>>3953543>>convergence>No, I used a same generation full frame camera from every brand to prove that you are unquestionably wrong.Dishonest idiot: THIS is the picture I was referring to where you included ONE FF camera, two theoretical models, and two APS-C cameras
>>3953441The graph you posted
>>3953543...again...does not prove I am wrong, it proves I am right. If read noise was not a factor "for the past 10 years" then every last fucking line would be identical to the "Ideal FF/FX". The ONLY possible source of differences is read noise. Photon shot noise does not give a good God damn what the brand name is on your camera.
>muh awkward!Furthermore, you are indeed cherry picking sensors which are closer together on your chart as I illustrate with THIS chart. Once again near base ISO things are a bit jumbled and then they all settle to the same slope within a fraction of 1ev of each other. Jumps between ISOs are of course gain switches, but those dual gain circuits are there because of read noise.
When people compare cameras on their DR they are not arguing about performance on the converged slope, there would be no point. They are arguing about base ISO differences which are read noise differences. They may be small but they are relevant if you are pushing shadows 5ev. We see a difference at the beginning where read noise dominates *this measurement*, and no significant difference later where it is so swamped by shot noise that it's almost irrelevant.
>you never asked that, >>3953478>>3953506Asked twice. How stupid are you?
>>wahh it doesn't matter>Lol, unhappy with the goalposts are we?That comeback doesn't even make sense in context. Is English your 2nd language?
>>do you think dual gain alters reality.>No, I think it alters the signal to noise ratio, Do you think it alters shot noise or read noise? That was the point moron.
