Are bigger pixels less noisy?

Started 5 months ago | Discussions
(unknown member) Forum Member • Posts: 61
Re: Quantum efficiency and signal to noise ratio

As you were not in front of the actual scene let me assure you what you see is the real thing.
find a way for me to send you the raw just to see with your own eyes.

J A C S
J A C S Forum Pro • Posts: 19,299
Re: Quantum efficiency and signal to noise ratio

Nick Zochios wrote:

As you were not in front of the actual scene let me assure you what you see is the real thing.
find a way for me to send you the raw just to see with your own eyes.

Copy it to Google Drive, Dropbox, iCloud, etc., share it, and post a link here.

photonut2008
photonut2008 Veteran Member • Posts: 6,382
Re: Quantum efficiency and signal to noise ratio
2

Nick Zochios wrote:

Yeap! Please use the old 80 bucks lens (28-105) that i used for my own shot and then come back to tell us what you found.;-)

I have no interest in what you think of your outdated camera and cheap lens. The image quality won't come close to what I want, at any ISO or of any photographically interesting subject/scene. Your test shot merely illustrates the ugly artifacts you consider acceptable and even weirdly pleasing in the pursuit of a noise-free photo of a piece of trash.

-- hide signature --

DPR, where gear is king and photography merely a jester

 photonut2008's gear list:photonut2008's gear list
Nikon D800 Nikon D500 Nikon AF-S Nikkor 70-200mm f/2.8G ED VR Nikon AF-S Teleconverter TC-14E II Nikon AF Nikkor 105mm f/2D DC +16 more
alanr0 Senior Member • Posts: 2,472
Image quality vs Subject quality
1

Nick Zochios wrote:

As you were not in front of the actual scene let me assure you what you see is the real thing.

I am prepared to believe that it accurately represents the original scene, although some of the detail is rather contrasty with similar characteristics to sharpening artefacts.

If that is the case, you have chosen a subject with minimal surface texture and poorly defined printed characters on the bottle.   Most of the scene is out of focus, but It is not unusual to get somewhat soft edges and non-uniform ink density with low quality printing onto a PET substrate.  This need not reflect on your choice of lens or camera.

find a way for me to send you the raw just to see with your own eyes.

There are various image and file sharing services.   A simple way to share raw files is to open a free DropBox account and publish a link. You can do this without granting access to other content in your account.

-- hide signature --

Alan Robinson

bodeswell Regular Member • Posts: 382
Re: Quantum efficiency and signal to noise ratio

photonut2008 wrote:

Nick Zochios wrote:

Yeap! Please use the old 80 bucks lens (28-105) that i used for my own shot and then come back to tell us what you found.;-)

I have no interest in what you think of your outdated camera and cheap lens. The image quality won't come close to what I want, at any ISO or of any photographically interesting subject/scene. Your test shot merely illustrates the ugly artifacts you consider acceptable and even weirdly pleasing in the pursuit of a noise-free photo of a piece of trash.

Wow! Perhaps this thread will be locked soon. Too bad, because the original question never got a clear answer.

The original question was whether "bigger pixels" were "less noisy". Apparently the answer is "it depends".

 bodeswell's gear list:bodeswell's gear list
Canon EOS 90D Canon EOS R Canon EOS R5 Canon EF 135mm F2L USM Canon EF 200mm f/2.8L II USM +4 more
Iliah Borg Forum Pro • Posts: 28,679
Re: Quantum efficiency and signal to noise ratio

bodeswell wrote:

The original question was whether "bigger pixels" were "less noisy". Apparently the answer is "it depends".

What is "less noisy"? Pixels, image?

What are you comparing, one big pixel to several smaller pixels on its place? Something else?

How do you define "noisy"?

"It depends" without an explanation of the terms and factors (and analysis of dominant trends) is hardly ever an answer.

-- hide signature --
ahaslett
ahaslett Veteran Member • Posts: 8,861
Re: Quantum efficiency and signal to noise ratio

Iliah Borg wrote:

bodeswell wrote:

The original question was whether "bigger pixels" were "less noisy". Apparently the answer is "it depends".

What is "less noisy"? Pixels, image?

What are you comparing, one big pixel to several smaller pixels on its place? Something else?

