>>4200898Few of them do, and PtP can detect when they do. That said I'm not opposed to that approach so long as it does not affect detail.
>>4200902>O rly?Yes, really. Those are from the ISO 12,800 shots...because your upload was labeled 12,800...and they couldn't be closer given the fact that there's always some ISO variation between sensors. In ACR and PS there's no indication that one was underexposed relative to the other.
>it's a 3d chart,There are 3D "charts"? The whole scene is 3D but most of it consists of flat print outs. When you say "chart" that implies one of the flat objects. At any rate the lenses are stopped down to f/5.6 and the entire test scene is within DoF. I can't even tell what part of it you think is soft, and there's no indication that either is oof.
>k here you goAnd? They're mismatched in size making the A7RIV look worse. Was that your intent? What is even your point again?
>How the file behaves with the noise reduction tool I use. Which is irrelevant when discussing base hardware performance.
