>>4144013Here's the thing dude: obsessing over meaningless spec differences and "sensor scores" will never make you a decent photographer. That 0.5ev of DR does not matter. At all. That's assuming you even have it and not a camera which is actually lower performing than "muh worst performing sensor Canon!" And assuming you know how to expose and process for maximum DR. Which you probably don't.
Now if we're talking about a Canon RP and a ~3ev difference? That can matter. Sometimes. Again assuming you know how to exploit the higher DR on the better sensor. But most of the time, even then...it won't matter.
>>4144030>Look, it's almost comical how it literally alternates "nikon sony nikon sony" until you hit a pentax, a leica, and finally the most expensive camera canon has. You don't buy canon to salvage exposures Practically speaking an R6, R6 mark II, and R8 have just as much ability to salvage exposures as Sony or Nikon. An 0.5ev difference won't be visible in print, nor will it exist after NR. If you ever actually salvaged exposures, you wouldn't think much of tiny differences like this.
>and milk high ISO settings for landscape print worthy quality, The R6, R6 mark II, and presumably the R8 (same sensor) edge out the Sony A7S III, A7 III, and A7 IV at high ISO in both stills and video. DxO doesn't agree on the A7 III, but the DPReview studio tests are conclusive, and DxO is known for fucking up their tests from time to time. That said, I wouldn't act the way you're acting towards a Sony user because while the high ISO differences are larger, IMHO, than the DR differences...they're still not large enough to actually matter.
