Sorry, doesn't apply unless you're talking about a star like
point-source of something that's representing less than a film grain

It does too "apply" that's what me and everybody else here is taking
about.

Sirius is so freaking big and bluish/violet bright that Hubble can
not
come close to photographing such without extensively over-saturating
it's CCD at using the shortest possible scan or exposure, whereas a
wussy terrestrial camera and telephoto lens works just perfectly fine
and dandy (would you like to see?).

1 No, I would not like to see.
2 Sirius is not all that bright, yes it is the brightest star in the
sky, next to our Sun, but compared to our Sun or Moon it is not very
bright, this is what I am trying to tell you.
3 Try having Hubble take a picture of Sirius with something bright in
the same field of view, something BRIGHT, something that produces about
2000 lumens, about what the surface of the Moon is like WHEN you are
standing on it, not from 240,000 miles away.
4 This is what we've been trying to tell you and I do not understand
why you cannot accept this concept.
There are many instances of overexposed and underexposed pictures taken
everyday, why do you seem to think this cannot be done on the Moon ??

It is the difference in brightness between one object and another like
I have said many times now as well as others, that is key.
This is also why there are no stars in the photos on the Shuttle, do
you think they are still in conspiracy mode ??
It is simply because of one object being very bright (2000 lumens) like
a space suited astronaut vs. a star with .000001 lumen.

That's it !! 2000 vs. .000001 , you figure it out.