How do you define "noisy"?

"It depends" without an explanation of the terms and factors (and analysis of dominant trends) is hardly ever an answer.

See OP’s response to my question of 6 days ago.

You need to define the photographic context as well, which might include what you mean by noisy in the image you are trying to make.

Andrew

-- hide signature --

Infinite are the arguments of mages. Truth is a jewel with many facets. Ursula K LeGuin
Please feel free to edit any images that I post

 ahaslett's gear list:ahaslett's gear list
Sigma DP1 Merrill Sigma DP3 Merrill Olympus E-M1 Sony a7R Panasonic Lumix DMC-GM1 +29 more
gardenersassistant Veteran Member • Posts: 8,962
A comparison of ISO 100 with/without NR to ISO 8000 with NR
4

alanr0 wrote:

Nick Zochios wrote:

What i posted is an iso 8000, without any editing, from an old technology camera which is has a usable limit of around 3200-4000 (the most)

How do you define "usable limit" in this context?

Now at iso 8000, It has very little noise due to great software.
That's the fact. Either like it or not! (tbh i don't care

As far as I can tell, nobody is denying that noise can be reduced in software. There are questions as to how well it can be done without destroying texture and image detail, but we don't have anything to compare against at this stage.

I did a comparison test using the processing that Nick Zochios used.

Here is the scene.

I used a Sony A7ii with Sigma 105 macro using f/8, on a tripod using a 10 second timer and image stabilisation off. I captured two raw files, one using ISO 100 and one using ISO 8000. The raw files are available here at Dropbox.

I loaded the raw files into Lightroom. Apart from setting the white balance from the ColorChecker Passport, I made no changes to the default settings. This means that some sharpening was applied and some colour noise reduction, but no luminance noise reduction.

I exported the ISO 100 image to JPEG, using default output sharpening.

I exported both images to 16 bit uncompressed TIFF and used DeNoise AI with Auto settings.

Here are some comparison screenshots from Faststone Image Viewer at 100%, with the ISO 100 JPEG out of Lightroom on the left, the ISO 100 out of DeNoise AI in the middle and the ISO 8000 out of DeNoise AI on the right.

Comparison 1. The Lightroom JPEG looks softer than the DeNoise ISO 100 image, but the DeNoise AI has edge artefacts. These artefacts look minor compared to the noise-like artefacts in the DeNoise ISO 8000 image. See for example the bottom left patch of the ColorChecker Passport.

Comparison 2. The DeNoise AI ISO 100 image shows the weave all across the cushion. The Lightroom ISO 100 image shows some of the weave, less clearly. The DeNoise ISO 8000 version doesn't show any of the weave.

Comparison 3. The shadows don't look particularly noisy to me in any of the images. However, the large scale print on the right hand battery in the DeNoise ISO 8000 image  is extremely poorly rendered compared to the other two images.

Comparison 4. The issue with the weave is repeated. Much more striking though is the area to the left of the woman's eyes, where all detail has been lost in the DeNoise ISO 8000 image. The other two images both have a good amount of detail in that area.

Comparison 5. This comparison illustrates both loss of detail and, on the battery, noise-like artefacts, but it also shows a loss of colour in the reversed UK Pound sign and the surrounding dark area to the left of the Queen's head.

bodeswell Regular Member • Posts: 382
Re: Quantum efficiency and signal to noise ratio

Iliah Borg wrote:

bodeswell wrote:

The original question was whether "bigger pixels" were "less noisy". Apparently the answer is "it depends".

What is "less noisy"? Pixels, image?

What are you comparing, one big pixel to several smaller pixels on its place? Something else?

How do you define "noisy"?

"It depends" without an explanation of the terms and factors (and analysis of dominant trends) is hardly ever an answer.

