for Nikon 1 V3 if we set the aperture to 5.6 not the "equivalent", then the ISO required should be roughly 3200 which is same as canon 1DX. when we look at the noise performance do we need to compare DOF as well ? For film camera, large format is superior in quality because the actual file is bigger, given same emulsion, for same print size large format is much better because it requires less enlarge ratio. To get a print size of 8x10, a 8x10 field camera just need to contact print, but you need to enlarge 35mm by about 53 times which is the same analogy as pixel size determines noise performance. you won't be able to see any grains on a 8x10 print from a 8x10 negative even they have the same emulsion and processing
p4 real world total light demonstration - again, if the 4 cameras are of similar MP count then of course the smaller the sensor the worse noise performance because each pixel is smaller. let's say a full frame sensor is 20MP then a MFT sensor of 5MP should give equivalent noise performance. Of course, a 20MP MFT is much worse than the full frame.
again pg 2 total lightsensor size is small so the "total" light capture is less than larger sensor because the sensor size is only 1/4 of the the larger sensor. It is like you are painting a small piece and a large piece, they look the same (quality, exposure) but you use less paint on the smaller piece i.e. you have same exposure same ISO same aperture on large or small sensor although the actual amount of light reaching the larger sensor is more because of it is physically bigger like you need more paint to paint a bigger piece. But noise performance still not because of just the sensor is bigger, it is the pixel size that determines. If we stitch 4 same pieces of small sensor together to get a bigger sensor, the noise performance is the same because pixel size has not changed
pg.2 And, because the more light you capture, the less noisy your image, this is key to why large sensors generally give better image quality than small ones.
I think larger sensor captures better image quality because given same number of pixels, pixel size on larger sensor is bigger thus able to hold more light giving better noise to signal ratio and not simply because you capture more light. We do not need to capture more than enough light for each frame, we need the right amount of light to give correct exposure regardless of sensor size ?
Would like to know more about the equivalent magnification of lens on different sensor size though, it is a bit confusing: a 50mm on MFT gives same angle of view as 100mm on full frame, what about the "actual" magnification like we want to capture distant objects with a long lens, if magnification is the same, then it is just a matter of cropping the frame then one should really considers using full frame if can afford 2 cameras in 1
85mm 5.6 lens and 42.5mm 2.8 with same diameter of aperture.... that's right because this is how the aperature value is defined.
A 85mm lens at 2.8 may capture 4 times as much light as 42.5mm at 2.8 but at the same time this light is distributed over 4 times as big an area so to each pixel of each respective sensor still get the same amount of light on it if exposed for same shutter speed, same iso and same "aperture".
It is not the same as saying the smaller sensor has to bring the brightness level up with less total light captured ?
I suppose a hazy day is a good choice. Sunny day may post huge even un-workable stitching problems ?
New if they can steer clear of this mess and instead to do a full frame (Sony R1X) with exotic Hassy lens, remove the AA filter ....