The amount of light that hits each pixel will only depends on the F stop and the shutter speed.It does not depends on the total sensor size. (The same analogy as for given the same scenery, both the 6X6 and 35mm camera will have the same setting, while then 6X6 are having 4 times the area of a 35mm frame). As for inherit noise per pixel, the smaller the pixel, the more the noise, due to less amount of photon that hits the pixel, while the electronic noise is the same. So it sill have a lower sinal to noise ratio. That means more noise per pixel. The auther also mentions in a later posting that down size a 18MP picture to 10 MP. The resulting picture is as good as a picture taken with a 10 Mp pixel camera. I have a serious doubt about that. Anytime you transfrorm a picture, there are alway a small amount of uncertainty during the transformation, and result will be deteriated. Even the transformed picture is as good as tyhe 10 Mp picture without trnsformation, why bother with the transformation, why not just use a 10 Mp camera to start with.afrank99 said:pierlux said:I was hoping Canon might do the same with the 60D. After all, 2x18MP APS-C cameras are already available from Canon, therefore diversifying its commercial offer could have proven a successful move.
I do think that having the highest pixel-count in the APS-C market actually is a very successful move (from an economic perspective).
By the way, lower pixel count does not mean lower noise.
Most people compare noise levels at 100% view which does not reflect reality - it's the whole image that counts.
After all, the amount of light that hits the sensor is only depending on total sensor surface area (excluding microlens gaps of course) and not on pixel size.
Upvote
0