Yes, you are right. The original question as posed does not admit of a straightforward answer. That's why I said "it depends".

 bodeswell's gear list:bodeswell's gear list
Canon EOS 90D Canon EOS R Canon EOS R5 Canon EF 135mm F2L USM Canon EF 200mm f/2.8L II USM +4 more
photonut2008
photonut2008 Veteran Member • Posts: 6,382
Re: Quantum efficiency and signal to noise ratio
1

bodeswell wrote:

photonut2008 wrote:

Nick Zochios wrote:

Yeap! Please use the old 80 bucks lens (28-105) that i used for my own shot and then come back to tell us what you found.;-)

I have no interest in what you think of your outdated camera and cheap lens. The image quality won't come close to what I want, at any ISO or of any photographically interesting subject/scene. Your test shot merely illustrates the ugly artifacts you consider acceptable and even weirdly pleasing in the pursuit of a noise-free photo of a piece of trash.

Wow! Perhaps this thread will be locked soon.

Seems more likely to reach 150 posts, and practically all of them unnecessary. "Nick Zochias" replies are non-sequitur "contributions."

Too bad, because the original question never got a clear answer.

I beg to differ. I think the question was mostly answered with the very first reply.

The original question was whether "bigger pixels" were "less noisy". Apparently the answer is "it depends".

See the first answer to the OP. I think the caveats to that are summed up nicely here (read the entire text of this post).

-- hide signature --

DPR, where gear is king and photography merely a jester

 photonut2008's gear list:photonut2008's gear list
Nikon D800 Nikon D500 Nikon AF-S Nikkor 70-200mm f/2.8G ED VR Nikon AF-S Teleconverter TC-14E II Nikon AF Nikkor 105mm f/2D DC +16 more
(unknown member) Forum Member • Posts: 61
Re: Quantum efficiency and signal to noise ratio

Before you judge everyone's else shot. First Judge your red-potato look- moon (which btw is full of discoloration and blur) and come back here more relaxed and kind.

https://www.dpreview.com/galleries/7005520322/photos/4179134/_tb50501_01

(unknown member) Forum Member • Posts: 61
Re: Image quality vs Subject quality

Thanks a lo Alan.
This is the link to the NEF.
https://www.dropbox.com/s/dfmur4anndmjtud/NEF.NEF?dl=0

(unknown member) Forum Member • Posts: 61
Re: Quantum efficiency and signal to noise ratio
bodeswell Regular Member • Posts: 382
Re: Quantum efficiency and signal to noise ratio

photonut2008 wrote:

bodeswell wrote:

photonut2008 wrote:

Nick Zochios wrote:

Yeap! Please use the old 80 bucks lens (28-105) that i used for my own shot and then come back to tell us what you found.;-)

I have no interest in what you think of your outdated camera and cheap lens. The image quality won't come close to what I want, at any ISO or of any photographically interesting subject/scene. Your test shot merely illustrates the ugly artifacts you consider acceptable and even weirdly pleasing in the pursuit of a noise-free photo of a piece of trash.

Wow! Perhaps this thread will be locked soon.

Seems more likely to reach 150 posts, and practically all of them unnecessary. "Nick Zochias" replies are non-sequitur "contributions."

Too bad, because the original question never got a clear answer.

I beg to differ. I think the question was mostly answered with the very first reply.

The original question was whether "bigger pixels" were "less noisy". Apparently the answer is "it depends".

See the first answer to the OP. I think the caveats to that are summed up nicely here (read the entire text of this post).

Those are fine posts, and I read them when they were posted. The original question is subject to interpretation, though. See the first answer to the OP. It suggests an interpretation. The later, linked post is addressing a question not posed in the original post.

Is the original Canon EOS 1Ds "less noisy" than the 1Ds Mark iii because It has bigger pixels?

Or would the answer depend on various additional considerations?

 bodeswell's gear list:bodeswell's gear list
Canon EOS 90D Canon EOS R Canon EOS R5 Canon EF 135mm F2L USM Canon EF 200mm f/2.8L II USM +4 more
JahnG
OP JahnG Veteran Member • Posts: 3,340
Re: Quantum efficiency and signal to noise ratio

bodeswell wrote:

photonut2008 wrote:

bodeswell wrote:

photonut2008 wrote:

Nick Zochios wrote:

Yeap! Please use the old 80 bucks lens (28-105) that i used for my own shot and then come back to tell us what you found.;-)

I have no interest in what you think of your outdated camera and cheap lens. The image quality won't come close to what I want, at any ISO or of any photographically interesting subject/scene. Your test shot merely illustrates the ugly artifacts you consider acceptable and even weirdly pleasing in the pursuit of a noise-free photo of a piece of trash.

