My fav is the 20 oz but i have lost my last one ,probally had it for 20 years but it was buggered anyway some leather was missing and just ran out of electrical tape to fix it πbut i mainly use a 12 oz timber handle atm because my hands are not real good.
just tried fixing my compressor but the windings are finally gone and not worth replaceing the motor that i doubt you could even buy today. so off shopping
for a new toy tomorrow π
I'm not 100% clear on what you're saying here. My guess is that you are saying smaller sensors add in less total electronic noise, so that if we have equivalent photos, the smaller sensor will produce a less noisy photo. If so, then your link does not support this hypothesis, as you used the D5 for the "FF representative", which is an older sensor, and one of the more noisy sensors, whereas you used the newest sensors for APS-C and mFT. If you instead use, say, the Z6II instead of the D5, and also normalize the display size (i.e., photo for photo as opposed to pixel for pixel), you'll see negligible difference between them.
Thanks for that pointer; the D5 was still at the cutting edge of low visible pre-gain read noise per unit of sensor area last time I compared FF sensors in the tool. I had no idea that the Z6-II had surpassed it. The D5 is still slightly better than any FF from Canon at ISO 102.4K.
The reasons I go with pixels with 1.4x, 2x, 2.8 pixel pitch ratios, etc, and use 1:1 pixels when I can is because there is no resampling biases, and converters generally have NR proportional to light per pixel, since people tend to inspect at the pixel level.
A better approach might be to convert with something neutral, like one of the libraw products, and resample, but there is no online tool that does that automatically that can be linked to.