Who need Nikon F1 When there is NEX and Micro 4/3

Started Sep 21, 2011 | Discussions thread
sensibill Veteran Member • Posts: 5,402
Re: Pixel size is misunderstood.

sacundim wrote:

sensibill wrote:

"Why does one care about how big the pixels are? A larger pixel has more light-gathering area, which means the light signal is stronger over a given interval of time.

This usually results in an improved signal to noise ratio (SNR), which createsa smoother and more detailed image. Furthermore, the dynamic range of the images (range of light to dark which the camera can capture without becoming either black or clipping highlights) also increases with larger pixels. This is because each pixel well can contain more photons before it fills up and becomes completely white."


There is a lot of misinformation about pixel size floating around, and you just copypasted some of it.

The size of the pixels doesn't tell you anything in isolation of the size of the sensor and the number of the pixels. Smaller pixels are "worse," but at the same time more pixels are better. For a fixed sensor size, the question is whether the improvement from the increased pixel count makes up for the extra noise from the smaller pixel size. And historically, the trend is that it has.

I wasn't citing that example in 'isolation of sensor size' and without contrary data, I don't see any rebuttal of the article regarding larger pixels. Notice I didn't mention read noise per unit of measurement independent of sensor size.

I've yet to see any article or thesis citing that pixel size is irrelevant to the variables mentioned here. Density of the sensor as the only significant factor is what I was refuting.

 sensibill's gear list:sensibill's gear list
Nikon 1 J1 Sony a7 II
Post (hide subjects) Posted by
(unknown member)
Keyboard shortcuts:
FForum PPrevious NNext WNext unread UUpvote SSubscribe RReply QQuote BBookmark MMy threads
Color scheme? Blue / Yellow