Wow! Perhaps this thread will be locked soon.

Seems more likely to reach 150 posts, and practically all of them unnecessary. "Nick Zochias" replies are non-sequitur "contributions."

Too bad, because the original question never got a clear answer.

I beg to differ. I think the question was mostly answered with the very first reply.

The original question was whether "bigger pixels" were "less noisy". Apparently the answer is "it depends".

See the first answer to the OP. I think the caveats to that are summed up nicely here (read the entire text of this post).

Those are fine posts, and I read them when they were posted. The original question is subject to interpretation, though. See the first answer to the OP. It suggests an interpretation. The later, linked post is addressing a question not posed in the original post.

Is the original Canon EOS 1Ds "less noisy" than the 1Ds Mark iii because It has bigger pixels?

Or would the answer depend on various additional considerations?

Thank you for your comments.

My actual questions in my first post were about pixel size, pixel count and sensor size, vs noise, SEE BELOW. And at the beginning of the post I asked whether it would be possible to have any consensus concerning my questions. I tried to ask the questions as clerly as I was able to, and I got excellent answers, so anyway not much problem for the experts to give excellent, detailed answers. So thank you to everybody.  (As often is the case, the headline was not the actuall full question(s))

  1. Is it possible to generally say that FF sensors with fewer and bigger ”pixels” are/ are not, less noisy (to any practical degree) than FF sensors with smaller ”pixels”. (Same for APSC sensors)
  2. Some DPR members also dispute whether FF sensors (regardless of pixel count ?) are less noisy (better for low light photography) than smaller sensors. One argument is that the existing difference in noisiness between FF cameras and small sensor cameras basically depends on the fact that small sensor cameras have smaller lenses and thus the lens collects less light. According to this FF sensors and smaller sensors would be equally noisy?"
 JahnG's gear list:JahnG's gear list
Canon PowerShot A650 IS Panasonic ZS100 Pentax K-r Pentax K100D Super Pentax K-S1
alanr0 Senior Member • Posts: 2,472
Canon 1Ds vs 1Ds Mk 3 - Noise & QE
2

bodeswell wrote:

photonut2008 wrote:

bodeswell wrote:

Too bad, because the original question never got a clear answer.

I beg to differ. I think the question was mostly answered with the very first reply.

The original question was whether "bigger pixels" were "less noisy". Apparently the answer is "it depends".

If you don't like "it depends", do you prefer "not always".

It is a complicated topic, but many of the factors on which "it depends" have been covered.  The OP appears to be satisfied with the responses to the original post and to his follow-up questions.

See the first answer to the OP. I think the caveats to that are summed up nicely here (read the entire text of this post).

Those are fine posts, and I read them when they were posted. The original question is subject to interpretation, though. See the first answer to the OP. It suggests an interpretation. The later, linked post is addressing a question not posed in the original post.

Is the original Canon EOS 1Ds "less noisy" than the 1Ds Mark iii because It has bigger pixels?

Or would the answer depend on various additional considerations?

Before asking "because", ask if it is "less noisy" in the first place.

Bill Claff has key parameters derived from DxO

Canon 1Ds (2002), 11 Mp, 8.8 µm pixels, input-referred noise 10.7 e-, FWC 40k, QE 17%

Canon 1Dsiii (2007), 21 Mp, 6.4 µm pixels, input-referred noise 5.0 e-, FWC 53k, QE 31%

At high ISO, the 1DsMk3 has less than half the per-pixel input-referred noise.  After down-sampling to 11 Mp, the quadrature-summed input noise would be around 7 e- rms, still considerably less than the 10.7 e- from the original 1Ds.

Furthermore the Mk3 has 1.8x higher quantum efficiency, so the photon noise standard deviation will be reduced by the square root of this factor (1.35x).

Comparison at lower ISO is less straightforward.  I don't have 1Ds results, but the 6 Mp APS-C Canon 10D released in 2003 appears to have broadly similar pixel properties.

https://www.photonstophotos.net/Charts/RN_e.htm#Canon%20EOS%2010D_12,Canon%20EOS%201Ds%20Mark%20III_14,Canon%20EOS%205D_12

If you accept this comparison, the 1Ds Mk3 has much lower high ISO noise than the 1Ds/10D, but input noise rises rapidly at low ISO, due to its different analogue gain architecture and post-detection noise.  Compare this with the impact of Aptina's dual conversion gain (at an earlier stage of the imaging pipeline) in later Sony sensors.

