trade off between high resolution and high ISO noise (Page 2): I don't know what camera you are using, but the Leica Q3 has lower noise at 36 MP because they process the 61 MP in a way...

jackpinoh Loc: Kettering, OH 45419

dkeysser wrote:

I recently bought a camera capable of 61 MP, and a... (show quote)

I don't know what camera you are using, but the Leica Q3 has lower noise at 36 MP because they process the 61 MP in a way that reduces noise in the resulting 36 MP file.

Jack 13088 Loc: Central NY

dkeysser wrote:

I recently bought a camera capable of 61 MP, and a... (show quote)

There absolutely is a trade off. After you work through the physics and mathematics of the signal to noise ratio the dynamic range, which we see that ISO performance increases as the area of the individual pixel increases. So given your camera at the same sensor generation, at the same temperature (thermal noise dominates) and not very low light levels (where shot noise dominates) 61 MP has 1/3 stop worse noise performance less than 36 MP and 2/3 stop worse than 19 MP. Is that about what you see?

bwana Loc: Bergen, Alberta, Canada

Jack 13088 wrote:

There absolutely is a trade off. After you work th... (show quote)

Definitely applies to my Sony A7S (12MP), A7 III (24MP) and A7R V (61MP)!

bwa

User ID

one_eyed_pete wrote:

Your finding does seem illogical. The difference between JPEG small, medium and large is the degree of file compression after processing of the raw data to create the JPEG image file. Perhaps your observation was the noise reduction resulting from the JPEG algorithm doing it's thing to further compress the resulting image file.

One eyed pete apparently suffers some by not reading with both eyes. Not petes fault, but he should maybe read a bit more slowlier.

The OP verrrrry clearly stated that he reduces files by reducing pixel resolution. So, WTF has varying the jpeg file compression ratio got to do with any of this ??!?

Artcameraman Loc: Springfield NH

I'm assuming you bought this 61MP camera so you could print large photographs? Otherwise you wasted your money. Let me know so I can comment. Cheers.

billnikon Loc: Pennsylvania/Ohio/Florida/Maui/Oregon/Vermont

Artcameraman wrote:

I'm assuming you bought this 61MP camera so you could print large photographs? Otherwise you wasted your money. Let me know so I can comment. Cheers.

Many wildlife photographers use the 61MP so they can have more pixels when they crop on their far a away subject. Or when they go to APS mode on their camera.
Some call this getting more effective megapixels on the subject. What ever you call it, 61MP allows you to crop and retain more megapixels than by using a 24MP camera.
Good luck and keep on shooting until the end.

bwana Loc: Bergen, Alberta, Canada

billnikon wrote:

Many wildlife photographers use the 61MP so they can have more pixels when they crop on their far a away subject. Or when they go to APS mode on their camera.
Some call this getting more effective megapixels on the subject. What ever you call it, 61MP allows you to crop and retain more megapixels than by using a 24MP camera.
Good luck and keep on shooting until the end.

How very true!

bwa

Sony A7R V - 61MP
Sony A7R V - 61MP...

(Download)

one_eyed_pete Loc: Colonie NY

User ID wrote:

One eyed pete apparently suffers some by not reading with both eyes. Not petes fault, but he should maybe read a bit more slowlier.

The OP verrrrry clearly stated that he reduces files by reducing pixel resolution. So, WTF has varying the jpeg file compression ratio got to do with any of this ??!?

Ah but it is you that didn't read with both eyes. My "quote reply" clearly indicated I was replying the Orphoto's comment that he observed less noise when saving at medium and small JPEG.

richandtd Loc: Virginia

So would the Nikon Z8 have the same basic problem as the Sony?

bwana Loc: Bergen, Alberta, Canada

richandtd wrote:

So would the Nikon Z8 have the same basic problem as the Sony?

Not really a problem. Really just Physics. But in answer to your question, yes.

bwa

ricardo00

richandtd wrote:

So would the Nikon Z8 have the same basic problem as the Sony?

Yes in the sense that the Z6ii (though a different sensor) which shoots 25 MP photos has less noise in low light than the Z8. It will be interesting to see how the Z6iii does (assuming its sensor is upgraded to a stacked sensor like the Z8).

gwilliams6

Busting the myth, with actual testing and images :

Tony Northrup (January 2023): "The TRUTH about High Megapixel Noise"

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=VSFqCnzIe9M

Cheers

User ID

ricardo00 wrote:

Yes in the sense that the Z6ii (though a different sensor) which shoots 25 MP photos has less noise in low light than the Z8. It will be interesting to see how the Z6iii does (assuming its sensor is upgraded to a stacked sensor like the Z8).

Just got my first stacked sensor. Low light high ISO is my major "workspace". The noise from the a9 is very different and qualitatively something I have never seen before although I use many different cameras in low light.

If what Im seeing is the nature of stacked sensors, count me out :-( Instead of a sorta gritty look a bit similar to film grain Im getting something like a field of uniformly sized polka dots, larger than the random gritty grain of more typical noise. Imagine a bowl of verrrrry short-grained cooked rice instead of a bowl of coarse beach sand.

User ID

billnikon wrote:

Many wildlife photographers use the 61MP so they can have more pixels when they crop on their far a away subject. Or when they go to APS mode on their camera.
Some call this getting more effective megapixels on the subject. What ever you call it, 61MP allows you to crop and retain more megapixels than by using a 24MP camera.
Good luck and keep on shooting until the end.

Uh huh.

Many Hawgsters buy into that hawgwash that increased pixel counts are for making bigger prints. Acoarst that is almost never the useful reason for high rez sensors. Theres little to no connection between pixel count and print size. Printers do NOT print pixels. They print dots.

User ID

one_eyed_pete wrote:

Ah but it is you that didn't read with both eyes. My "quote reply" clearly indicated I was replying the Orphoto's comment that he observed less noise when saving at medium and small JPEG.

Okeedokee ! So its Orphoto who may need to pay closer attention as well. Wouldnt know if you really have only one eye but lately I have only one. (Im told it will clear up over time.) So I wear a black eye patch and it gets old hearing "Wheres your parrot ?"