>>3936359>The m50 looks half a stop betterIt's literally one stop better, look at the dynamic range charts, dynamic range is the signal to noise ratio at full well capacity, the Sony is consistently one stop better.
>I didn't say they were the same at base isoNo, you're right, you said if you sharpen the canon then "there's not much difference", what a totally different thing to say and totally worth you sperging out over.
>There is no resolution advantage, the Sony just resolves significantly more LP/sensor heightI fixed that for you, LP/mm the canon may actually have a slight advantage, but it has significantly less mm.
>Anon isn't after magical dof valuesI'm comparing like for like, if anon likes a 35mm f2 on apsc, he can use a 50mm f2.8 for the same look and noise performance.
>0.5evLol, no, read the chart. You already ascertained different manufacturers apply processing to their raws - which can be done in post just as easily.
>Does Sony have a 24-70 f5.6-f10.2 lensNo, it does not, and for good reason, lmao. They do have the 16-50 crop lens, which works out a bit faster and a bit wider range, and it weighs less than the canon though. Lmao.
>Citation neededIt's full frame ;)
>If you sharpen at high noise it increases noiseSo the Sony, with it's better snr, and larger pixels that need less sharpening is the obvious choice then, right ;)
>>3936363>Why xs10 brighterWhat does "exposure corrected" in the i button mean to you anon?
>Citation neededWho needs citations when there's so much evidence? Either no reviewer anywhere thinks Fuji is relevant enough to objectively test Fuji gear, or there's something else going on.
>>3936367It is true. Google "Fuji cheats iso"
>>3936442Anon, we all know that image is for when you say everyone is moop, stop trying to repurpose it. It just makes you look more mad. Well done on outing yourself as the guy that keeps posting the 2 wojaks pointing at something pic though.
