>>3984469>spread it to less pixels, you get better dynamic range and more light readouts>spread it to more pixels, you get less dynamic range and lower light readoutsPixel size, for the ranges available in shipping ILCs, is irrelevant to high ISO noise and DR.
>>3984472>so it truly has nothing to do with sensor size, but instead smaller photosite size, higher relative resolution per mm^2, The opposite. For the same level of tech SNR has everything to do with format and nothing to do with pixel density.
>and antiquated sensor technology that leads to smaller formats performing worse?Sensor tech is relevant, so older tech will generally have worse SNR. However, sensor tech moves much more slowly than people imagine. If you have to go back over a decade to find FF sensors that are 1ev behind today's FF sensors.
>>3984473He was not testing high ISO. He was testing pushed shadows at low ISO. The 100 is the cleanest GFX so far at high ISO.