The older sensor looks comparable in terms of noise at ISO 100, so would show a lower area-normalised read noise than a down-sampled Mk 3.  In practice, the higher quantum efficiency of the Mk3 will result in significantly lower photon noise.

Arguably, a more useful pixel size comparison is between the 1Ds Mk3 (21 Mp 2007) and the Canon 5D (13 Mp 2005), which appear to use a similar technology.  At high ISO, read noise is almost identical, so the larger pixel delivers lower read noise when normalised to sensor area.

At ISO 100, the larger 5D pixel has higher noise, broadly in line with the ratio of pixel areas.  Area-normalised read noise will be comparable.  Again the higher QE of the 1Ds Mk 3 is likely to result in better overall performance.

All told, "It depends" seems like a pretty good summary.

Differences in technological maturity of more than 5-10 years seem to have a greater impact than pixel size alone.

-- hide signature --

Alan Robinson

bodeswell Regular Member • Posts: 382
Re: Quantum efficiency and signal to noise ratio

JahnG wrote:

bodeswell wrote:

photonut2008 wrote:

bodeswell wrote:

photonut2008 wrote:

Nick Zochios wrote:

Yeap! Please use the old 80 bucks lens (28-105) that i used for my own shot and then come back to tell us what you found.;-)

I have no interest in what you think of your outdated camera and cheap lens. The image quality won't come close to what I want, at any ISO or of any photographically interesting subject/scene. Your test shot merely illustrates the ugly artifacts you consider acceptable and even weirdly pleasing in the pursuit of a noise-free photo of a piece of trash.

Wow! Perhaps this thread will be locked soon.

Seems more likely to reach 150 posts, and practically all of them unnecessary. "Nick Zochias" replies are non-sequitur "contributions."

Too bad, because the original question never got a clear answer.

I beg to differ. I think the question was mostly answered with the very first reply.

The original question was whether "bigger pixels" were "less noisy". Apparently the answer is "it depends".

See the first answer to the OP. I think the caveats to that are summed up nicely here (read the entire text of this post).

Those are fine posts, and I read them when they were posted. The original question is subject to interpretation, though. See the first answer to the OP. It suggests an interpretation. The later, linked post is addressing a question not posed in the original post.

Is the original Canon EOS 1Ds "less noisy" than the 1Ds Mark iii because It has bigger pixels?

Or would the answer depend on various additional considerations?

Thank you for your comments.

My actual questions in my first post were about pixel size, pixel count and sensor size, vs noise, SEE BELOW. And at the beginning of the post I asked whether it would be possible to have any consensus concerning my questions. I tried to ask the questions as clerly as I was able to, and I got excellent answers, so anyway not much problem for the experts to give excellent, detailed answers. So thank you to everybody. (As often is the case, the headline was not the actuall full question(s))

  1. Is it possible to generally say that FF sensors with fewer and bigger ”pixels” are/ are not, less noisy (to any practical degree) than FF sensors with smaller ”pixels”. (Same for APSC sensors)
  2. Some DPR members also dispute whether FF sensors (regardless of pixel count ?) are less noisy (better for low light photography) than smaller sensors. One argument is that the existing difference in noisiness between FF cameras and small sensor cameras basically depends on the fact that small sensor cameras have smaller lenses and thus the lens collects less light. According to this FF sensors and smaller sensors would be equally noisy?"

We agree that many of the replies were good, interesting and detailed.

Now, with respect your questions, would you say the answers are yes, no, or maybe?

 bodeswell's gear list:bodeswell's gear list
Canon EOS 90D Canon EOS R Canon EOS R5 Canon EF 135mm F2L USM Canon EF 200mm f/2.8L II USM +4 more
bodeswell Regular Member • Posts: 382
Re: Canon 1Ds vs 1Ds Mk 3 - Noise & QE

alanr0 wrote:

bodeswell wrote:

photonut2008 wrote:

bodeswell wrote:

Too bad, because the original question never got a clear answer.

