final nail in the coffin for me a93

i know people dont like talking about it because everything else is equal and they have no come back to testing inaccuracies.
mention the sony a7s2 vers the a7s3 and its a big we better go now 🤣 if you dont know your cameras the a7s2 is 12 large pixels and the a7s3 is 48 small
binned into 12 so the s2 flogs the s3 in low light performance.

HAND.

the top hi mag microscopes use 5 meg sensors

HAND.

You can isolate diffraction, and look for diffraction as the thing you want to avoid most, and in that context, hiding the diffraction is easily done with larger pixels, which remove all fine detail, both wanted and unwanted and lowers the quality of sampling. What is the point, though? In the end, your final display size will determine how much diffraction could be visible if all capture was analog, spatially, and having more pixelation is not going to make the result be any more detailed, and you always have multiple ways of increasing the size of the circle of confusion at the point of display. The same poor logic occurs where people use bigger pixels to hide fine noise, or camera or subject motion blur, or imprecise AF, or aberration.

You don't even realize how silly your post is. The part you quoted is from a misinformed third person. Jim Kasson's article explains why that misinformed third person's idea is wrong.

This is Jim's one-sentence summary (which is exactly what everyone here except you already knows):

"But the bottom line for the X1D diffraction claim that led off this post is that increasing the resolution of the sensor with the same ratio of pitch to pixel aperture won’t make the effects of diffraction any worse in the capture at the same print size."

Couple of things, Don. First up is that whatever the diameter the Airy Disk is, the more pixels that sample it, the more resolution you will have. Of course, this resolution increase is absolutely subject to diminishing returns, but it is always an increase.

Not sure what you meant to say, here -- f/16 on FF is equivalent to f/8 on mFT or, alternatively, f/45 on FF is equivalent to f/22 on mFT. Now, about that with regards to diffraction -- yes, the size of the Airy Disk is decided solely by the f-number (and wavelength), but the proportion of the photo that the Airy Disk covers, and thus its effect on the resolution of the photo, is also proportional to the sensor size. So, while the Airy Disk is the same size at, say, f/16 on both FF and mFT, the Airy Disk spans half as much of the photo on FF as on mFT. So, if FF were to use f/32, the Airy Disk would have twice the diameter, and thus span the same proportion of the photo as f/16 on mFT.

Regardless of the equivalence, the point is that the more pixels that sample the image projected on the sensor by the lens, the more resolution you will have (all else equal), but this resolution increase is subject to diminishing returns based on the conditions of the photo (e.g. motion blur, diffraction, lens sharpness, etc.).

why do people skip my posts ? can we also stay on subject eg .microscope objectives.

Quote: Although it seems counter-intuitive, higher magnification objectives actually require fewer pixels. In fact, if you are working at a higher magnification, the optical system is limited to about 3–5 Megapixels that can be transferred to the sensor of a camera. Therefore, if you go out and purchase that 20 Megapixel camera hoping to maximize clarity, know that the “extra pixels” will have NO EFFECT on the resolution of the image, while negatively impacting speed, capacity and sensitivity. However, for lower magnification, a higher pixel count will capture more detail from your microscope.

microscopecentral.com/pages/choosing-a-microscope-camera-what-to-look-for

HAND.

Do I really have to spell it out? 😁

Sure. How are they different from camera lenses with regards to resolution, light transmission, and diffraction?

There may be little to no advantage with regards to resolution in such a diffraction limited scenario, but more pixels absolutely DO NOT reduce resolution. Furthermore, yes, more pixels may negatively impact frame rate, but they DO NOT result in less capacity or sensitivity. That is, four 1x1 pixels records the same amount of light as one 2x2 pixel.

Where does it say that more smaller pixels results in less resolution, all else equal?

If you think that equivalence does not apply to microscope cameras, I have no further comment.

I had a chat with GPT 4: I asked:

"It is known that regular cameras use the term "equivalence" when lenses for different sensor sizes are being being discussed. For example, a lens setting of f/16 in full frame size is said to be equivalent to f/8 in micro-four-thirds size. Does "equivalence" also apply to microscope cameras?"

It offered me two responses. I chose:

Sorry, Alan, too late - I've already exited from that page ...

Is a microscope camera the same as a full frame ILC with a 10x lens attached?

Good question. I have no idea, sorry.

Maybe Donald knows ...

all you guys no more than me, so go take a detailed image at 10x with your m43 sensor and post them to prove your point 😊🤔 otherwise end of conversation.

Idiot.