>>4232495ezpz, because they sample more light, everything else being equal.
DR figures are determined by the smallest amount of light the camera can sample before noise becomes too much*
If you have an overall larger area that you're gathering light from, then you're gathering more light.
If you're gathering more light you have more light compared to the noise of the analog to digital conversion complex, everything else being equal.
>but since noise comes from the converters, shouldn't you have more noise with more converters (so more pixels, so a higher res sensor of the same size)?>bit since light is sampled by photosites (the sensitive part of each pixel on the sensor), shouldn't bigger photosites give you better DR since you get more light per converter, so more signal per the same amount of noise?Not quite; with higher res sensors you get less light per pixel, because each is smaller, but that pixel has to sample information from a smaller area, so the noise generated in that pixel will affect a smaller area, so it will be smaller compared to the whole picture.
As an upside you also get a higher resolution, but as a downside everything gets more complicated to manufacture, so you have to either pay a hell of a lot of money (Phase One XF, Blackmagic URSA 12k) or compromise elsewhere (Panasonic S1R).
>but then how do some cinema cameras achieve such bit depths with relatively small sensors?High quality sensors and converters, too costly compared to the relatively small advantages to be used on consumer cameras like the Sony a7r line.
*what too much means varies depending on what criteria you use, which is why different sources may report different DR figures, visit CinemaD.
