Pixel density - can the playing field be leveled???

Started Jun 6, 2009 | Discussions thread
ejmartin Veteran Member • Posts: 6,274
Re: [6/6] Myth busted: small pixels bad, 4 legs good - part 6

bushi wrote:

Daniel Browning wrote:

b) not that often that you are shooting in perfect light,

c) not that often that you are shooting in strong light, but without high dynamic range in the scene

and in both b) and c), the less dense sensors tends to perform much better than the high resolution ones.

I think you can make a good case for b), but c) is less obvious. For example, at any given spatial frequency, the LX3 has a full stop more dynamic range than the 5D2. D3X has half a stop more, though, IIRC.

..how could be? according to dxomark comparison, LX3 have a clear edge in both b) and c) over G10 (let's don't overcomplicate things and lets stick to the same size sensors/similar class cameras)

The LX3 beats the G10 by a good margin in read noise and pattern noise in the RAW data, which accounts for its substantially better SNR at a fixed scale:

http://forums.dpreview.com/forums/read.asp?forum=1033&message=29866728
http://www.naturescapes.net/phpBB3/viewtopic.php?f=2&t=141021&start=22

I don't think one can unequivocally attribute that better performance to lower pixel density, however, since the read noise per pixel is much lower with the LX3 (5.6 electrons for the LX3, 8.3 for the G10). Seems to me that Panasonic simply makes a better chip, independent of density.

-- hide signature --
Post (hide subjects) Posted by
cpw
cpw
Keyboard shortcuts:
FForum PPrevious NNext WNext unread UUpvote SSubscribe RReply QQuote BBookmark MMy threads
Color scheme? Blue / Yellow