>>4229295>ISO *setting*why does he continue using this, rather than actually measuring the real ISO
sony ISO 100 is around 70
panasonic, olympus, and fuji ISO 100 is around 40
etc
how they excuse this is pretty simple
ISO standard measurements for a camera are reported based on its SOOC jpegs, no matter what happens to the raw to get there, no exposure values with a known T stop lens or anything else rigorous.
the real world effect is pretty simple
nothing
iso 40 +exposure has the noise of ISO 100 regardless. all it affects is how a chart/stat looks on dxomark. they do this, because this industry is shrinking and they expect a lot of retards with money to be nerds who check dxomark.
and yes most of them do alter raws before they're written. they would be stupid not to. most people dont compare raws assuming they represent how the camera performs. most people look at finished photos.
raws that arent raw is why the corner noise on sony isn't really that bad, and why you get a circle pattern if you push exposure i think 7ev on a sony A7R III. no one does that except for nerds who have no real photos to compare, just fanboy allegiances to camera gear. sony cheated.
raws that arent raw is why people think "micro four thirds is so good now" but if you actually look at the photos they are always kind of soft (that's noise reduction, not the lens). no one pixel peeps that hard on a shitty beginners compact camera, except people who dont take photos, and therefore hold no sway outside of their forums. panalympus cheated.
canon in particular is using really heavy alterations. they didn't develop amazing sensors, they developed better software. even the retard making these charts was able to detect it. you have absolutely never once heard about this on /p/ because the real canon users are too busy taking photos to give a fuck. if the camera reduces noise in raws too much they just turn the slider down if it looks bad, duh.
....also the paid shill works for canon.
