How to get the best raw exposure, part 2

Larger sensors have more DR only if you can give them more light.

They have more DR if you give them the same number of photons per unit area, but there are sometimes reasons why you can't -- or don't want to -- do that.

Practically, taking full advantage of larger sensors means longer exposures at equivalent apertures. Twas ever thus, even in the film days.

Red plastic isn't a problem, unless it's fluorescent. Red flowers are the problem.
[/quote]

i think you buggered up your copy and pastes and qutoes. gets me all the time as well.

Yes. On the other hand …
When shooting handheld, in low light, the slowest possible shutter speed is fixed, regardless of sensor size. This means that with equivalent apertures and at lower light (handheld), contrary to conventional wisdom, larger sensors do not have an advantage. Correct?

Correct, except, possibly the "contrary to conventional wisdom" part. All the photographers I know well don't buy into what you're calling conventional wisdom.

Assumes facts not in evidence:

blog.kasson.com/the-last-word/format-size-and-image-quality/

Bigger pixels win ,nothing more to say on the subject.

They do not. Today, full well capacities are running around 3000 electrons per square micrometer regardless of pixel size.

I shot with m43 for 5 years professionally and now sony FF for 3 years. i could post many (1000 of in studio portraits , but not to offend M43 users
i will keep the outcome to my self.
BTW i won a debate on this same subject years ago with the sony a7s3 and s2 when no one picked up the s3 was a 48meg sensor 😁

Sounds like you are not comparing pixel sizes. You are comparing sensor sizes.

BTW i won a debate on this same subject years ago with the sony a7s3 and s2 when no one picked up the s3 was a 48meg sensor 😁

I should have used the term “myth” instead of the sarcastic “conventional wisdom.”
It s very common to read the claim that larger sensors are better for low light. That is true only in certain conditions (possibility of longer exposures or non-equivalent apertures).

When using the same technology and comparing at the same output size, same sensor size, bigger pixels do not have an advantage. You can try it out on DPR studio scene.

Do I understand that you are writing about full well per sensor area and not full well per photo site?

Photo sites per sensor area would make no difference if only interested in sensor area?

But, crop sensor with more photo sites per area than full size sensor at the same pixel resolution would have more visible noise than full size sensor?

If only interested in sensor area, then larger sensor wins. I interested in noise per pixel, pixel size wins.

Look up sony a7s3 48meg sensor binned to 12 and the sony a7s2 straight 12 meg large pixel on DXOmark. the s2 blows the s3 away.