>>2698269>You guys are constantly changing opinions.did it occur to you that there's no 'we' in you guys?
I haven't said shit about jpegs.
>most neutral tool there isis not the tool you named, because Fuji files are special; they have an extra layer of noise filtration built in that only two programs, Capture One and Photo Ninja, are able to bypass.
Not responding to the rest because you clearly have no idea what you're talking about if you don't know this simple distinction. I've said my piece, and shown my examples.
>I claim the alternative hypothesis that the in-camera processing already reduced noise, because this actually looks pre-processed rather than like raw sensor output.Based on what? The conclusion you wish to reach? Lmao.
These are both loaded in photoninja with both the sharpening and noise reduction tabs unchecked. You can read up on the software yourself, and on the issue of Fuji's baked-in NR. You'll find my methodology is the most accurate.
>I wouldn't be sure they used the best 35mm on the Sony either, never mind 60mm is actually easier than 35mm.That appears to be the Zeiss 35mm f/2.8 on the Sony, versus the Fuji 60mm macro lens. A lens no one has ever bragged on.
If you can't produce a comparison with the same lens, your comparison is worthless. If you own an A6000, you're welcome to send it to me and I'll test both with an adapted Voigtlander 25mm f4. We can then be sure that zero corrections are being done behind the scenes.
As-is, this sample is only useful for examining noise patterns and levels. The results are clear on that front.
Sorry for blasting you the fuck out. For the record, I think you and the other guy are both fucking mongs with zero experience to actually back up your fanboying. :)
