>>3984609>What do you mean when you say 'it is' - are you saying the light intensity is the same as FF, just cropped? Yes.
>This is clearly not the case, since everyone always says FF is the best in low light. Yes, because SNR is a function of total signal gathered (total area).
>I believe it's mostly down to pixel arrangements, not total sensor area.Pixel density has virtually nothing to do with it at this time. Pic related. ("At this time" because I don't know if, at some tiny pixel size, it would start to become relevant again. With gapless micro lenses probably not.)
>Well of course if you're enlarging or stretching out the cropped image, your essentially diluting the light gathered and it will be less intense.So do mft shooters view their photos on monitors that are 1/4th the size of FF shooters? Does the government force people to buy monitors matched to their camera sensor size?
>I see. So cropped sensors do perform the same, it's just the we enlarge or upscale them more, relatively, than FF I think you're getting it, but if you define "performing the same" as "looking as good on my monitor" or "looking as good at 16x20" then they do not perform the same. They perform the same in terms of mm^2, they just have fewer ^2 mm.
>>>3984595>I'm asking why the intensity of the light is different (light gathered per mm^2), It's not at capture. But that SNR value is stretched further when you view at the same size which means enlarging the smaller format more.