>>3893153>I don't really give a fuck about your graph. I can take any digital camera I own and directly observe DR loss as ISO increases from base. That means either A) you are misinterpreting your graph, or B) the graph is dead wrong.Maybe the cameras you own are the kind where higher ISOs don't clean up much of the shadows. I already explained that in
>>3892850.
The sensor in the Pentax barely improves SNR at all when raising ISO. A lot of modern sensors behave like that.
>The fucking 1D mark II was shot noise limited at all ISOs. You think read noise has gotten worse since then?Do you even know what the knee of the curve is?
From your own article:
>Only at the very lowest signal levels does camera electronics noise become a factor (e.g. low level banding). And what is more, the graph is given with a log-2 scale on the X-axis lol, because that's what photographic stops are. There's a very distinct inflection point in the curves, that's the knee. The knee is where photon shot noise becomes larger than read noise.
The guy in the article even says it:
>The lower slopes of the lines above a signal-to-noise ratio of about 8 indicates the noise in the images are photon noise dominated, while at lower ratios, the signal becomes increasingly read noise dominated.Photon noise is irrelevant for shadows.
>If you count only 9 photons 3 will be shot noise. Read noise is down to 1 electron per pixel or less (i.e. some pixels on some reads will not introduce a noise electron) in modern sensors. Tell me how read noise is more important.The article you quoted yourself and didn't bother reading tells you lol.
