>>3817826You changed the ISO.
I didn't bring up the 90D because I thought it was newer than the rest. Honestly Canon's high resolution crop sensors knock it out of the park, however they're still noisier than Olympus' offering.
>>3817823>It's an example of an underexposed shot with bumped contrast and saturation. Literally any camera can do this, literally a thousand presets to do it because it mimics a classic slide film look. (Underexposing slide film was a common look in the day.)It's not lol, the RAW is naturally more saturated than the others because the sensor is more sensitive to color differences. Look at the studio shot, everyone else has their red contaminated with a purplish hue, Sigma's is pure. Sigma has more color information to work with. That's why the least colorful things don't look oversaturated in the picture.
>You can even load a preset on any camera to do it, provided you underexpose the shot. If you're working in PS or LR you can start from a correct exposure and still get the effect.You could get reasonably close I guess.
>At least Fuji fags can choose their preset and therefore their look. Foveon fags are locked into one.That's a lie. You simply have more information in a Foveon RAW, you can always lose some color information but to get it back from nothing is not something you can do. Where Sigma fails is if you want to pull shadows or stuff like that. Honestly I think pulling shadows is usually a meme and looks like shit.
