>>4372074>Reminder, he also says an a7rv is not better than a 5dsrNever once said that. I did point out to you that it had worse high ISO noise than a 5Ds/5DsR, and complained about Sony falling behind on high ISO performance across their entire line with the last gen. But that's one metric, and I just wanted to twist your nipple since you're also a snoy troll but apparently without a Sony camera or any camera.
>and neither is a gfx100s.Definitely never said that. You're really ramping up the lies here, schizo.
>And yet, by every objective scientific measurementYou've never posted or linked a scientific measurement. Or a photo. Or any proof that you own a camera. Or your med schedule as you're obviously not taking them.
>Better scanners have achived over 700mp on kodachromeThe numbers keep going higher, yet the comparisons keep getting worse for you. I thought drum scanners and HXY scanning were dog shit and the ultimate scanner was a GFX100 pixel stitch delivering 400mp from 35mm. Yet you lost harder today than ever. Please post a 700mp Kodachrome scan, I beg you.
Kodachrome was good, but Velvia 50 out resolved it, and that's according to Kodak (63 lp/mm at ISO 25) and Fuji (80 lp/mm). Of course you've never read a film data sheet, and in fact are confused by them, so you wouldn't know that. What made Kodachrome famous was its color and it took decades for anything else to catch up. Kodachrome was also rather sharp thanks to the unique design (3x B&W layers with dyes/couplers added during development), but both Kodak and Fuji caught up by the early 90s. I wasn't that crazy about K64 in 35mm but loved K25. Sadly barely got to shoot it before it was gone. Would have loved to shoot K25 in 4x5.
>film resolves so much extra detailCircle the extra detail for us in red please.
>What's his problem?I'm OCD and debating with an ignorant nophoto schizo.
So did you shit up Sugar's thread?
