In article , Whisky-dave
wrote:


Great way to snip out the other example that illustrates the
difference, troll. What you snipped:

FF: 1/250, f5.6, ISO 800
MFT: 1/250, f5.6, ISO 800

The above is the exact same
*exposure*, but with different signal amplification,

How do you know what signal amplification is being applied, you
don't.

Simple math and observed result.

Sandman:
the smaller sensor needs to amplify the signal more than the FF
sensor to present an equally bright image.

No it does NOT.

Incorrect.

Sandman:
FF: 1/250, f5.6, ISO 800
MFT: 1/250, f2.8, ISO 200

wrong.

Incorrect.

Sandman:
The above is the same *amount of light* on the sensor, which
creates as identical image as possible using different sensor
technologies. Also, you adjust the ISO by the crop factor squared
to match the signal amplification of the larger sensor, so you
will get very equivalent noise.

You're talking bull****.

Incorrect.

Take a sensor full frame cut it in two. They don;t halve in
sensitivity because you've cut it in two !

Since the photosites remain the same size, but will generate a photo with half
the fidelity (resolution) instead of more noise.

MFT sensors aren't one fourth the resolution of a FF sensor. Simple physics,
simple math.

Sensor size has NOTHING to do with the ISO rating.

Whoosh.

--
Sandman