Here’s a vague Canon roadmap for 2019 [CR1]

[dtaylor]

It reads very fast; about 1/150sec too to bottom.
It’s slower than an a9’s mechanical shutter moves (roughly 1/300sec top to bottom per imaging-resource), but 2-3 times faster than most electronic shutters (also per imaging-resource).

So a greater chance of rolling shutter but not by much. Yeah...I'll retract my "meh" comment. There are some caveats to 20 fps on the A9 (lens; e-shutter) but it's still impressive.

 

[Quarkcharmed]

You can have an image with a histogram that looks like that and not need a shadow push at all. Depends on the image.

It depends, but it doesn't mean I don't need it.

How often do you have an image that OOC has large areas of Zone 0-1 that have to be opened up into Zones 2-5? How often are you using the exp comp and shadow sliders to push shadows hard to achieve that? How often do you try to use those sliders then give up because of noise? And out of those times, how often would you have not given up on a Sony sensor?

I'm not very familiar with the zone system. I know how it was used in good old film days, but I'm not thinking in terms of zones. For landscapes, I use full manual mode and in-camera histogram. The histogram tells me all I need to know about future postprocessing of the image.

If you're shooting a 5D4 the answer to the last question should be "never" because the 5D4 sensor has on chip ADCs. A 5ev push on the 5D4 looks very much like a 6ev push on a D8x0 body. With a bit of NR work it looks very close +6 to +6. So close that you're not going to tell them apart except while pixel peeping.

5DIV is clean enough. Earlier sensors show noise in the shadows and even mid-tones without pushing anything. The older the sensor is, the more noise it shows. Not a big deal, but again 5DIV is cleaner. When you start lifting shadows, the noise amplifies.

So...are you pushing shadows +6ev and then giving up and throwing the RAW away? If so then you're looking at multi exposure HDR techniques or GND filters on any camera. There's no single exposure solution to your situation. Not unless you want to hand process some B&W film for maximum DR.

I'm pushing shadows sometimes a lot in night/astro-landscapes, not sure if it's 6 stops though.
But again you don't need to push shadows that far in order to hit the limits of the sensors. It's just that older sensors are noisier in general and they leave less room for manipulation. Low DR, in fact, is only a consequence of noise.

 

[dtaylor]

Earlier sensors show noise in the shadows and even mid-tones without pushing anything.

Not in excess of what would be expected for the generation of chip. ADC architecture impacts very deep shadows, not mid-tones. Whether or not a sensor has on/off chip ADCs is invisible until you push shadows more than 2ev. I'm not aware of Canon ever having a problem with noise in normal shadows or mid-tones versus the same generation from other manufacturers.

I'm pushing shadows sometimes a lot in night/astro-landscapes, not sure if it's 6 stops though.

I doubt you're shooting those at 100 and no sensor can handle a 6 stop push at, say, 800 or 3200. On/off chip ADCs also do not matter very much by that point.

But again you don't need to push shadows that far in order to hit the limits of the sensors. It's just that older sensors are noisier in general and they leave less room for manipulation. Low DR, in fact, is only a consequence of noise.

Low(er) DR is a consequence of a specific type of noise caused by a specific architecture decision.

Sorry to nitpick, but I hate generalizations like this because they wind up being "Canon sensor bad" and "Sony sensor good." Case in point: in another thread discussing the RP I pointed out that 6D2 (and by extension RP) high ISO is much better than A72 high ISO and not too far off A73 high ISO. I got called out on that because "Canon sensor old" and "Canon sensor bad" and "Canon sensor reused" and "Canon low DR"...until I posted an example. The A7 sensors...all three generations...have a superior ADC architecture. But the 6D2 sensor architecture is superior in other ways to the first two generations.

 

[Quarkcharmed]

Not in excess of what would be expected for the generation of chip. ADC architecture impacts very deep shadows, not mid-tones. Whether or not a sensor has on/off chip ADCs is invisible until you push shadows more than 2ev. I'm not aware of Canon ever having a problem with noise in normal shadows or mid-tones versus the same generation from other manufacturers.

I'm not actually comparing Canon sensors to other manufacturers. I was comparing old Canon sensors to the best Canon ones in terms of DR (5DIV/EOS R).

As a side note, the noise, as far as I understand, affects the whole tonal range, however the signal becomes stronger in the mid-tones so the noise is less noticeable. But on older Canon cameras you can see this fine noisy grain even in mid-tones. The noise isn't awfully bad but it's there, you can see it. It probably exists in 5DIV images too, but not really perceptible. It can be revealed if you push dehaze and/or clarity to 100.
Shadow recovery on 5DIV is clean, but the shadows from the old sensors (e.g. 5DII) can't be pushed too far, they start producing unacceptable luminosity and colour noise from 2-3 stops. And it's the same 14 bit for many years - but ADC becomes less noisy.

Sorry to nitpick, but I hate generalizations like this because they wind up being "Canon sensor bad" and "Sony sensor good." Case in point: in another thread discussing the RP I pointed out that 6D2 (and by extension RP) high ISO is much better than A72 high ISO and not too far off A73 high ISO. I got called out on that because "Canon sensor old" and "Canon sensor bad" and "Canon sensor reused" and "Canon low DR"...until I posted an example. The A7 sensors...all three generations...have a superior ADC architecture. But the 6D2 sensor architecture is superior in other ways to the first two generations.

I never said Canon was bad compared to Sony or bad on its own. What I was saying, I didn't feel RP meets my expectations in terms of DR. I'm ok with 5DIV and I'd expect an improvement in terms of DR from a new prospective R camera. I haven't had 6DII, but I played with its sample raw files and no, I wouldn't like to downgrade from 5DIV even as a secondary camera.

 

[3kramd5]

Which obviously was my point.

I don’t think it was obvious, but I’ll agree with the sentiment.