>>4180310>How does photosite pitch increase dynamic range?In theory? Greater full well capacity (i.e. can hold more electrons). In practice, the highest DR FF sensors since the D800 have also tended to be the highest density sensors. So fwc is not scaling in a way which overcomes the electronics.
>>4180374>does anyone actually unironically take these pixel peeping ISO grain images seriously?Nice attempt to undermine hard evidence.
>a7IV images at 25k iso look way better than RP They will be a bit sharper/more detailed, but not "way better" in terms of noise because as you can see from the hard evidence you tried to hand wave, the noise is practically the same. And why wouldn't it be? At ISO 25,600 shot noise dominates the image, and that's inherent to the physical nature of light. There's no overcoming it except by collecting more photons.
>but according to these pixel peeping side-by-sides, RP and R6 should outperform the a7IV, which is not the case.Download those RAW files, processing them fairly (i.e. don't use NR on one and not the other), and print them, and see if you still believe that. Again, high ISO noise is predominantly shot noise. Every 35mm sensor has the same shot noise for the same exposure. That's why high ISO improvements have been so small now for over a decade. The last major gains were gapless microlenses and weaker CFAs (i.e. collecting more photons).
>i literally tested z5, z6ll, z7ll, r6, r6ll, s5 and a7iv outside the store before i bought my camera and the a7iv blew the shit out of all of them.No, it did not. picrel. The R6 and R6 mark II, btw, have two of the cleanest high ISO sensors around. It's not a major gain because again, shot noise. But at high ISO they even edge out the A7S bodies on e-noise.
