>>3622309>Yes it does, because a better snr would need a lower gain to reach the same exposure value.Completely wrong. It will need a lower gain to reach the same noise, but not the same exposure. Are you that thicc in the skull?
Lenses are deemed fast or slow depending on the exposure shutter (or ISO) they need to reach correct exposure, not to reach "correct noise". That's beyond retarded. If I put the same lens on a full frame camera of 10 years ago, does it become 2 stops slower magically because that camera has worse noise?
>I've been telling you these absolute basics of EE for literally years nowAh fuck is it you mooppet? Should've realised earlier. Did I not utterly BTFO you here (
>>3608607)? Aren't you the person that can't understand basic formal equations about snr and hides behind bullshit handwaving explanations when slapped in the soιface with those equations? M8, forget about degrees, did you even have stem subjects in your A-levels? Or was it BTec? If you were one of my students I'd be embarrassed lad, and I've taught quite challenging ones.
>here's your superfast lens bruv, it's 50mm f/0.4 equivalent bruv, for like when you need to shoot your legos in you dark garden flat bruv