Here's a really stupid question:
Why do people believe dpreview's studio shot tool? I was feeling GASy after spending too much time editing a portrait I didn't like and compared my camera with another that would theoretically be better. It looked better. Then I downloaded the raws to look at them closer, opened them in capture one, and set the white balances off the kodak grayscale card
The exposures between the raws were not equal from the outset. The sony file was a half stop darker. This you can even see that clearly on their page. Hacks. Correcting it makes it ISO 9600 vs 6400 so it's not fair at all. Kek. They did the same thing to the A7IV and A7RIV.
The most major differences in color were taken care of by a slider adjustment that i already had set to default anyways
The ones that remained didn't bother me at all. like the asian chick not being as white as she is on nikon. knowing my camera IRL i have a feeling the nikon is whitening darker skin and capturing a really saturated scene SOOC, because my A7RIII definitely doesn't make white skin a warm yellow and it's not desaturated SOOC like the slider settings imply, just realistic.
The difference in sharpness was harder to notice, then the sharpening slider for the sony was moved to 180 and it wasn't worth caring about.
There were some spots on the overlaid objects where it looked like they missed focus on their own test chart
GAS cured, permanently, no difference, it does nothing for the photos.
Do they do this shit on purpose? Are they shilling and trying to make some cameras look worse than others?
>>4197295Always ignore the tripfag, he's always at least half wrong and twists his words so people who don't know what he's saying will think he's 100% right. Consider a lightly used nikon Z5 and factor in an FTZ II adapter if you want to buy a lot of different lenses while saving money (can't use ancient AF/AF-D lenses with autofocus tho). It can also adapt sony FE lenses.
