>>4254263As researched by a nikonbro in another thread, the cannot r3's technical advantage is 1/3 stop according to noise measurements.
That means if noise is reduced in raws by at least 1/3 stop, it doesn't actually outperform any other sensors. It may even underperform them if it's more than 1/3 stop, but it costs as much as something like an a1 or z9 that DOES outperform other sensors. That's the problem with 2023 canon.
I PERSONALLY have never experienced any sharpness loss reducing noise in adobe lightroom to match the appearance of a picture taken with an ISO level one stop lower. That means good noise reduction has no perceptible effect on sharpness or color for 1 whole stop of "fake DR", and there's nothing the R3 is doing in low light that a slider in lightroom doesn't! Canon is charging you for class leading performance that is just a lightroom slider adjustment, anyone can do that! Even 4/3!
Their prices reflect measured performance that is for all intents and purposes, lies. If you stop assuming raw files = hardware benchmark for a second, the entire value proposition of canon if you're not a video pixel peeper shrivels and dies and RF is just an incomplete mount that leans too heavily on out of production lenses that are not improving in condition. Weather sealing, focus motors, they all fail with age.
I want the best for canon. I really do. But reducing noise in raw like some sort of pentax shitter is not the canon I grew up knowing. Neither is dragging their feet on their new mount and releasing non weather sealed lenses. The REAL canon I knew for so many years blew everyone away. The R1 needs to turn this shit around.
We have one actual way out of this argument for canon's EOS R line being massively overvalued for fake performance: Email the guy running photos to photons, and ask him what kind of noise reduction he has found in EOS R cameras and how he found it.
>inb4We know, sony cant do astro. But normies dont care about astro. So.
