceptually, I totally agree with you that cross type sensors are BETTER than non cross type sensors, and dual cross-type are even BETTER, but its rarely as simple as that in the real world.
    - arghwhat 6y ago
      "Best on-sensor PDAF system currently on the market" is a non-scientific statement, but I'll certainly agree with you that it's great. However, in less optimal situations (e.g. low light, low contrast, and contrast perpendicular to the detection direction), it's my personal experience that current non-cross-type PDAF solutions fail, requiring 90 degree rotation to focus, which wouldn't be needed for cross-type. That, or use of an alternate focus subject if one is available. It's more of an issue on smaller, less light sensitive sensors. The super high-end sensors are more likely to find something to focus on even when things are suboptimal. But, alas, I'm a hobby photographer, and the 4500 USD an A9II costs is a bit more than I'm willing to spend.
      - ksk 6y ago
        Cross-type has nothing to do with low light or low contrast. Sorry, I don't understand what point you want to make. There are dozens of things that affect focusing, or to be more specific - focusing speed, focusing accuracy, focusing repeatibility, etc. Many of these factors are tied to the lens. For e.g. Outer focusing points on a poorly made "consumer" lenses, generally, are not very accurate when you're close to MFD, and the focusing system tends to hunt a lot. STM focus motors are not designed for focusing speed, but they are designed for repeatibility. Also, most low light focusing and low-contrast focusing is hampered because of the high read-noise from the line sensors. I have the A9II and it has the best focusing system I've ever used. I thought the 1DX II was accurate, but this blows it away. Haven't tried the 1DXIII though.