>>3959473>The larger photosites of Full Frame cameras allows them to gather more photons. >When do you need to gather more photons? >During the day when there are more photons to gather.This might be the most retarded thing I have ever read. The 3rd paragraph of this article is literally an IQ test. If you think this author might be right after the 3rd paragraph, you have failed.
>Equivalent Depth of Field equals Equivalent Light Hitting the SensorThis is true. But it ignores the fact that in most low light situations FF photographers are able and/or willing to use the widest aperture available. It's important to understand equivalent DoF, but retarded to insist upon it to "prove" your system is just as good or better. FF fags do this when arguing about bokeh (hurr durr you MUST SHOOT FF EQUIV 1.4 OR YOUR PORTRAIT SUCKS) and now fucking m43 fags are doing it over low light (well akshually you can't shoot 1.4 you need to be at 2.8 to match my DoF CHECKMATE ATHEIST).
>It’s true that larger pixels are better at gathering light — if both sensors are the same size.For pictorial photography it's false. Total sensor surface area determines SNR.
>But as we just demonstrated, crop sensor cameras gather the same amount of light as full full frame cameras.No, you did not demonstrate that. The moment the FF shooter goes to max aperture he is gathering more light. He has that option, you do not.
>muh dxo graphs!Comparing the two sensors at a 2ev gap is disingenuous as fuck. The actual take on this is not "hurr durr m43 is superior", it's "holy fuck FF has roughly the same IQ 2ev higher than m43."
Conclusion: Mark Wieczorek is an idiot.
