My experience is that these sites tend to ignore that information. Haven't got in touch with that one yet, though.
Anyway, I posted thins in the comments at the bottom:
It's awaiting approval, let's see if they do.
May 9, 2023
810
-
-
My problem is not with the article. There is so much disinformation out there anyway.
My beef is with you recommending it as an educational resource. Why mislead people?
-
Its easy in the field, smoother tonal graduations ,because the larger pixels has a higher level of voltage/charge accuracy that has to be read.
-
By and large smaller pixels have a higher voltage because they tend to have higher conversion gain. The 'smoother tonal graduations' bit is a myth. More small pixels captures more information about the scene that fewer big pixels.
-
my a6300 and my past em1mk2 tell a different story to yours.
-
did you ever see my 1/4 sensor 10meg a7r2 studio test shots against my em1mk2 20 meg images. that theory was totally a myth in detail and noise. the 1/4 sensor shot had a slight advantage on both counts.
-
There will be virtually no noise differences in prints made from same size, same technology, sensors with different pixel pitches, when all are downsampled to 4500x3000.
-
You are again conflating large pixels with large sensors.
-
Cropped, not down sampled. It is difficult to get closer to the bird. Other than that, I agree.
-
Not true. There is no reason to think that larger pixels have higher saturation voltages. It is true that larger pixels can store more charge, but that advantage disappears for same size sensors when the images are downsampled to the same print size.
-
They have higher voltage per unit charge for that reason, but I don't know of a reason why they should have higher saturation voltage, all else equal.
-
You are comparing sensors of different sizes.
-
We're talking same sized sensors, right? So if you crop to x by y mm, you'll have more pixels with the sensor with the finer pixel pitch, and you'll have to downsample to get it to the same pixel size as the sensor with the coarser pixel pitch.
-
Part 3, pixel shift and stacking, do they help? Or that's multi-exposure and not exposure?
-
No. But you are correct for the context you give.
I never intend to crop to a given area of the sensor in mm. I have a sensor. I plan to crop to 4500x3000 pixels. The print service offers to print 4500x3000 pixels at some arbitrary size. If the print service downsamples, then I get a smaller commission. I do not choose a different sensor when I see a bird. The noise per pixel matters. It would not matter if the bird would let me get closer, because then I could downsample and the noise would be less visible. It would not matter if the bird would pose on a sunny branch instead of one in the shade. (Some of the birds are difficult models and will not follow direction :) )
Cropping to 4500x3000 pixels on my EOS R5 appears less noisy than cropping to 4500x3000 pixels on my EOS 80D when using the same lens in the same light with the bird at the same distance. The bird occupies a little more of the frame with the EOS 80D. The pixels on my EOS R5 are larger than those on my EOS 80D and are also newer technology.
-
With the same focal length lens, the field of view is determined by the dimensions of the crop in either sensor. For a fine pitch sensor and a coarse pitch sensor of the same physical size, cropped to the same physical dimensions, the number of pixels in the field of view will be larger in the fine pitch sensor, and the image will need to be downsampled to have the same field of view as the same crop with the coarse pitch sensor.
So the photon noise SNR in the two prints will be the same.
-
I don't understand that.