>>3962016>APS-C has higher pixel density than FF That depends on the sensors being compared.
>and APS-C is objectively worse in low light at the same resolution.That could be due to pixel density or sensor surface area. The evidence presented (APS-C is worse) could be evidence for either theory. To distinguish between the two you have to eliminate one factor or the other from the equation.
* In the top row we have two cameras with roughly the same pixel density and technology level, but different formats. The FF camera is cleaner.
* In the bottom row we have two cameras with the same format and roughly the same technology level, but different pixel densities. While the lower pixel density sample is slightly cleaner, they are substantially the same.
Conclusion: total sensor surface area is the primary driver of high ISO performance. Pixel density is potentially a much smaller, secondary factor. This of course assumes that all other factors are equal including exposure per mm^2 and technology level.
This shit isn't really *that* hard to think through, yet people argue it every fucking day.
