>>3974117The first images from the R6 had a rectangle in about 2/3 of the image center, which showed a different noise pattern than the image edge. Canon has new possibilities for different exposures with DualPixel, so in camera noise reduction does not compare to a reduction in only image processing.
Regarding the claims. I think there is a reason why different sources mention noise reduction. Other manufacturers did or do so as well. It's just that comparisons are way easier to misinterpret.
>>3974113>>3974120On a serious reply
>>They suck at low light af, mate. >[CITATION NEEDED]That's nothing from the web, it's first hand experience. All I can say is, low-light robustness is weaker on the R5 and Sony A7 III compared to the 5DIV and a 24-70 II, regardless of an assisting 600 EX II, respectively a 24-70GM and Godox variant flash on the Sony A7 III. I can only guess why that is, which is why I won't reason over it. Still, all major camera manufacturers recently introduced flash guns with brighter AF assist light, also AF assist light that's also either white, more white, i.e. orange over red if not white.
And that's essentially what I've been saying here all along. The basic camera performance has hardly changed for people that used an older camera in a professional setup. Many of the softer skills have been massively improved, the camera has become an all-purpose tool and serves many operating concepts. Yet, to see similar performance or improvements in some situations, you're required to switch to lenses and/or accessories. You rather won't make use of silent shutter, if it interferes with strobes or light, can't be set in the burst rate. You don't care where your image is stabilized from..
I'm not a diehard, nor do I want to speak against change or say that the old is still worth pursuing. I just find it crazy how much effort is put into the imaging currently, just the last 3 years make it most clear, and how much money is asked for yet similar results.
