>>3875362You must have noticed it in your work to be this passionate about it. Is the difference huge, JUST HUGE? Show it. Or is it so minor it requires pixel peeping an exact AB comparison? Is DxO telling the truth or shilling?
Of the cameras I still own, the one with the "worst" SMI is the EOS M at 75. The irony being that little camera has produced some of my favorite color shots. Guaranteed if I pit the 10D and M against each other this evening on a flower you'll cry that I didn't do something right when there's no real difference.
The really hilarious thing: most creative photography isn't trying to exactly match a model of what an average human eye sees in the real world. Nobody sees this
>>3875324 or this
>>3875308. Even with portraits photographers will pursue small contrast/saturation/color bias differences while not straying too far from neutral (because we're literally tuned for facial recognition we get weird about portraits which stray too far from neutral, but we just love an overly saturated, underexposed landscape). Photography is very much about using exposure, tonality, color, contrast, and saturation to evoke the emotions someone would have felt at the scene. It has almost nothing to do with reproducing the clinically precise view their eyes would have perceived at the scene. We find those shots boring as hell.
