Bigger pixels = Less noise... explain?

Started Oct 21, 2011 | Discussions thread
Andre Affleck
Senior MemberPosts: 2,025
Like?
Re: Erik Fossum toughts on the question
In reply to Steen Bay, Oct 22, 2011

Steen Bay wrote:

ejmartin wrote:

Andre Affleck wrote:

ejmartin wrote:

You gave a marketing pamphlet. I gave you DxOmark data (analyzed by sensorgen.org) showing that G10 pixels smaller by a linear factor of five than those of the D3s nevertheless have the same quantum effiiciency and higher saturation density.

So its clear that the light gathering capability of the two is comparable as the data suggests. What about noise? Since most of us are concerned with low light performance isn't the read noise more relevant than shot noise in this case? The data suggests that G10 is still higher than the D3s but I think it is reporting pixel level noise. What would the aggregate noise have to be to match the D3s?

Min Read Noise (e-)

G10: 7.1
D3s: 2.8

Yeah, there the D3s wins big; the fair comparison is to multiply the read noise by the pixel spacing, so the D3s is 7.1/2.8*8.4/1.7~12.5 times better.

But if we compare the G12 and D3s at iso100, then things look a bit different. The G12 read noise is 4.1 e- and it's 25.6 e- for the D3s. The D3s pixels are app. 4.2x larger (linear) and 4.2 x 4.1 e- = 17.2 e- (vs. 25.6 e-), meaning that the G12 sensor wins (per area) at iso100.

No one is concerned with low ISO noise though. The concern is in high ISO performance.

Reply   Reply with quote   Complain
Post (hide subjects)Posted by
Keyboard shortcuts:
FForum PPrevious NNext WNext unread UUpvote SSubscribe RReply QQuote BBookmark post MMy threads
Color scheme? Blue / Yellow