>>3905398Sure, but if you're using a receptacle with a smaller opening you will get a less accurate measurement of rainfall, this is known as the signal to noise ratio.
Imagine a thin straw in the rain, thin enough that one drop is enough to fill it to 60mm, it will have a 50:50 chance of showing zero rain, or 60mm rain (or more), both are just as wrong as each other. Now imagine the swimming pool sized mouth, what are your chances of getting an outlier result there? Practically zero? Because it has a much better signal to noise ratio as the sensor is much larger? Wow, crazy how that works.
>>3905413That's because digi sensors are arbitrarily set for reference iso values
Iso is just gain, gain is just a voltage applied to the signal receptor (in the case of a camera, each pixel), smaller pixels gather less light so they need higher gain to reach the same reference level
If you view a 80mp FF image and 20mp mft image at 1:1 their noise will look the same, because the pixel pitch is the same.The 80mp image however can then resample each group of 4 pixels into 1 to give the same resolution as the mft image,but now as you're taking the average value of 4 pixels, you've quadrupled your signal to noise ratio
>>3905424Presuming they're within the last ~10 years, that would be completely correct, CMOS has theoretical max signal to noise ratios, and we've been approaching that limit for a long add time, the only way to improve from here is to increase the size of the sensor
>>3905427But the swimming pool will be a MUCH more accurate reading
>>3905435Babe, f2 is f2, regardless of mount, the value you actually want though is the t of a lens, which is the transmission, which is measured per unit area
But to cut this short, a t X lens on FF will gather 4 times as much light as a t X lens on mft, and just over double as on crop
The physical aperture size alone is meaningless, images invert, the image doesn't go in a straight line from image through lens to sensor
