|
Forum: General Photography
11-07-2018, 01:36 PM
|
| |
I think the point is just that you have to compare images at the same viewing size and once you do that, the smaller pixels actually produce a better image because there is more detail. Certainly the image won't be worse.
The bigger problem you run into if you have sensors with super high megapixels is eventually you run into diffraction. So according to the diffraction calculator on Cambridge in Color, you would run into diffraction around an aperture of 4.5 with a 144 megapixel full frame sensor. But that is not related at all to the OPs question.
|
|
Forum: General Photography
11-07-2018, 04:03 AM
|
| |
I don't think size of pixels is a big factor. The only thing that smaller pixels does is drives pixel peepers crazy. Because you can zoom in more on your image, you see more flaws and noise. But the reality is the only way to compare images is to pick a display size and then to compare them at that size. Once you do that, the smaller pixels get binned together and the noise advantage of the larger pixels goes away.
The bigger problem that the OP is talking about has to do with Canon sensors. If you look at DXO Mark scores and graphs, you can see that Sony sensors really do well regardless of pixel density and a sensor like the D850's 45 megapixel one performs better with regard to dynamic range than the Sony A9's 24 megapixel sensor does.
|
