>>3985966>>3985967I'm sorry, these sources are observably wrong. Just brainlets spreading the same misinformation you're trying to spread here.
>>3985969Both photo.stackexchange and
lensrentals.com are wrong. I laughed at this
lensrentals.com quote
>It’s largely about decisions by designers at Canon, Nikon, and Sony in 2008 and 2009 to make cameras with large sensors containing large pixels.He probably said this because Nikon and Sony started making FF cameras around this time. Canon always had been. What makes this quote retarded is that all three started using higher density APS-C sensors around this time, and Sony started out of the gate with a relatively high density FF sensor (for the time). Noise did not get worse with higher pixel densities because, again, shot noise is the sqrt of TOTAL PHOTONS COUNTED and not the count at a single pixel. (Unless you only have one pixel.)
Again quoting the current dpreview article that you linked:
>>COMBINE THE SHOT NOISE FROM THE SMALL PIXELS AND IT'LL BE THE SAME AS THE SHOT NOISE FROM THE LARGE PIXELAnd again showing same noise from same format/tech level but different pixel density (pic).
As for the wiki:
>equivalent to the exposure and the SENSOR AREANot pixel area.
>Thus for equal exposures, the signal to noise ratios of two different size sensors of equal quantum efficiency and pixel count will (for a given final image size) be in proportion to the square root of the sensor area>SENSOR AREADon't misquote material then claim "hurr durr destroyed."
>>3985971>this analysis is useful for a fixed number of pixels with pixel area proportional to sensor area>proportional to sensor areaThis quote is not saying what you think it is saying brainlet.
