>>4254583>Fuji sensors have no chroma noiseFuji sensors have sparser chroma noise because non-green photosites are more sparsely arranged. They also have worse color resolution. Can't have color noise if you have no color resolution right?
>Show me in Canon marketingWhy does canon have to claim this themselves when they are fully aware that petapixel, dxomark, ephotozine, dpreview, etc extensively review cameras and base the majority of their tests on noise and that when people shop for cameras, a major component of reviews is ISO performance? Here is the fact: Bill Klaff has detected noise reduction at literally every ISO setting and exposure duration on the R3. That means literally every claim anyone has ever made regarding its dynamic range or high ISO performance is falsified from the start. Why does canon have to reduce noise? Pic related is why. Because dxomark's "sports" score is basically the only thing that differentiates FF cameras and it is based on noise.
https://www.dxomark.com/canon-eos-r3-sensor-review-best-low-light-performer/>Sony NRThe ONLY noise reduction that has ever been detected in modern sony cameras is "star eater", a spatial filtering algorith that ONLY, ONLY runs on exposures longer than 3 seconds. Absolutely no damage to raw files is detected otherwise, and no "smearing". The ONLY form of forced noise reduction there is evidence for on sony is a spatial filtering algorithm that occasionally knocks out or dims the center of lesser (pixel level) stars if your exposure is 3 seconds or longer. Please stick to MEASURED, OBJECTIVE FACTS.
In fact, the only other PROVEN, OBJECTIVELY FACTUAL raw damage in sony cameras is vignetting correction, which actually increases noise in geometric bands which are most severe at base ISO.
>muh compressed raw framerate bla bla blaI agree, the sony A7IV is a crippled scamera for high FPS shooters. I never said it wasn't.
But I don't care about this beyond expecting truthfulness, I DONT SHOOT SONY.
