What really makes big sensors produce more appealing images? *Serious*

Started Mar 13, 2014 | Discussions thread
knickerhawk Veteran Member • Posts: 5,159
Re: What really makes big sensors produce more appealing images? *Serious*

69chevy wrote:

knickerhawk wrote:

Someone like me, eh? You smoked me and my fellow exposure-truthers out. Well done...

Not calling you a truther and not trying to put you in a box.

When I said that it was a bad decision to word it the way I did.

Fair enough.

I meant someone who will pick apart an easy to understand explanation just to boast their own intelligence by complicating it.

I'm not interested in complicating it at all and, lord knows, I have no business trying to lead the charge on technical aspects of sensor design and the like. I'm no engineer or anything remotely close to it and I usually just end up tripping over my own shoelaces and establishing my ignorance on this stuff. However, what I am trying to do is raise awareness about an issue which has been grossly oversimplified to the point of becoming a meme on this site and elsewhere on the internet and that's this notion that bigger pixels are better! There are a number of far better qualified experts over on the Photo Science and Technology forum to work through this issue, if you'd like to learn more and can explain it better than I could hope to. Here's a link that I found helpful but be forewarned - it is complicated stuff involving multiple variables. The author is a physicist at the Fermi Lab and a professor at the University of Chicago. He also sometimes post here at DPReview but not much anymore. Check out the last section, it doesn't require an understanding of the math involved to understand that interaction between pixel size and SNR is a complicated and not as simple as you seem to think it is:


A person I admire once said something to the tune of.. If you can't explain it to a child, you don't understand it.

It's not explaining things to children that's hard. It's getting past adults' biases, assumptions, habits, etc. that makes for tough slogging.

Yet you seem eager to shoot holes in the simple explanation just to start an argument.

Perhaps, but it takes two to tango and you've got some pretty good dance moves, yourself!

Can you admit that a larger sensor interacts with more photons regardless of pixel count?

Can you admit photography is accomplished by these interactions?

"Interacts" is a vague term. Why can't we work with better defined terms like signal-to-noise ratio, dynamic range, and sensor efficiency? In the long run, there's less argument when the parties take the time to define their terms.

Now does it make sense?

I didn't spell check this reply. How many spelling errors are about to be pointed out?

I thought we were done with the cheapshots.

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