>>3869293No, you're wrong, if smaller pixels had more noise, then high MP cameras would have a lower signal to noise ratio, and therefore a lower dynamic range (DR is just SNR at full well capacity).
However, if we look at measured dynamic range charts, you can very quickly see that sensor size is the most important factor, photons to photos even includes theoretically perfect dynamic range graphs split by sensor size, not pixel pitch.
If you look at the charts of the a7riv and a7siii, you can see the r has slightly better snr up to iso 800, then after that the s has slightly better. This is because of the dual gain structure in modern CMOS cameras, with the stunned for slightly better low light performance, but we're talking 1\10th of a stop differences, not like the whole stop difference you see from any FF down to any crop sensor. If pixel size was relevant at all for noise performance, how can two cameras with opposite pixel densitys trade blows on signal to noise ratio?
>>3869298>Complete bullshitRead the above, if you want to reply, do so with an explanation and citations.
>Binning is averaging pixelsWhich is done in conjunction with line skipping to reduce aliasing on cameras that need to downsize video.
>shallow dof looks cheapShit, someone better tell Kubrick to not ask Leica to make him a custom f0.7 lens then
>>3869406Can you guess why low budget video might use large sensors and fast lenses fella?
>>3869630It does change the dof and how much light is gathered though, coincidentally it produces a shot with identical dof and identical amount of light gathered as an f1.5 lens on FF. Funny how that works isn't it.
>>3869644Having a small sensor camera means you're a trash photographer.
>>3869648>Iso is an arbitrary labelling of gainCorrect, but just to be pedantic, your example is correct presuming both sensors have equal MP counts.
