24 Mp = Less Noise than 6 MP

[A1000]

The myth is that 24 MP means 4x more noise as 6 MP. If you output 6 MP from the camera by combinig 4 pixels into one or by printing 6 MP, not 24, the result is the same as if you had shot with 6 MP camera. As now technologies allow tighter spaces between pixels, plus other advances, more MP actually means less noise.

[A1000]

Why are you comparing Sony APS-C with FF cameras costing several times more?

I know a Polish guy from Chicago that knows you very well; you are quite a character.

[A1000]

Why spamming the boards? Have you noticed that the camera with the highest score is the one with 24 MP's? Do you understand what DK found out with his test of Sony vs. Nikon FF? Nikon just cuts out the low range, where noise is. Sony could have two modes, one Nikon-like, one Sony-like - to please everyone.

[David Kilpatrick]

Don, I've been doing some tests with identical (in theory) Sigma 50mm f1.4 lenses which are VERY good (possibly the best 50mm ever made) on D3X and A900. At ISO 100-200, there really is NO difference. The AA filter thing, that Nikon have some new AA filter etc, is not true. It looks to me as if they actually have the same 'new' AA filter that Sony have (both have claimed a totally new AA filter design). In many shots the A900 is bettering the D3X. In others the D3X beats the A900. So, for base-ISO shooting, I reckon they are absolutely equal. High ISO is a very different matter and Nikon clearly has know-how which Sony lacks.

The D700 could not even come close to matching the res of either camera, though at pixel level it's naturally better. What I am talking about is whether or not the camera will resolve one and a half inch chicken wire at 100 yards with a top grade prime 50mm at optimum aperture. The A900 will do it, the Canon 5D MkII will do it (surprisingly well), and D3X will do it - the D3 and D700 can not.

But, who the hell needs to see 1.5" chicken wire at 100 yards?

David

[PhotoTraveler]

That reminds me of when I saw an original print of "Moonrise over Hernandez" in person for the first time. It's a pretty big print, and in this case you can stand with your nose to it. You get sucked in by the detail and see things you never saw before, the one that really got me was the barbed wire, seeing the wire and barbs, and this was taken very far from the shot.

http://www.afterimagegallery.com/featureadams.htm

That's a terrible repro, but the point being when you see it in person you are amazed by what you see in there. You get a whole new respect for such detail. Same for all of his prints where in person you see amazing detail and it makes the shots much more amazing to view.

Of course by Don's beliefs, such a photo wouldn't be possible, since Ansel didn't have a High ISO camera (Shot with ASA 64 film, F32 aperture, 1 second exposure), it was rushed (he nearly wrecked the car to get it), and he only had one shot to get it right, and worse he guessed the exposure. How could have he done such a shot without a D3!

[Dusty]

That reminds me of when I saw an original print of "Moonrise over Hernandez" in person for the first time. It's a pretty big print, and in this case you can stand with your nose to it. You get sucked in by the detail and see things you never saw before, the one that really got me was the barbed wire, seeing the wire and barbs, and this was taken very far from the shot.

That's why I fell in love with a 4x5 the first time I ever used it. I had purchased one from a customer who was buying a Linhof, and took it out for the very first time to try out at our family re-union. Even tho' I also shot it with medium format, when I got the negs and contact prints I was astounded! 143 people in the shot, and I could identify people simply by looking at the negative! When I shot my sisters wedding on the 4 x 5, everyone complained that those shoots took a bit too long. No one complained about the quality of the 24 x 30 prints.

I believe Adams used mostly 8 x 10 cameras, 4 times the negative area of my camera.

Dusty

[Vidgamer]

With all of the DXOmark charts posted about this topic, I thought it might be interesting to point out that they wrote an article claiming that higher resolution offsets the higher noise: "http://www.dxomark.com/index.php/eng/In ... ets-noise!"

[Dusty]

That's similar to film grain vs film size. With the higher area of medium or large format negatives, we could do a 2x blow up on a 4x5 to get the same picture size as a 8x blow up in the 1x1.5 inch 24x36mm film. Even a grainier film would have less grain doing a contact print from Ansel Adams' view camera than the best 35mm films. Don't even think about 110 and disc films!

Dusty