andyo, you're meaninglessly digressing. Simple physics shows that the smaller 12mega sensor receives less photons per pixel than a useful 5-6 mega sensor. In order to make the 12mega sensor usable, you then have to amplify readings raising the noise floor and increasing those "hot" pixels.
It's pointless to have more detail when you can't see any of it. It's even more pointless to downsize through resampling in order to "average" out detail that wasn't there to begin with. One of the main strengths of the SuperCCD is for high ISOs, not low; it almost totally blows out at low ISOs.
Just browse dpreview.com and you're see empirically that bigger sensors and lenses are the way to go, not higher megapixels.
Reader Comments (Page 1 of 1)
NuShrike @ Oct 26th 2007 4:48PM
andyo, you're meaninglessly digressing. Simple physics shows that the smaller 12mega sensor receives less photons per pixel than a useful 5-6 mega sensor. In order to make the 12mega sensor usable, you then have to amplify readings raising the noise floor and increasing those "hot" pixels.
It's pointless to have more detail when you can't see any of it. It's even more pointless to downsize through resampling in order to "average" out detail that wasn't there to begin with. One of the main strengths of the SuperCCD is for high ISOs, not low; it almost totally blows out at low ISOs.
Just browse dpreview.com and you're see empirically that bigger sensors and lenses are the way to go, not higher megapixels.