> Lower noise levels at high ISO are an advantage of FF. You are correct, except I don't like the way you said it. I think it is more accurate to say that full

> Lower noise levels at high ISO are an advantage of FF. You are correct, except I don't like the way you said it. I think it is more accurate to say that full frame has lower noise levels because they tend to be able to achieve the equivalent of lower ISO. In order to get equivalent ISO, you need to multiply it by the crop factor squared. (Squared because the sensor area is two dimensions.) So for MFT 2x crop factor, that means 4x. Which means a MFT sensor at 800 ISO has the same theoretical noise level across the frame as a FF sensor at 200 ISO. This is another area where the way we describe crop factor does a huge disservice to practical application. By pretending that smaller sensors are just cropped versions of larger sensors, we have to do a pile of stupid math in order to find equivalence. And it causes no end of pointless internet arguments. https://petapixel.com/2017/03/29/dispelling-myths-around-depth-field-crop-factor/ https://petapixel.com/2017/03/29/dispelling-myths-around-dep...