>>3913719Dynamic range is different than noise performance. It's a lower noise floor but that's subjectively measured and what is deemed "acceptable" varies somewhat, a very clean 10 stops is better than a noisy 12 stops and that is why old DSLRs still hold value. When noise extends further above the noise floor into mids it's not as nice as a more limited range with a high signal to noise ratio.
Not everyone needs to shoot selfies with the sun behind them. Professionals control the scene to fit the gear, and low noise with limited dynamic range just means you use lighting to brighten up the shadows.
If anyone's a gear fag here, it's you, because you're a permanent consumer who reads spec sheets and thinks he's an expert. MFT is amazing for video but for stills it can't compete.
>>3913712All you need to do is turn the noise reduction off. Modern APS-C is fucking noisy all the way down at base ISO unless you've got premium shit. Sensor size isn't the full story, but most APS-C is entry level and objectively noisy stuff. Most premium stuff is simply full frame or high quality small sensors. Like, get over it. These are facts. It's not gearfagging, just the truth.
$30,000+ cinema cameras are only about APS-C sized and they have great dynamic range and noise performance. Why? Because it's premium shit. APS-C in consumer shit is far from that and the compromise with most APS-C is in noise because consumers mostly shoot JPEG and they can make noisy cameras and apply noise reduction to the JPEGs and people think they're noise free. They're not.
It's "good enough" but that's not the same as being noise free or close to it.
