I remember that. I don't remember you winning.
Anyhow, one example doesn't prove a point, because sensors are designed things - it's not the case that each example exactly follows a rule. It seems to be the case that most image sensor design houses uses essentially the same pixel design (that is transistor layout) across a range of pixel sizes, just varying the 'photodiode' area. In that case the per-pixel read noise is the same across that range of sensors, which causes the higher pixel count ones to suffer from slight higher read noise, and thus a tad more noise apparent when the black level goes down below the read noise. As a general trend though it's very hard to demonstrate a systematic advantage for larger pixels.
2 years ago
810
Why are you interested in noise per pixel?
For less than the cost of popcorn you could always just go
www.photopills.com/articles/exposure-photography-guide
And be done with it near enough.
Danny.
I don’t care about noise per pixel. I care about noise at same print size.
Sorry, the "f" disappeared from my "If" and my proofreading also failed. :)
But, sometimes I want to produce an image 4500x3000 pixels and send it off to be printed. In this case, with low light, the pixels will appear less noisy if the sensor had larger pixels all else being equal.
I also remember when i compared a straight out of camera shot from my a7r2 and a 8 shot hi res shot 50 meg image from my em1mk2 again the a7r2 won easily.
also shooting extreme macro and stacking 70 images larger pixel again wins hands down. because your only stacking noise with smaller sensor and less pixel bleeding. again larger pixels stacked wins here as well.
That article contains nonsense. It says that ISO represents sensor sensitivity and explains how exposure triangle works.
Well you could probably get in touch with them and let them know.
Why did you recommend it?
I can recommend a lot more if you like. Problem is we would go back and forth like the rest of this thread and that's not going to happen. If you want to correct them, contact them and let them know. It's very easy to do.
My experience is that these sites tend to ignore that information. Haven't got in touch with that one yet, though.
Anyway, I posted thins in the comments at the bottom:It's awaiting approval, let's see if they do.
My problem is not with the article. There is so much disinformation out there anyway.
My beef is with you recommending it as an educational resource. Why mislead people?
Its easy in the field, smoother tonal graduations ,because the larger pixels has a higher level of voltage/charge accuracy that has to be read.
By and large smaller pixels have a higher voltage because they tend to have higher conversion gain. The 'smoother tonal graduations' bit is a myth. More small pixels captures more information about the scene that fewer big pixels.
my a6300 and my past em1mk2 tell a different story to yours.
did you ever see my 1/4 sensor 10meg a7r2 studio test shots against my em1mk2 20 meg images. that theory was totally a myth in detail and noise. the 1/4 sensor shot had a slight advantage on both counts.
There will be virtually no noise differences in prints made from same size, same technology, sensors with different pixel pitches, when all are downsampled to 4500x3000.
You are again conflating large pixels with large sensors.