>>4228112All this childish cope to try and avoid the fact that the A7ii has a FF sensor that behaves like a crop sensor. You have to go back to a fucking 5D mark II to get comparable noise. Hell, the 5D II looks a tiny bit cleaner.
>nooooo it's the raw converter!!!COPE
>>4228116>nooooo dpreview edits the files!!!Anyone can download, process, and compare to prove that they do not. Why lie to defend a shitty old camera?
>but muh manufacturer lied about the ISO sensitivity!If they did that's revealed by dpreview's test. And if they did, how the fuck does that help your case? Are you saying Sony knew the sensor was shit so they lied about ISO hoping you wouldn't notice?
>muh iso invariance!!!dpreview dedicates an entire page to dynamic range and ISO variance tests you dumb fuck. ISO invariance is not relevant to the high ISO test.
>nooooo it's adobe's fault they're just bad with snoy!!!Then why do the A7iii, A7iv, A7R bodies, and A7S bodies look fine?
>nooooo dpreview is owned by amazon!!!Shameless attempt to undermine results anyone can verify because unlike you dpreview publishes their files and settings. Why would you turn into a shameless liar over a shitty old camera?
