>>3112522>If I go out and shoot a full frame, a crop, a mf, and a m43 at noon on a sunny day at t16 using 100 iso the sutter speed will be 1/100 on all of them regardless of their sensor size. If you go out on a rainy day and place one bucket down in one area, and 4 buckets down in another area, which area collects more water? If I do the same but with rainmeters, taking an average of the 4 readings for the 2nd area, which is likely to be most accurate?
It's the same with light, the bigger sensor = larger quantity of signal, = better signal to noise ratio, and more samples = more accurate = less signal to noise. it is why the high mp sony a7rii has better low light performance than the a7ii or a7sii.
>but a7sii is the best camera for low light on the marketYes my simple friend, and the reason is simple, sensor size, the a7s range are the only ff cameras that use a whole sensor readout, others perform line skipping or pixel binning. Sensor size is king
>you won't even see the sharpness difference.Let's do some logic here, lets set some knowns;
1. modern Sensors universally outresolve lenses
2. People are prepared to pay a £4k premium for an otus over a canikon 50mm, difference in lens resolution is maybe 20%, the otus still won't outresolve most sensors.
3. M43 with an equal mp count to ff will need a lens that resolves 4 times as much detail as it's ff counterpart to be truly equivalent.
4. There is no magic stash of optically perfect glass.
From just these 4 objective truths we can ascertain that not only is there a tangible difference, people are prepared to pay £4k for an image quality improvement 1/20th of what the image quality difference is between m43 and ff.
Small sensors are a false economy.
