How to get the best raw exposure, part 2

Cropped, not down sampled. It is difficult to get closer to the bird. Other than that, I agree.

Not true. There is no reason to think that larger pixels have higher saturation voltages. It is true that larger pixels can store more charge, but that advantage disappears for same size sensors when the images are downsampled to the same print size.

They have higher voltage per unit charge for that reason, but I don't know of a reason why they should have higher saturation voltage, all else equal.

You are comparing sensors of different sizes.

We're talking same sized sensors, right? So if you crop to x by y mm, you'll have more pixels with the sensor with the finer pixel pitch, and you'll have to downsample to get it to the same pixel size as the sensor with the coarser pixel pitch.

Part 3, pixel shift and stacking, do they help? Or that's multi-exposure and not exposure?

No. But you are correct for the context you give.

I never intend to crop to a given area of the sensor in mm. I have a sensor. I plan to crop to 4500x3000 pixels. The print service offers to print 4500x3000 pixels at some arbitrary size. If the print service downsamples, then I get a smaller commission. I do not choose a different sensor when I see a bird. The noise per pixel matters. It would not matter if the bird would let me get closer, because then I could downsample and the noise would be less visible. It would not matter if the bird would pose on a sunny branch instead of one in the shade. (Some of the birds are difficult models and will not follow direction :) )

Cropping to 4500x3000 pixels on my EOS R5 appears less noisy than cropping to 4500x3000 pixels on my EOS 80D when using the same lens in the same light with the bird at the same distance. The bird occupies a little more of the frame with the EOS 80D. The pixels on my EOS R5 are larger than those on my EOS 80D and are also newer technology.

blog.kasson.com/gfx-100s/fujifilm-gx-100s-pixel-shift-dynamic-range/

With the same focal length lens, the field of view is determined by the dimensions of the crop in either sensor. For a fine pitch sensor and a coarse pitch sensor of the same physical size, cropped to the same physical dimensions, the number of pixels in the field of view will be larger in the fine pitch sensor, and the image will need to be downsampled to have the same field of view as the same crop with the coarse pitch sensor.

So the photon noise SNR in the two prints will be the same.

I don't understand that.

Once again, you are correct given the context you specify. Thanks.

Cropping to the same number of pixels will result in a different field of view. The same bird on the same branch with the same illumination, larger pixels will have less visible noise when cropped to the same number of pixels and the field of view will also change. (so the image will be cropped differently to get the same number of pixels and attempt to make the image pleasing. Two different images. No attempt to get the same image from two different cameras.)

Your context is not the only one used.

Yes, that's what I'm talking about.

And yet you keep reading and participating in this thread :-D

If you need to be taken seriously you need to practise what you preach:-)

So far you are not.

So in what sense are coarse pitches better than fine pitches?

The print service pays me a commission based upon the materials and size the customer orders plus a fixed commission that I specify.

A recent sale was either fineartamerica.com/featured/stairway-4315-john-moyer.html or fineartamerica.com/featured/glenveagh-national-park-4335-john-moyer.html and I would have chosen the first crop instead of the second, but the customer chose the second.

The customer may choose a different crop than I would have chosen.

fineartamerica.com/saleannouncement.html?id=72cdf6efafc25a6f8b66d989a5784d55

The physical size of the print, not the number of pixels in each dimension, right?

That's very interesting Jim. I might try this with the Sony 60mp sensor in that case. Impressive work. That GX sensor in also very impressive!

Danny.

This assuming same technology level. For the same number of pixels, the coarse pitch does better in low light.

Either coarse or fine pitches have advantages. I coarse pitch shows less noise per pixel at the same low illumination level. A fine pitch shows more noise per pixel and also more detail. A fine pitch on a smaller sensor costs less than a coarse pitch on a larger sensor and the larger sensor might require a more costly and heavier lens.