"Less Megapixels = Better Color"...

57even wrote:

stevo23 wrote:

57even wrote:

tokumeino wrote:

57even wrote:

[...]

If you downsize the files to the same size (either in pixels or print size) the noise level will be more or less identical. It doesn't matter how big the pixels are, only how much light you collect over the whole sensor, or per sq m of the final image.

More small pixels collect the same amount of light as fewer large ones.

Bit-depth is only relevant to DR.

Just look at the SNR data on DXO.

Not beeing an expert, this makes sense to me, especially now that the circuitery between photosites doesn't eat as much sensor space as before, and now that there are microlenses to collect light all over the surface.

I can imagine that with a high density, more photosites will provide random values, but in that case, more accurate photosites will be in the closest neighborhood to provide an adequate value, provided the demosaicing/photosite-level-NR algorithm is not stupid and can more or less sort between random and accurate photosites.

The real problem when photosites get very small (ie Phone cameras) is that the photodiodes have to be shallower. Light absorption is highest at the surface, but longer wavelengths penetrate further. When you get down to depths like 2microns, you lose some of the red signal so colour accuracy is affected.

But visible light is in the sub-micron / nanometer range. Why wouldn't red be able to penetrate?

It does - it goes right through the active region of the photodiode without being detected. That's the problem.

I'm kind of missing the point then. How is shallower an issue?

How much of an issue it is I am not sure, but phone cameras have much worse SMI (sensitivity metamerism index) than larger sensors, ie worse colour accuracy.