pdk42
All-Pro
- Location
- Royal Leamington Spa, UK
- Name
- Paul
OK, I'll take a vote too.... but like others have said, it's hard to divorce the sensor from the other bits of the puzzle that make up a real camera.
- The Merrill Fovean sensor has some amazing qualities, but it has its weaknesses (and I'm not thinking especially of the cameras it's found in!). Biggest weakness is its propensity to deliver really ugly blown highlights at any hint of overexposing (e.g. skies). I'm learning to use a grad ND again! However, when the photographer does everything right, the IQ is simply amazing. I don't know whether these remaining problems are down to fundamental technological limitations or simply lack of sufficient investment by Sigma; I hope it's the latter since if these issues could be fixed, Fovean would surely beat the pants off anything else.
- The 24Mp+ Nikon/Sony FF sensors are amazing beasts of course and rightly win the prize for real-world IQ - but since they're all FF cameras, we pay the price in size and weight of the system. Personally, I don't need this level of resolution so I compromise with smaller sensors.
- I love the 16Mp Sony sensors in the Oly E-M5, E-P5 etc cameras. The raw files can take a lot of pushing and prodding and the noise profile is pretty good too. They do amazing long exposure shots without dark frame subtraction, so excellent for astro users. These sensors are what brought u43 to the table as serious photographic tools IMHO.
- The 16Mp Panasonic sensors in the GX7, Oly E-M1 etc are pretty good too, although they deliver different colours than the Sony u43 sensors (worse IMHO) and have much poorer long exposure noise characteristics. However, like the Sony variants in the E-M5 etc, the raw files will take some punishment and the noise is pretty good given the sensor size.
- My Canon sensor knowledge is getting a bit hazy now, but unless Canon have done something recently, the FF sensors are good, but not up to the Sony/Nikon equivalents. They show banding too easily when pushed. The 18Mp APS-C sensor in the 7D etc never impressed me.
- The Merrill Fovean sensor has some amazing qualities, but it has its weaknesses (and I'm not thinking especially of the cameras it's found in!). Biggest weakness is its propensity to deliver really ugly blown highlights at any hint of overexposing (e.g. skies). I'm learning to use a grad ND again! However, when the photographer does everything right, the IQ is simply amazing. I don't know whether these remaining problems are down to fundamental technological limitations or simply lack of sufficient investment by Sigma; I hope it's the latter since if these issues could be fixed, Fovean would surely beat the pants off anything else.
- The 24Mp+ Nikon/Sony FF sensors are amazing beasts of course and rightly win the prize for real-world IQ - but since they're all FF cameras, we pay the price in size and weight of the system. Personally, I don't need this level of resolution so I compromise with smaller sensors.
- I love the 16Mp Sony sensors in the Oly E-M5, E-P5 etc cameras. The raw files can take a lot of pushing and prodding and the noise profile is pretty good too. They do amazing long exposure shots without dark frame subtraction, so excellent for astro users. These sensors are what brought u43 to the table as serious photographic tools IMHO.
- The 16Mp Panasonic sensors in the GX7, Oly E-M1 etc are pretty good too, although they deliver different colours than the Sony u43 sensors (worse IMHO) and have much poorer long exposure noise characteristics. However, like the Sony variants in the E-M5 etc, the raw files will take some punishment and the noise is pretty good given the sensor size.
- My Canon sensor knowledge is getting a bit hazy now, but unless Canon have done something recently, the FF sensors are good, but not up to the Sony/Nikon equivalents. They show banding too easily when pushed. The 18Mp APS-C sensor in the 7D etc never impressed me.
