>>4046047You must have missed the last one they had in stock.
But thanks for pointing out that you're trying to compare a brand new lens that's been on sale for less than a year to the very first full frame mirrorless lens that's not even being made any more.
>It doesn't make sense that another tester didn't get the same resultsThe -3ev screenshot you keep posting is after the in body jpeg correction, as you've already been shown. Very disingenuous of you to try to bring this up again when you already know this.
>No u >:(Oh sweetie, I'm sure you can do better, when you say this all you're really doing is admitting I came up with an argument you can't beat.
