>>3870699>People and reviewers prefer fake colours.
True and sad.>But under 1000 dollars I'm not even sure there will be that much difference.
I figured entry level sub 1K cameras may have engineers more tempted to sacrifice color detail for better low light sensitivity, and since many entry level buyers will just accept whatever JPEGs come out anyway few would complain.
Still hoping to buy the best option within budget though. Wouldn't wanna buy a Nikon to learn later that a Fuji or Sony would've been better for my needs.
Guess maybe I'm asking too much. >>3870706
You're just so wrong it's not even funny.>You don't understand how color works. Colors are not "bleeding into each other."
They do, because we only sample using RGB. Everything in between is from mixing and some sensors have poor separation between primaries, meaning reds from RAW may look orange vs red because they have a relatively high amount of green mixed in.
A good sensor might capture RGB 80%/15%/3%, while a bad might capture RGB 80%/25%/5%.>An accurate CFA would have to allow overlap, as do the cones in your eye.
This is true but some simply fail to do a good job.>Less ISO sensitivity (i.e. more noise) REDUCES the number of distinct colors which can be accurate captured.
This is also wrong because ISO is just gain. When the issue is related to the properties of the capture device and actual light hitting the sensor, it doesn't matter what ISO you use, colors at base/long exposure will also result in compromised color.>Basically everything you've been told by film fags and Foveon fags is a meme.
Film fags can't even cope with their negs being brown. They refuse to admit they rely on post-processing and insist their edits are objective.
Foveon is nice, but it is also susceptible to the color separation issues. Foveon is also a scam because Sigma tries to advertise their 20.3MP sensor as a 60.9MP sensor which is fucking RETARDED.
They really did this. Pic related is not a meme.