numbertwo wrote: bernardl wrote: lighthound wrote:
Rather than comparing the A9III to Canon's ancient tech, it would be more accurate to compare it to Canon's R3.
And now with the R1, it's going to make the A9III look even worse.
The funniest part is, Sony sucked another $1,500 USD ($2640 CAD) out of their fanboys for the same lame ass 24mp but worse IQ vs it's predecessor.
It's a reasonable price to pay in exchange for the unique abilities of the a9III. If you removed your brand googles you may realize that. I am sure you would understand better if it featured a Canon logo.
And, once more, the low ISO numbers of the R3 are not real sensor DR. They are meaningless.
Cheers,
Bernard
The A9iii also has noise reduction if that’s what you mean. You can see in the graph and read the legend.
Can you show proof of lose of detail for the amount of noise reduction that Canon applies in the shadows in raw?
For Sony noise reduction we can read about the star eater issue for sure. All brands are applying some sort of raw cleaning…
Exactly, we are saying the same thing my friend. These graphs are useless since NR is applied to the raw files.
We don't know how much Canon is applying, we don't know how much Sony is applying.
And no, Nikon and Fuji aren't applying any NR to their raw files.
Yes, I have decided to add a few photographs to my posts... in the end this is about photography isn't it? This is one from a Z9 and 400mm 2.8 S TC. Boy was that horse fast!
numbertwo wrote: bernardl wrote: lighthound wrote:
Rather than comparing the A9III to Canon's ancient tech, it would be more accurate to compare it to Canon's R3.
And now with the R1, it's going to make the A9III look even worse.
The funniest part is, Sony sucked another $1,500 USD ($2640 CAD) out of their fanboys for the same lame ass 24mp but worse IQ vs it's predecessor.
It's a reasonable price to pay in exchange for the unique abilities of the a9III. If you removed your brand googles you may realize that. I am sure you would understand better if it featured a Canon logo.
And, once more, the low ISO numbers of the R3 are not real sensor DR. They are meaningless.
Cheers,
Bernard
The A9iii also has noise reduction if that’s what you mean. You can see in the graph and read the legend.
Can you show proof of lose of detail for the amount of noise reduction that Canon applies in the shadows in raw?
For Sony noise reduction we can read about the star eater issue for sure. All brands are applying some sort of raw cleaning…
Exactly, we are saying the same thing my friend. These graphs are useless since NR is applied to the raw files.
We don't know how much Canon is applying, we don't know how much Sony is applying.
And no, Nikon and Fuji aren't applying any NR to their raw files.
Yes, I have decided to add a few photographs to my posts... in the end this is about photography isn't it?
numbertwo wrote: bernardl wrote: lighthound wrote:
Rather than comparing the A9III to Canon's ancient tech, it would be more accurate to compare it to Canon's R3.
And now with the R1, it's going to make the A9III look even worse.
The funniest part is, Sony sucked another $1,500 USD ($2640 CAD) out of their fanboys for the same lame ass 24mp but worse IQ vs it's predecessor.
It's a reasonable price to pay in exchange for the unique abilities of the a9III. If you removed your brand googles you may realize that. I am sure you would understand better if it featured a Canon logo.
And, once more, the low ISO numbers of the R3 are not real sensor DR. They are meaningless.
Cheers,
Bernard
The A9iii also has noise reduction if that’s what you mean. You can see in the graph and read the legend.
Can you show proof of lose of detail for the amount of noise reduction that Canon applies in the shadows in raw?
For Sony noise reduction we can read about the star eater issue for sure. All brands are applying some sort of raw cleaning…
Exactly, we are saying the same thing my friend. These graphs are useless since NR is applied to the raw files.
We don't know how much Canon is applying, we don't know how much Sony is applying.
And no, Nikon and Fuji aren't applying any NR to their raw files.
This is one from a Z9 and 400mm 2.8 S TC. Boy was that horse fast!