All in line with what Canon said, it's basically the 7DII pixel in a FF area then?
Hi Jack,
Yes, it seems to look similar, although the sensels have a slightly different pitch. So it is probably somewhat different, but maybe pretty similar in technology.
Have you tried a PTC?
No, I just have 2 Raws, and I have difficulty seeing at first glance what's different in the settings that were used. The camera was running at some 33 degrees Celsius, according to the EXIF, so I don't know if that is typical or not. Maybe it was running a bit hot due to a long shooting sequence.
I prefer to use sequences of 1/3rd stop real exposure frames, because we do not know if something specific is happening with noise reduction. I also prefer to subtract image pairs, to eliminate pattern noise and PRNU and improve overall robustness of the data.
Canon usually doesn't fiddle with the Raw data, no noise reduction, no lossy compression or tone curves, doesn't pre-scale for White Balance, and leaves the black-points intact. However, I'd prefer to have that confirmed in practice, rather than rely solely on masked pixels. We also have seen in the past that e.g. apertures wider than f/2.8 have an influence on gain, just as DxOMark suggested, so actual practice may show other things as well that a single frame might not reveal. I also do not know if the nominal ISO 50 is any different from ISO 100, or if there are other jumps or a just a linear increase in gain as ISO goes up.
Cheers,
Bart