>>3772144>Equivalent iso is...Is a factor of sensor area, every doubling of area is a halving of iso. My iso 800 has the same noise as your iso 360, if the sensors are presumed equal in every other way but size.
>You don't have a lens that can do thisFor a start, canon don't do a 100-400 f4, it's f4.5-5.6 or around f6.3-9 equivalent.
What about the Sony 600mm f4? That's more "luminous" than your 640mm f6.3 equivalent babe. I could even throw on the 1.4 extender and get an 840mm f5.6. Sony has you pasted to the floor lad.
>It has more pixelsIf you factor in the higher pixel density AND the AF pixels and cropping away 60% of the sony, you're looking at less than 4% difference in pixel count. And let's not forget that even a 24mp full frame sensor outresolves all but the very best otus lenses, let alone your super zoom trash that only manages 30lp\mm in the very centre at 400mm, pic related, making your pixel counting completely retarded.
>A Sony a7riv and lens is cheaper than 90d and lensYou think a £1300 body and £2000 lens is more than a £3500 body and £1700 lens (200-600) or £12'000 lens (600mm f4)?
No wonder the maths in your head makes sense for crop. Omegalul.
>>3772145>That's not mineI guess that's why I didn't address it to you Hun.
