Yikes! The rumored Nikon D800.

Started Oct 5, 2011 | Discussions thread
OP Great Bustard Forum Pro • Posts: 42,718
Debunking the myth

x-vision wrote:

isn't there really no advantage of larger pixels over smaller ones concerning realisation of best IQ from lowest to highest iso ?

Sure there is: larger pixels have better low-light ability and larger dymamic range than smaller pixels (which, of course, come at the expense of resolution).

Here's a recent article on the subject:


And here's a quote from the author of the Image Sensors blog, posted as a comment to the article (emphasis is mine):

  • One trade-off in 4T pixel design is between the read noise and the full well ...

The people who argue that more pixels is always better are the same ones who don't understand the inherent trade-off between resolution and low-light ability/DR.

Note the very first reply to the article you linked by Daniel Browning. He goes into more detail why this is wrong in the most bookmarked post in the Open Talk Forum:


The simply fact of the matter is that large pixels have no IQ advantage whatsoever over small pixels, and, in fact, quite the opposite. This has be demonstrated with actual photos time and time again:





The reason people think larger pixels give better IQ, is because they compare, for example, one 2x2 pixel against one 1x1 pixel, rather than one 2x2 pixel against four 1x1 pixels.

This failure to compare at the same enlargement results in completely incorrect conclusions and perpetuates the myth that larger pixels are "better".

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