>>2698255>As suspected.You expected me to call you out on using a very, very poor tool for "examining" files?
Good one, dude!
And here we are with both files loaded into Photo Ninja.
I've chosen Photo Ninja because it handles Fuji raws most cleanly, and also has the option of completely disabling all built-in noise reduction, which other converters are not capable of for the most part. Capture One would also show comparable results. Bayer works about as good in this software as in ACR, X-Trans is leagues better in C1 or PN. Very, very important distinction to be made.
Given the lens differences, however, this is very pointless. The 60mm in use on the Fuji is considered to be one of the poorer Fuji lenses. But we can see a lot about noise performance, now that we've stripped away every bit of baked-in processing, and what we see here is...that you in fact, do not know what you're talking about. B^)
Note that the A6000 has also been downsized, flatteringly.
Your methodology is bust. There's no question that, in this particular comparison, the Sony has a better lens attached to it; there's also no question that the Sony has much worse noise performance at the same iso.
p.s. this topic is cancerous as fuck, but if we're gonna be cancerous, can we at least strive for some semblance of objectivity? No? Okay then.
