>>3909303>Comparing film and printing and digital sensors?Missing the point on how fucking retarded it is to judge noise while applying a larger view size to one sensor than to another?
>>3909303>Film gets exposed per total area, digital sensors exposure effects only a single photo receptor.>digital sensors are one single photo recepter>digital sensors don't have surface areaThe absolute state of the sensorlet.
>Therefore same generation of digital sensors performs the same across different cuts, as is proven itt.Pic related. Hmmm...
>Pulling up stops by +6ev, just so you can get a tinny noise differenceBut you said there was no difference at low ISO. I'll agree the noise difference at low ISO is typically imperceptible. But it is there, and can be visible in certain situations like a wide DR landscape with heavily pushed shadows. I shot crop for years and I never denied this. Why do you deny it?
>you are doing dynamic range test, and not noise test?Imagine not knowing that DR is bound by noise yet lecturing people on an underwater basket weaving photography forum.
>>3909308>>magnifying the high res sensor more>All my samples are exactly at 1:1. Which translates to a much larger view/print size for the A7rIV. It's simple arithmetic and spatial awareness. Are you not capable of simple arithmetic and spatial awareness?
>That's the proper magnification to assess and compare noise. On a 96ppi screen an A7rIV file at 100% equates to a 99" print. You think you should judge A7rIV noise by 99" prints? On a 4k screen it's closer to a 45" print. Do you think we should judge high ISO performance with 45" prints? That would at least be fair if you printed everything to 45".
>Every other feature on dpreviews test scene stretches one of the images, and causes sampling artefacts to creep in. LOL what sampling artifacts?
>I have provided various proofs that have shattered all your arguments. In your head, sensorlet.
