As far as I have read, it is generally considered reasonable to expose until you are background limited, so that the signal from the sky background swamps the readout noise to such an extent that even faint structures stand out from it. So far so good. I understand this quite well, and I get it right in the application.
But now I had a thought yesterday. If the signal should be much stronger than the readout noise, in order to lift weak details from it, shouldn't the signal also be much stronger than the conversion noise?
On my 200d, the readout noise at ISO 800 is 2.85 e-. According to the overview here, the conversion noise of the 200d is 2.6DN (I assume this is an average of all ISO values. Does anyone know more?), which corresponds to 20.8 e- at ISO 800. Wouldn't this conversion noise then actually have to be added to the readout noise, and exposed until the signal is significantly stronger than the sum of these two values? Or am I grossly wrong in my understanding?
If that were the case, then the exposure time until I am background limited would increase by a factor of roughly 10, which would drive up the exposure time considerably.
A small remark at the end: I know that you don't get exact values calculated this way, but only guide values. But that is not my point here. In practice, of course, the photographer still makes the picture.
I hope you can help me a bit with my understanding here.
Kind regards and CS