On 4/19/2018 4:55 AM, Whisky-dave wrote:
On Wednesday, 18 April 2018 21:02:56 UTC+1, 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.
whtas you're realy intrested in is the ratio NOT the amount of noise.
It is far better to have a larger sensor even if you pick up more noise than a small sensor picking up noise that is why noise is defined as a signal to noise ratio.
the 12mp 8x10 camera has 75 micron pixels. those are *huge*. its base
iso is 2100, versus a base iso of 100-200 on a typical slr.
Doesn't mean much though does it.
It;s lioke saying a 2 1/1 square neg will collect more dust than a 35mm slide.
https://www.dpreview.com/files/p/art...eSense-Sensor-
Size-Comparison-x800.jpeg
size matters. full frame sensors have about a stop less noise than crop
sensors, which have about a stop less noise than micro 4/3rds, which
have a lot less noise than compact cameras and certainly cellphone
cameras, which have tiny sensors and very aggressive noise reduction
(which works fairly well, but not without compromise).
So a bigger sensor means less noise for the same sensor type.
Nospam ignores the fact that his reply to my comment was comparing
_cameras_, not the noise level of a single sensor cell. At 12mp, the
final output of that 8x10 camera will not produce an image with the same
linearity and gradation accuracy of a camera with a much smaller sensor
but two times as many pixels. So, the inevitable errors in the final
image is also "noise", and more relevant than what the individual sensor
cell can capture because it's the image that one looks at, not the
sensor cell's noise level.
--
best regards,
Neil