« on: February 23, 2015, 08:31:06 PM »
Having higher pixel densities just reduces ISO performance.
No it doesn't.
Yes it does.
Someday someone needs to explain to me why this myth persists after a decade of things going the other way despite similar basic sensor performance (QE).
Because when your small pixel drowns in a sea of noise a large pixel will still be getting a signal. It is simple physics.
Way to advance an argument: "I'm right, you're wrong". I think both could do with an added .
How about a test?
Pixels that would give you a 208MP full-frame sensor on the left, a 13MP full-frame sensor on the right. Same ISO, same f-stop, same shutter speed, same lighting, same focal length, both processed from raw using the same settings on the same converter.
When you hit the bottom of the well you have hit the bottom of the well. No amount of averaging between wells is going to make it anything other than the bottom of the well. A larger pixel is a deeper well and will always provide a better signal than a smaller pixel.
Like I said, its physics.
Also, as I said, that 'comparison' is between two totally different sensor technologies, one is back-illuminated and the other isn't, so the two images mean nothing.