>>4269786>So you admit that spreding 1/4 of the light in 1/4 of the areaCan we get that in English, cheif?
Full frame has to gather 1/4 as much light to have the same SNR. Smaller sensors are noisier. Bigger sensors are less noisy.
>BUT FOV AND DOF ANDA big window lets you see more. And? Do you think it ever mattered if the background is slightly less blurry or more blurry? People don't care as long as the subject doesn't look like sandpaper. The equivalence myth has been debunked many times. It's a thought experiment to verify that smaller sensors are worse. Most people aren't aware of it because it never applies and 90% of photos taken on real cameras are higher quality than those taken on toy cameras.
Personally I am patiently waiting to see if fuji wants to go for sports and wildlife zooms on G mount or if they're content with the art photography market. Then it's GFX100II (S?) time.
>>4269789Yes, if you gather 4 times less light, you need four times the sensitivity to get the same exposure.
The strong implication is that micro four thirds gathers four times less light to begin with, even at f2, because the smaller window lets in less light (signal). Signal to noise ratio is a function of imaging area. Deal with it. No matter how hard your little wordcel brain tries, the inverse square law means that shorter focal lengths gather the same amount of light as long as the aperture size to focal length ratio is the same as a larger lens, and the loss of signal occurs at the sensor. With what would be a brighter aperture on full frame, you have more noise and less light just because the detector is gathering less information total. Therefore at ISO 800 on a childs camera, you have the signal to noise ratio of 3200 on an adults camera.