I beg to differ. I think the question was mostly answered with the very first reply.

The original question was whether "bigger pixels" were "less noisy". Apparently the answer is "it depends".

If you don't like "it depends", do you prefer "not always".

Actually, I like both "it depends" and "not always". I also like "yes, but no".

It is a complicated topic, but many of the factors on which "it depends" have been covered. The OP appears to be satisfied with the responses to the original post and to his follow-up questions.

Yes! It is a complicated topic, as you are about to demonstrate most clearly. Thanks!

See the first answer to the OP. I think the caveats to that are summed up nicely here (read the entire text of this post).

Those are fine posts, and I read them when they were posted. The original question is subject to interpretation, though. See the first answer to the OP. It suggests an interpretation. The later, linked post is addressing a question not posed in the original post.

Is the original Canon EOS 1Ds "less noisy" than the 1Ds Mark iii because It has bigger pixels?

Or would the answer depend on various additional considerations?

Before asking "because", ask if it is "less noisy" in the first place.

Bill Claff has key parameters derived from DxO

Canon 1Ds (2002), 11 Mp, 8.8 µm pixels, input-referred noise 10.7 e-, FWC 40k, QE 17%

Canon 1Dsiii (2007), 21 Mp, 6.4 µm pixels, input-referred noise 5.0 e-, FWC 53k, QE 31%

At high ISO, the 1DsMk3 has less than half the per-pixel input-referred noise. After down-sampling to 11 Mp, the quadrature-summed input noise would be around 7 e- rms, still considerably less than the 10.7 e- from the original 1Ds.

Furthermore the Mk3 has 1.8x higher quantum efficiency, so the photon noise standard deviation will be reduced by the square root of this factor (1.35x).

Comparison at lower ISO is less straightforward. I don't have 1Ds results, but the 6 Mp APS-C Canon 10D released in 2003 appears to have broadly similar pixel properties.

https://www.photonstophotos.net/Charts/RN_e.htm#Canon%20EOS%2010D_12,Canon%20EOS%201Ds%20Mark%20III_14,Canon%20EOS%205D_12

If you accept this comparison, the 1Ds Mk3 has much lower high ISO noise than the 1Ds/10D, but input noise rises rapidly at low ISO, due to its different analogue gain architecture and post-detection noise. Compare this with the impact of Aptina's dual conversion gain (at an earlier stage of the imaging pipeline) in later Sony sensors.

The older sensor looks comparable in terms of noise at ISO 100, so would show a lower area-normalised read noise than a down-sampled Mk 3. In practice, the higher quantum efficiency of the Mk3 will result in significantly lower photon noise.

Arguably, a more useful pixel size comparison is between the 1Ds Mk3 (21 Mp 2007) and the Canon 5D (13 Mp 2005), which appear to use a similar technology. At high ISO, read noise is almost identical, so the larger pixel delivers lower read noise when normalised to sensor area.

At ISO 100, the larger 5D pixel has higher noise, broadly in line with the ratio of pixel areas. Area-normalised read noise will be comparable. Again the higher QE of the 1Ds Mk 3 is likely to result in better overall performance.

All told, "It depends" seems like a pretty good summary.

Differences in technological maturity of more than 5-10 years seem to have a greater impact than pixel size alone.

Now that is an answer!

 bodeswell's gear list:bodeswell's gear list
Canon EOS 90D Canon EOS R Canon EOS R5 Canon EF 135mm F2L USM Canon EF 200mm f/2.8L II USM +4 more
Entropy512 Veteran Member • Posts: 5,252
Re: Are bigger pixels less noisy?
2

JahnG wrote:

Camera manufactors like Canon, Sony, (Panasonic) have made ”low noise” cameras with less and bigger ”pixels”. Do the manufactors not know what they are doing? (Some people in DPR say that such cameras are manufactored because the customers expect that sensors with bigger ””pixels” would be less noisy?)

Of note here: Despite carrying the "S" designation, you may notice that the majority of Sony's marketing for the A7SIII was not in regards to its capabilities at "nosebleed" ISO ratings, but in regards to its video capabilities.

