« on: December 28, 2014, 05:38:01 PM »
Virtually the same... So how exactly is it that small pixels are better in low light? I remind you that you earlier said: "In practice, for moderate to high ISOs, smaller pixels do better."
I'll explain it again.
Larger pixels do nothing but block-average versus smaller pixels. However, modern noise reduction software is far superior at removing noise and preserving details than simple block averaging. So, after modern processing is applied, you can usually end up with both more detail and lower noise when starting with smaller pixels in larger numbers. And here's an example. Everything is the same between these two shots - focal length, f-stop, ISO, shutter speed, light, distance, processing from raw, final size - everything I could hold constant I did. But the pixel size (area) is different by a factor of 16. This is so that any small other differences are swamped out by the enormous difference in pixel size. Small pixels on the left, big pixels on the right. Which has a better detail-to-noise ratio in your opinion?
Utterly meaningless without the camera details. So which two same generation crop and ff cameras were these?
It would be easy to post something similar showing how much 'better' a cell phone camera resolution is than a Hasselblad H5, but I know which will take 'better' pictures.