Originally posted by Nicolas06 Man you care of 1 single photosite, you theory say if a sensor has a given single pixel of the whole sensor surface, it will be wonderfull very high quality. You signal would be like 110db and not 43, but nobody would ever interrested. You'd say look the quality is much betterbBecause your definition of the signal would be perfectly uniform color and no more....
Norm was so right about you.
The subject is noise, so don't talk instead about the tradeoff between noise and resolution. You could have 100 million tiny pixels crammed into a 1" sensor whose images post processing (the "Print Screen") couldn't rescue.
Originally posted by Nicolas06
Honestly maybe I read it wrong but Clackers doesn't just say that in some case due to current technical implementation having bigger photosite help. He explain that this doesn't work at all and he deny practical counter examples like D810 vs K5-IIs claiming that K5-IIs has exactly the same noise as D810... That actually high iso image from D810 look practically better than K5-IIs is completely ignored because it simply doesn't fit.
The theory say he is wrong, the practice show this doesn't work like that, but still...
No, Nicolas,
DxO measured the K5-IIs camera as having exactly the same noise as the D810. That's real life. That's what's in the RAW files. Then you go to a computer and try to do something about it.
DxO then guess in the Print tab at how much you might be able to improve the JPGs when you postprocess. It's a hypothetical amount that has nothing to do with sensor size or the type of image or the ISO, just the numbers of pixels involved. If you simply resized the picture, there would be no benefit at all. You have to resample as well, to do averaging.
I can say that your alarming thoughts - not supported by DxO - in this thread so far have included:
Post 97: "They will not have the same noise. The noise will be significantly lower on the FF because while the light density will be the same, the total amount of light received will be different."
Post 103: "There a relation between the sensor size and the signal ratio. If you use the same technology in both sensors, the larger sensor will get less noise because the absolute amoung of light received is greater, that is the signal is greater."
Post 106: "Because of how isos are defined, at the same iso setting, because the FF sensor is 2.3 time bigger its capacity has to be at least 2.3 time bigger than the minimal capacity required for the APSC sensor to expose correctly that sensitivity."
This is the sort of stuff that comes up in DPR threads - that's how bad it is! :-D