That's because, when normalized to a given image size, PDR of most sensors has remained relatively constant for the past 5-6 years. There are some small variations, but not the huge improvements people remember seeing earlier in the development of digital cameras.

It used to be true that due to area on the sensor used for support circuitry, higher resolution sensors would have less "usable" light sensitive area - the pixels were smaller but the amount of space used by circuitry would not.

However we've advanced far enough that even vastly obsolete silicon fabs have feature size small enough to shrink that circuitry (for example, there's strong evidence the A6300 sensor is made on 45nm copper SOI - it hit market a year or so after Sony bought Yamagata TEC from Renesas and that facility was doing 45nm copper SOI, and the A6300 was the first Sony sensor marketed as using copper interconnects.  45nm copper SOI is vastly obsolete for other use cases.  A Chipworks article that is no longer available put Sony at around 180nm for the A7R and 250 for one 24MP A-mount FF sensor, and Canon at 500nm back in 2012) - in addition we have tricks such as backside illumination and (I believe Jim Kasson pointed this out a few years ago) gapless microlenses. These have allowed even high-resolution sensors to have high percentages of usable area.

You can't get past 100% which is, I believe, why we're seeing a plateau in PDR performance over the past few years:

https://www.photonstophotos.net/Charts/PDR.htm#Sony%20ILCE-7M3,Sony%20ILCE-7RM2,Sony%20ILCE-7RM3,Sony%20ILCE-7RM4,Sony%20ILCE-7S,Sony%20ILCE-7SM3

Note that there's another metric, EDR, which is per-pixel dynamic range - this will be worse for smaller pixels due to reduced area (per Eric's post), but in many cases, it's PDR that matters because normal people don't pixel-peep at 100%.

What is more important nowadays in the "is this sensor resolution too high?" discussion is in terms of throughput, readout rates, and bandwidth.  More pixels means either higher bandwidth/througput requirements to meet a given framerate requirement, or lower framerates given a fixed bandwidth/throughput limit (for example, pretty much anything with a Sony BIONZ X never showed evidence of exceeding more than about 500 million pixels per second sustained multiframe throughput, except the A7R4 which hit 600 - only a 20% improvement over many years.  We didn't see a major change until the A7SIII and A1 with the new BIONZ XR.)  This is why you still see video-oriented bodies (like the S) maintain low pixel counts - low pixel count lets them hit higher framerates and less rolling shutter.

-- hide signature --

Context is key. If I have quoted someone else's post when replying, please do not reply to something I say without reading text that I have quoted, and understanding the reason the quote function exists.

 Entropy512's gear list:Entropy512's gear list
Sony a6000 Pentax K-5 Pentax K-01 Sony a6300 Canon EF 85mm F1.8 USM +5 more
photonut2008
photonut2008 Veteran Member • Posts: 6,382
Re: Quantum efficiency and signal to noise ratio
2

Nick Zochios wrote:

Before you judge everyone's else shot. First Judge your red-potato look- moon (which btw is full of discoloration and blur) and come back here more relaxed and kind.

https://www.dpreview.com/galleries/7005520322/photos/4179134/_tb50501_01

You have a better shot of the lunar eclipse, perhaps taken with your D700 and 24-85mm lens? I don't typically do these sorts of photos, but my girlfriend likes to get such shots and I happened to be up at that time in the morning. She complained that it didn't appear to be an eclipse, so I reworked it quickly and sent her this one:

The first one ended up here because the next morning someone started a thread about sharing lunar eclipse shots, so for now it stays in spite of its shortcomings.

Personally, I would just go to the NASA site and look at theirs:

Like I said, I don't normally photograph such things, nor do I even care to do so. However, I think my revised version looks more like how I saw it that morning than the NASA photo.

As for being nice, I didn't write that I would "destroy your dream" when being asked to compare a D4s or D5 without NR to your D700 with NR.

-- hide signature --

DPR, where gear is king and photography merely a jester

 photonut2008's gear list:photonut2008's gear list
Nikon D800 Nikon D500 Nikon AF-S Nikkor 70-200mm f/2.8G ED VR Nikon AF-S Teleconverter TC-14E II Nikon AF Nikkor 105mm f/2D DC +16 more
Keyboard shortcuts:
FForum MMy threads