A few words on Equivalence and comparing systems

Started Apr 2, 2013 | Discussions thread
klopus
Regular MemberPosts: 308Gear list
Like?
Re: Still 'tis not so.
In reply to Great Bustard, Apr 3, 2013

Great Bustard wrote:

klopus wrote:

Great Bustard wrote:

Indeed.  If we took a photo at 100mm f/2.8 on FF, and cropped it to the same framing as a photo taken at 100mm f/2.8 on mFT, the photos would be equivalent (although the mFT photo would be more detailed since the sensor has a higher pixel density and the lens is sharper).\

Is it true that higher pixel density always makes for more detail?

All else equal, yes.

By that logic any tiny sensor point-n-shoot at same ISO will always be more detailed than mFT not speaking of FF. In reality for smaller and noisy pixels any theoretical extra density detail (plus good chunk of base detail) will be destroyed by noise that those small but low "quality" pixels produce.

Different sensor sizes.  For a given sensor size, lens, AA filter, scene, and settings, etc., more pixels will always record more detail.  How much more detail, however, depends on many factors.

Yes, sure, for the same sensor size. But in your original quote (see above) you were comparing FF and mFT sensors which are vastly of different size. So you already seem to contradict yourself.

Assuming same pixel count pixel density of mFT sensor will be higher. It's really questionable if at equivalent ISOs (especially high ones) this will really lead to more detail given how much smaller and thus noisier mFT pixels are vs FF pixels.

-- hide signature --
 klopus's gear list:klopus's gear list
Panasonic Lumix DMC-GF1
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