>Posts a chart instead of a photo>No link in the OP>No info disclosed about the lens usedI'm not seeing this MAGIC CHART NUMBER in the only real photo comparison I could find. I have never seen these magic sharp fuji photos posted by real photographers either. Pixel peeping, stuff like eyelashes are as softly defined as ever.
Also, their dynamic range test is not corroborated by the one done by photos to photons.
Even peer reviewed science suffers from a replication crisis (hint: funding related crookedness) so what can we expect from some camera review site?
>>4167022Lens not disclosed
Actual test data not disclosed
Verdict: marketing babble.
What you should post:
A photo you took with the X-T5
A 100% crop from that photo
"This camera is super sharp. I dare you to show me a sharper camera"
What you shouldn't post because it means nothing:
A marketing website posting unverifiable data.
