OMD with more MP?

Started May 6, 2014 | Questions thread
Great Bustard Forum Pro • Posts: 38,500
Re: Actually...

Steve_ wrote:

Great Bustard wrote:

Steve_ wrote:

Smaller pixels result in "higher IQ" if the smaller pixels do not result in greater read noise per area on the photo ...

That's a pretty big if.

Not really. For example, the 16 MP EM5 has less read noise per area than the 12 MP EP3.

This is not a relevant statement.

I rather think it is. We have a sensor with more pixels that has less noise.

If the improved noise characteristics of the EM5 sensor were a result of its finer pixel pitch they would just have made those 12MP sensor 16 instead.

When they made it 12 MP, I'm thinking it's because that's as many as they could do at the time for the tech they were using.

Perhaps that is one reason the D800 doesn't sport anything like a .0026mm/pixel pitch.

For any given tech and sensor size, there is a "sweet spot" for pixel count, and this "sweet spot" is continuously moving towards larger and larger pixel counts with successive generations of sensors.

I have stated that higher resolutions and finer pixel pitches are possible due to improved sensor technology. Strangely enough you at that point flail away at the pixel-size dead horse, implying that nothing else has or will change and that read noise will somehow hold constant.

You'll have to link and quote were I said or implied any such thing, 'cause, well, I never said or implied it.

Now at this juncture you admit that other facets of sensor technology enable a particular pixel count (and thus pitch at the same sensor size). This is what I have been saying all along... Sensor technology is not currently sufficiently advanced as to permit the .0026mm/pixel pitch that results from a 32MP m43 sensor to produce adequate results.

As I said in a post above, if 20 MP is good for the RX100, then why aren't 40 MP of the same pixels good for mFT?

And I'd be surprised if its successor does, either. If I do the math correctly that would produce a 128MP solution.

The thing is, more pixels result in more resolution, regardless of the lens (of course, the sharper the lens, the more resolution you'll get). More resolution means more latitude for NR (noise reduction). So, even if more pixels are intrinsically more noisy, depending on how much more noisy, the greater pixel count will still result in more detail with the same or less noise with appropriate processing.

It's the 'depending on how much more noisy' part that has been understated in your comments. By the time you get to the pixel pitches proposed in this thread, the gains from the increase in sensor resolution will be swamped by the increase in noise, perhaps even at base ISO.

We can see that that the 12 MP Nikon Df and 16 MP Nikon D4s fare better at ISO 25600 than the Nikon D800 and Nikon D610:

This is likely due to the differences in pixel count. At lower ISOs, say ISO 1600 and below:

there isn't really much difference.  The question, then, is if the higher pixel count sensors resolve enough more detail than the lower pixel count sensors so that the judicious application of NR (Noise Reduction) does not leave the higher MP photo with the same or less noise for a given level of detail.

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