Quoted By:
Some time ago, i've seen a post here, explaining how sensor size matters for iso noise, but resolution is actually not that important. Anon claimed that averaging multiple pixels is effectively no different from having one big pixel, because the area that grabs the light is roughly same anyway. But what about noise floor, what about other weird noises you can often see in dark frames from cameras (let's say, brighter spot in where phase detection sensors are, cameras also often get heat-related spots), what about simple fact that one big pixel gets more light, and therefore more signal? The way i see it, it's pretty obvious that bigger pixel that gets more light and has better signal to noise ratio > group of smaller pixels that aren't getting as much light. Guess that's why sony was releasing those "s" cameras with super low resolution, but super good iso performance, like 12mpx a7s compared to 24mpx a7. So, this post got me all confused because in theory, the only upside i can see is that high-mpx noise would be more fine-grained and therefore maybe better for postprocessing, otherwise it all seems to be in favor of big sensor pixels.
But that's all theory, and how does it works in practice? Have you ever upgraded to higher resolution camera with same sensor size and had thought "oh no, those low light photos look worse now, even when scaled to same resolution"? If I, hypothetical consumer looking for a camera, would want to achieve as good iso performance as possible, should I bother with lower-res models when higher resolution sensors are available, or is it effectively the same when you scale both photos down to same resolution?
pls don't hate my gear thread, i love taking photos but i also love technology, and above all i love understanding what the heck is going on
