On 4/23/2018 5:47 AM, Whisky-dave wrote:
On Friday, 20 April 2018 20:53:51 UTC+1, Neil wrote:
On 4/20/2018 4:55 AM, Whisky-dave wrote:
On Friday, 20 April 2018 04:00:41 UTC+1, Eric Stevens wrote:
On Wed, 18 Apr 2018 16:02:52 -0400, nospam
wrote:

In article , Neil
wrote:

If that 12 megapixel is the actual resolution and isn't a typo, I'd much
rather carry my Olympus TG-4.

while it may be easier to carry, it has much smaller pixels, therefore
much higher noise.

"Much" higher noise?

yes.

I seriously doubt it.

then you don't understand physics.

S/N has more parameters than
just pixel size.

so what?

the dominant factor for noise is pixel size. larger pixels collect more
light. basic physics.

It's not so much that they collect more light but that there is less
random variation in the number of photons which each cell collects.

I don't think that has anything to do with it, noise IS defined as unwanted signal in the device and associated circuitry.

Pertinent to this conversation, the question is whether a smaller sensor
of much higher resolution (my TG-4) will have sufficiently more noise
than the 12mp 8x10 to produce lower-quality images of the same size. I
doubt it.

You're looking atb the wrong things. Whether the sensor is smaller or lager is irrelivent it;s how it's made and the construction which defines noise NOT size.
what do you mean by sufficiently more noise ?

A few folks who replied to my post thought that noise would be a
differentiating factor between the TG-4 and the 8x10 cameras, and cited
sensor size as the reason. I agree with you that noise is determined by
the design, components and construction of electronic equipment.

The only thing I'd be "looking at" would be prints of the same size from
the two cameras, and the comparison would be which print best represents
the subject. I'd bet on the smaller sensor with higher resolution.

--
best regards,

Neil