>>3622324>did I not btfo you hereConsidering the 2nd to last comment is me yet again pointing out you're wrong and calling you a fucking moron, no, lol.
>same noise, not same exposureHunny buns, let's go back to our buckets, if you have 2 equal volume buckets, and above each of them is a 1m2 square shower head, which one would fill the fastest, our theoretical perfect snr bucket with a 1m2 square brim, or a lossy one with a 1m2 circular brim?
Well done, you've now learnt why a higher snr circuit needs less gain to get the same delta.
And let's analyse your other comment laddy
>if I put a lens on a camera with 2 stops worse noise performance, does it become 2 stops slowerIf you have to drop iso by 2 stops to get an equivalent image, and therefore raise shutter speed 2 stops, you tell me, is it slower? (I know I can't take chances with your addled brain, this is a rhetorical question, of course the lens is slower if you need a longer shutter speed).
For the millionth time, the electronic system in a camera is always going to be the sensor AND lens. If you don't put a lens on, all you get is an even blur with absolutely zero correct image, I.e, 0% snr.
Now back to pixel pitch and gain values, just look at it logically pal. In your world they both collect the same amount of light, yet also have different noise profiles, talk us through that, how can that be possible with equal gain values?
I don't think you've grasped the exposure triangle or the camera system in any way.
>you don't understand equationsDo you mean the single pixel snr equations you were trying to use to prove that pixel pitch is more important than total sensor size?then you peaced the fuck out when I brought up we look at photos, not individual pixels and your equation doesn't account for that?
if you understood the equation you would have never embarrassed yourself like that?
>forget about your degreesOh,sorry,I should have known my electrical engineering education was unfair on you
