>>2904802k fine
>>let me say this for the juryDid I accidentially give you an oath of eyewitness or something?
>You need to be told, literally, that I'm referring to captured detail and not detail that was never fucking captured?Well, kinda, because what you said had nothing common with ISO invariance.
>There are countless reviews, forum posts, etc. where people push Exmor sensors hard...-6ev shadows pushed above middle gray...and the resulting IQ is nearly identical to what it is when shot so that the same detail lands in the middle. Now, let me say you that you should at least download RAWs made with Exmor.
IQ is very far from being nearly identical - unless you apply some noise reduction which destroys details and some curves to mask noise reduction. For websize it is surely fine.
Picrelated is +5EV from K-5 - which actually has somewhat more DR at base ISO than A7R mk2 has (mesured in DxO).
>All those sunset examples in Exmor discussions not withstanding, right?wat
I have Exmor, I did not read any discussions, I have uploaded examples ITT, look at them. The sun is a big blob on them.
I will make more examples right now, already recorded them.
>LMFAOYeah that's what I thought after you brought ISO-invariance to discussion.
>Something that is not a strawman fallacyYou named some Joe Hipster which has nothing to do with discussion and does not contribute anything to it. Why would you do that? It makes zero sense.
>It's like arguing with a virgin about sex.Sex is a reproduction act. Using sex as amusement affects fertility of nation. I may say both without ever having sex.
BTW I am a (male) virgin.
>You cannot simply "reduce the contrast" and recover the detail. Once you've fixed the negative it's baked in.Was a graph with different developer which had 15+ EV from same film or was it from different film?
>The problem is that with film several characteristics are interlocked...Something more than just highlights/darks colour balance?
