>>4077587>the gfx has one f1.4 equivalent lens!exactly. it's got advantages in other ways over full frame, but low light is not one of them.
>>4077589>I already knew the s1 had shit afThen why are you recommending it? There's plenty of great full frame bodies that don't have that issue, or any of the other issues brought up, like the A7SIII, A7III, A7IV, A7RIII, A7RIV, A9, A9II, A1, etc.
>z6 best in low lightNot by a HUGE margin, under iso 800 the A7IV is up to a whole stop better, and over iso 800 the sony is a touch better all the way to the end of the iso range. pic related.
And that's before we get onto the lens selection and AF performance, Sony has FAR more f1.4 or faster lenses AND much better AF.
>>4077603Be cautious with comparing "RAW" files like that, RAW files can still have pre-baked noise reduction built in, and if you look at the crispness of the text and the hashed pattern around the edge of the note on the S1 and Z6, there is noticeable softness, particularly on the hashed area the Z6 is too soft and the S1 has started doing weird shit that's left a couple of lighter patches. This is a good example of how resolution is limited by sensor size, not MP count though, with the GFX being the only one that managed to keep the pattern recognisable.
