>>4462668That's the power of using up to date sensor technology instead of whatever ewaste you stole from tourists, boris.
The answer to the problem is pretty simple to anyone who understands cameras
1: Sensors are not 100% sensitive. There are always gaps between pixels. Sensors with larger pixels have less wasted, non-sensitive space.
2: Difference in sensor technology. An ISO 64 camera is unsurprisingly a better light gathering device than an ISO 200 camera.
3: Difference in lens transmittance. Larger sensors typically either use simpler lenses or higher end lenses which transmit more light than cheap overcorrected m43 shit made in china and vietnam.
A lot of things can throw equivalence off by half a stop or more. Like having double or quadruple the resolution, or massive pixels, or lens transmittance, or less light lost from a baby mount and thick sensor stack.
And then reality bites. Why would a photographer smart enough to use a better camera hamper it by taking the same crappy photos as you with your PNS? Better cameras often actually have slightly worse high ISO noise because they're optimized for low ISO capture and competent users that can keep it under 3200.
> to the point that when I gave /p/ some samples they couldn't tell if it was APS-C or full frame.Your 200px examples that, predictably, downsampled the noise out? And every camera you used was shit anyways? Those ones?
