In a post where I'm talking about necessary processing (where you claim there is none) to turn the ugly sensor data into workable forms you attempt to correct me to tell me that it needs to be processed (I mean, you are aware of libraw so clearly you're an expert. funfact: I worked for two years on a professional codebase that specifically dealt with raw sensor processing), as if to demonstrate my ignorance. Remarkable absence of self-awareness on your part.

Your reply could really be posted as a counterpoint to your own first post where you decided to counter my basic statement that all CMOS sensors have noise and abberations.

"and if you understood the physics of how a CMOS sensor works"

Just to be clear, your authoritative site shows the iPhone (the last generation) being less noisy than many SLRs. And it's fact that the iPhone 11 has 10 stops of dynamic range, before any special bracketing, which bests many/most SLRs on that site. And yet we're still going. Amazing

But your core "if you only understood CMOS...reeeeeeeee!" claim is one that is often erroneously made. "larger sensor = larger sensor pit pitch = better, less noisy sensor!" Right?

I mean, this argument has been made against smartphones for years. To assure us that they'll always be crap because...like...physics or something. Though anyone who didn't decide to die on a really stupid hill has long moved on.

But here's the reality-

a) There are enormous difference between different CMOS technologies and implementations. Sony, for instance, has shot ahead of everyone else (though they bin and segment). There are many SLRs and mirrorless cameras with absolute trash sensors. Cargo culting is ignorant.

b) Many cameras with larger sensors spend the benefit on higher resolutions. The Sony A7R IV subdivides the sensor into 5x more pixels than the iPhone 11 (the A7R IV being one of the absolute best). If that was lossless you could simply process it to a lower resolution and have the best of both worlds, but it isn't lossless -- the circuitry and structure to support that resolution is substantial. Each pit has its own lines and power and memory channel. And even if they didn't, noise scales with the sensor size.

"Give me a specific SLR in the last 4 years where either of these is true."

You've already segued effortlessly from noise to dynamic range, humorously, and now you're making a baseless, nonsensical statement just hoping that no one actually confirms it. Your intellectual sincerity in this discussion is somewhere approaching non-existent, so I'm out. Cheers.

Charitably, you are confused, and uncharitably you are lying or misleading.

I gave you a simple prompt where you could prove yourself right with a single camera model, and unsurprisingly you’ve failed to take advantage of it.

> And even if they didn't, noise scales with the sensor size.

These noise sources are completely dwarfed by poisson/shot noise (which is the completely overwhelming noise source on most modern SLRs for “everyday” photographs).

The iPhone’s FETs hold a lot fewer electrons. There is no way around this. And then with technology like Dr-pix present in modern Sony sensors (including the ones they sell to Fuji), the gap gets even wider.

Is that a command? Am I your monkey? I humored your site, noted that it didn't confirm your claims (again -- you didn't link this proof about noise, and when I used your site to demonstrate that you were incorrect...you segued to DR where you could enjoy that this site has a single obsolete smartphone).

Curious that you decided to get the last word in again. Your own proof is flawed.

But again, you claimed that every SLR in the past 4 years is "vastly" better. "Not even in the same ballpark". Your net evidence so far is that a $5000 camera body, which is known to have a class leading sensor, has better dynamic range than a two year old iPhone. "Hahahahaha".

And you're showing your ignorance by not realizing that noise is the main determinate of dynamic range.

Is there a correlation? Yup. Is it a strong correlation? It is not. And when the cited reference explicitly has noise measurements, when someone so carefully steers clear of it...yeah.