>>3552454>did you also notice the olympus shutter speed is one stop less light than the sony?That's because the retard that posted it picked the ISO 100 Sony shot, not the ISO 200 Sony shot. Take another close look at the ISO values in the original screenshot that started this shit show at:
>>3552296>>3552467>>3552467>Check this out: Not only is the Olympus shutter speed one stop slower, It's not if you compare the ISO 200 tests. You purposely chose to compare the wrong set of images you lying sack. Note the "200" value for BOTH shots in the screenshot at:
>>3552296If the shutter speed for the Sony was 1/40 at ISO 100, see if you can guess what it was at ISO 200. (Hint: identical to the Olympus.)
>and not only did they use an $1800 lens on the Sony vs. a $230 lens on the Olympus, At f/5.6 it doesn't matter. The Olympus lens would be shit if it couldn't keep up with any other prime out there at f/5.6.
>but it also says the Sony was "brightness corrected" and the Olympus was "exposure corrected." This means Nothing. The rest of what you typed is just your own schizophrenic delusions being posted to the board.
Here's the two cameras tested at Imaging Resource. Are they biased to? Is everything a conspiracy against "MUH FOUR THIRDS!!!"?
IR hasn't completed testing the A7r IV yet, so I looked up their resolution numbers for the 42mp A7r III. Here's how they compare:
E-M1X: 2,700 lph with total extinction at 3,700 lph
A7r III: 3,700 lph and they couldn't record extinction point because it exceeded their chart.
>It's actually worse than just mere fraud, it's A schizo conspiracy delusion on your part.
>inb4 why does everyone hate muh four thirds???I don't. I don't think anyone here does. m4/3 has its place. But claiming it's as good as APS-C and FF in every respect is simply bullshit.
