>>4045094>Sony a7ii af is barely usable>The A7 II shoots and autofocuses very quickly. Everything works very quickly and very well. - ken Rockwell>AF acquires very quickly and takes no time, - photography life in 2020>Hybrid AF performs well with good continuous AF - imaging resourceWhy must you lie anon?
>I posted screenshotsThat prove nothing, I posted objective based data.
>Dynamic range isn't the same as noise\low light performanceDynamic range is literally signal to noise ratio at full brightness, it is literally a measure of noise performance, why do I engage with people so obviously ignorant
>When you said the f2.8, did you mean the f4No anon? Who buys the f4 models except poverty riddled losers? And even then, ephotozine reviewed them both, canon on 45mp, Sony on 42, and the Sony still absolutely obliterated the canon. Pic related, the canon is baaaaaaad.
>Again moron...Again, DR is a measure of the amount of noise in a shot. Learnt the absolute basics of electronic circuits.
>>4045098>You don't have the option to get a non IS lens on RFWell, now you know why it's $800 more than the Sony, and still has worse image quality, lol.
>Wait, the data doesn't match up to my internal narrative :'(Objectively acquired data doesn't lie, and isn't subject to the same limitations as sample shots.
>You can't compare across sensorsIt's a measure of line width per picture height, if my lens and body gives more lines per picture height than yours, it has a higher resolution. Hence why it's so alarming that canon still got beat by Sony even when on a higher mp sensor!
>It doesn't hit -12ev, the review website is lying!You'd think canon would ask them to pull it for libel eh?
>Your Sony also vignettes 3evThat review has it down at leas than 2 and a half stops?!?
Are you just scared of data?
>Trust me the canon is better >:(You'd think you'd be able to find some data to support that idea eh? All my data is supported :D
