>>4253994>>4253988It gets funnier than the different everything. That wasn't ISO 20,000, it was ISO 25,600. I wasn't trying to directly compare to your camera you turbofag shoe zoomer, a thought beyond "wow these both look awful" never ocurred. it was black and white no nr vs. a normal amount of nr and a comment about capture one's noise reduction being kind of bad at this level. All I said was basically, moot point, it's phone quality.
--Autism line--
If you want a scientific controlled gear comparison, according to dxomark and the nerd that audited their "sports" ISO scores and "portrait" capability:
The Z6II and R3 are slightly different - 3303 vs 4086 - <1/3 stop, for $3500 extra. I am not going to contest that the R3, which costs $3500 extra, maintains a color depth of 18 bits, a DR of 9ev, and an SNR of 30db at an ISO value that is slightly under 1/3 stop higher than the Z6II can.
The Z6II and R3 are not significantly different for base ISO color sensitivity. DXOmark published the same "portrait" score for both and p2p's audit corroborated it. This is as good as it gets in autistically comparing cameras.
https://www.dxomark.com/Cameras/Nikon/Z6II---Measurementshttps://www.dxomark.com/Cameras/Canon/EOS-R3---MeasurementsIf you're still curious, here is the Z6II, slightly underexposed, at ISO 20,000, with something colorful and not really in perfect focus, under cheap warm white LED bulbs, in old yellow frosted glass fixtures
SOOC's best jpeg with high ISO NR turned off:
https://litter.catbox.moe/4xcar2.JPG (3 day life)
Raw:
https://litter.catbox.moe/iklzbj.NEF (3 day life)
the DOF is perpendicular to the box, no fucks given about higher effort for a literal test shot of shit on a shelf.
