This probable effect is why I think that people who claim that the K-5IIs images are less noisy than K-3 images are mistaken.
It may be the case that each K-3 24Mpx pixel is slightly noisier than K-5 16Mpx pixels but once you normalize them, either optically via a print viewed from a distance or by image reduction algorithm, so they are the same pixel dimensions, the K-3 files are equal to or less noisy than K-5. I find the images from the K-3 are cleaner than any I've ever seen before from any (APS-C) camera, especially when comparing reduced size images, like 1600px. I don't even apply any NR filters to K-3 files until ISO is 3200 or above. And I apply a lot less NR than any prior model. On Tue, Aug 5, 2014 at 3:50 PM, Bryan Jacoby <[email protected]> wrote: > "The larger pixel size means that each pixel > can collect physically more light. The more light per pixel, the > better the signal to noise ratio for that pixel and so that pixel will > more accurately detect the incoming light than a smaller pixel would." > > I think this idea of bigger/fewer pixels leading directly, as in > through the very basic physics of photon noise, to lower noise is > wrong-headed. I couldn't care less what the signal-to-noise ratio of > _pixels in my sensor_ is. What I care about is the SNR of pixels in > the output image, whether that be an image displayed on a screen or > the dots made by a printer. A camera with more pixels will have more > of those pixels averaged together in each pixel of a given final > output image, and it all comes out in the wash. > > This is not to say that all sensors are equal. Just that the amount > of light collected by each pixel of the sensor isn't what matters. > > (Darren, I am ranting at petapixel, not you.) -- -bmw -- PDML Pentax-Discuss Mail List [email protected] http://pdml.net/mailman/listinfo/pdml_pdml.net to UNSUBSCRIBE from the PDML, please visit the link directly above and follow the directions.
