Assertions are not necessarily facts. In this case, for that to be true, the a7IV would have to be dramatically different from the a7, a7II, a7III, a7R, a7RII, a7RIII, a7RIV, a9, a9II, a7S, and a7SII, all of which I have tested.
2 years ago
150
DeletedRemoved userYes, most of the Sigma/Foveon non-Quattro cameras were thus, including my beloved SD9.
Much of the exposure hot air over on DPR was generated by those who were unable to cope with being able to clip "raw" data at any ISO ... as opposed to the higher the ISO, the more the raw data headroom., giving rise to the common "I always set ISO to 200".
Sigma experimented with an AFE in the DP2x and the SD15 and finally included one in all Quattro models. I guess that one AFE chip puts out less heat than three ADC chips.
Waiter: "more noise in your image, Sir?"
Not until you spell my name right πππ
I think the subject is still 'open' at the moment. Let's see how it develops.
Alan
Once a camera moves into someoneβs reality bubble it start behaving differently π.
I am not looking at anything - I am simply stating that camera's with dual gain sensors are NOT invariant - that was the whole point of what Aptina did - to break the mold and gain in S/N ...
they might be perfectly invariant in some range of nominal ISO values and thus you can call them partially invariant - no issues w/ that...
- DeletedRemoved user
Oops ... apologies !!
Looks like the "a74" proponent is taking a break ...
Hasn't worked out that eccentric spelling is a sure telltale of denied former accounts.
"HLG Mode as a hack for perfect Raw exposure", www.dpreview.com/reviews/sony-a7r-mark-iii-review/4
For the record, based on my tests I disagree.- DeletedRemoved user
Agreed. Never owned or tried a Sony, so my question was a bit tongue-in-cheek.
At least I now know that an "a74" is actually an Ξ±7 IV aka a Sony ILCE7M4.
thats what your not understanding. the camera shows extremally fine line clipping and so does fastraw its an identical match . you can take the raw into ACR and also fast raw and can not recover the blown high lights. ARE WE CLEAR NOW . you obviously dont play with your cameras much to draw your own conclusions.
Thats very poor on canons behalf .as i said live zebras finely tuned are un beatable for perfect "exposure evaluation" raw digger is not an exposure evaluation tool. in fact its useless in the field.
You realize the meaning of the word "perfect", right?
A1 a74 a7r5 use the latest processors. not sure about the a7s3
i always remember sitting for a 4 hour celestial navigation exam and walking out in 90 mins. the next week i got my results 99% the teacher said i got 100% but no one is perfect.
Does it matter ? that would be like saying an analogue multimeter is better than a digital because its measuring the raw voltage.
Once one enters the quantum world - our concept of continuum is no longer completely accurate. Both photons and electrons are particles and while exposure in lux-seconds can be viewed as the energy of the incident wave - its statistics are a quantized version of that in that the number of photons incident. Such processes are described statistically as a Poisson process which describes the arrival of objects, be in cars at an intersection, rain in a rain gauge or photons on a photodetector. en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Shot_noise
Yes. the correct equations are:
How imperfect is the method you are using?
