How to get the best raw exposure, part 2

I don't understand that.

Once again, you are correct given the context you specify. Thanks.

Cropping to the same number of pixels will result in a different field of view. The same bird on the same branch with the same illumination, larger pixels will have less visible noise when cropped to the same number of pixels and the field of view will also change. (so the image will be cropped differently to get the same number of pixels and attempt to make the image pleasing. Two different images. No attempt to get the same image from two different cameras.)

Your context is not the only one used.

Yes, that's what I'm talking about.

And yet you keep reading and participating in this thread :-D

If you need to be taken seriously you need to practise what you preach:-)

So far you are not.

So in what sense are coarse pitches better than fine pitches?

The print service pays me a commission based upon the materials and size the customer orders plus a fixed commission that I specify.

A recent sale was either fineartamerica.com/featured/stairway-4315-john-moyer.html or fineartamerica.com/featured/glenveagh-national-park-4335-john-moyer.html and I would have chosen the first crop instead of the second, but the customer chose the second.

The customer may choose a different crop than I would have chosen.

fineartamerica.com/saleannouncement.html?id=72cdf6efafc25a6f8b66d989a5784d55

The physical size of the print, not the number of pixels in each dimension, right?

That's very interesting Jim. I might try this with the Sony 60mp sensor in that case. Impressive work. That GX sensor in also very impressive!

Danny.

This assuming same technology level. For the same number of pixels, the coarse pitch does better in low light.

Either coarse or fine pitches have advantages. I coarse pitch shows less noise per pixel at the same low illumination level. A fine pitch shows more noise per pixel and also more detail. A fine pitch on a smaller sensor costs less than a coarse pitch on a larger sensor and the larger sensor might require a more costly and heavier lens.

You can also make 16 shots with an intervalometer and average them in Photoshop.

The real reason for less noise is the larger sensor area (assuming the same exposure).

So you're saying that with about twice the total light, the m43-derived image was still noisier? I am not sold on the idea that you knew what you were looking at, unless there was some large-scale fixed pattern noise in the m43 that did not cancel with the pixel shifts, or the m43 50MP image was gratuitously oversharpened at the pixel level.

heavy crop

I recommend the DPR Studio Comparison Tool because it includes not stats, but stats in visible action that includes differences in read noise character.

Put any 20MP m43 up against any 20MP FF at 4x the ISO, and the m43 holds it own, especially the new Olympii. Put the Canon GX7-III (2.7x crop) against 20MP FF sensors at 8x the ISO, and the 1" sensor competes well even with the Nikon D5:

20MP 1" m43 FF FF

The granularity of ISOs, pixel sizes, and sensor sizes is too coarse for us to simulate the "same total light" in the 4 windows in the tool for all possible camera comparisons, but we do have the same ratios available in some cases, and when you compare same total light for the 4 windows, the visible noise is virtually independent of sensor size or pixel size, with the same amount of light. The pixel area ratios for the Canon R6, R5, and R7 are almost exactly 4:2:1, so if we use those numbers to scale the ISOs to receive the same total light per pixel, and throw in an older 20MP FF (6D), we get:

DPR Studio Comparison Tool R7 R5 R6 6D

Based on your history, and what I could expect as a range of possibilities, I would bet that you forgot to normalize something.

I just took a look at the two cameras in the DPR studio comparison tool, and the Olympus gives much less visible read noise at high ISO with the same total light.

its not rocket science to take a quater crop image of a detailed Toy doll with FF, theres no normalising anything.
shot at base iso

Now you're talking about different size sensors. The pixel pitch is not coupled to the sensor size.

In this example, the m43 image (EM...) received half the light of the FF image (DSC...).