>>3984220Sure
Consider a single ant walking from one point to another, in it's exploratory wiggly fashion.
Now make 4 ants do the same journey, and take the average of their paths, notice how the line it creates is straighter (has less "noise") than the single ant.
>>3984224Wrong. We view photos, not pixels.
Those cameras are 12mp as they're aimed at 4k video, where readout speed is more important than megapixels.
>>3984234Sampling is exactly that, and why higher MP sensors are just as good in low light.
>>3984225Photons to photos does this already, taking measurements from FF cameras with an aps-c mode, the apsc mode has 1 stop worse dynamic range (and therefore signal to noise ratio) as FF. They even have "ideal" dynamic range lines for different size sensors.
>>3984269Speedboosters are also a great visualisation tool for explaining why smaller sensors need larger, heavier, more expensive lenses to compare to full frame.
>>3984280>Iso compensationIs definitely a way to achieve similar noise
Let's say we need to hit 8 brightness for a correctly exposed photo, and the FF camera captures 4 brightness at iso 100 and therefore the mft lens captures 1 brightness as it is 1\4 the size.
To reach 8, we'd need to boost the brightness by double on FF, ie 1 extra stop to iso 200, but for mft we'd need to double it, then double it, then double it again to reach 8, ie 3 stops and we'd be at the equivalent of iso 800 for the same final exposure image, but with the extra noise and reduced dynamic range that comes with a higher iso.
But iso is not an absolute measurement of gain, it is an arbitrary amount of gain to reach a reference brightness level. So iso 100 on FF != Iso 100 on mft with regards to gain or noise.
