Detail vs IQ (Page 3): Size of pixels has nothing to do with “room” for detail. Larger pixels just gather light better than smaller pixels. A pixel is the smallest visible element in...

SuperflyTNT Loc: Manassas VA

Delderby wrote:

But I am correct in thinking that there will always be a trade-off between IQ and detail when comparing pixel numbers and pixel size in any given sensor? I'm thinking that less pixels means larger pixels, which logically means more room for more detail?

Size of pixels has nothing to do with “room” for detail. Larger pixels just gather light better than smaller pixels. A pixel is the smallest visible element in an image. Each pixel has one color and luminosity level. The thing as far as IQ goes on a standard monitor, resolution doesn’t really matter. A 1920x1080 monitor only displays a little over 2mp, so whether your image is 45mp or 20mp doesn’t matter. You don’t see all of the pixels. Where the higher resolution comes in is potential detail when you zoom in or crop. The thing bigger pixels gets you is potentially less noise, although that advantage has been somewhat mitigated with more modern sensor technology.

Longshadow Loc: Audubon, PA, United States

SuperflyTNT wrote:

Size of pixels has nothing to do with “room” for d... (show quote)

MrPhotog

Delderby wrote:

But I am correct in thinking that there will always be a trade-off between IQ and detail when comparing pixel numbers and pixel size in any given sensor? I'm thinking that less pixels means larger pixels, which logically means more room for more detail?

No. Your premise leaves out two or three factors. There *might* be such a tradeoff possible if the same technology was used today to make sensors with bigger ( and fewer) individual spots.

But that is not the case. The 12 mp sensors are older products. Comparing them to newer 40, 50, 60, or 100 mp sensors is like comparing outdated film to fresh film. It was good in its day, but what is made now is better.

Technology has improved to give both smaller pixel size and longer tonal range. Computing power can group 4 adjacent pixels as one unit, so a 60 mp sensor can ‘work’ at 15 mp, with each spot actually being a combination of 4.

And cameras can do the opposite as well ( at least with static subjects) by taking 4 shots with the sensor slightly moved between each image—so a 40 mp sensor captures a 160 mp image.

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

Delderby wrote:

All things being equal, should a sensor with 12MP give a higher IQ but less detail than the same sensor with 20MP? If so, which is best - maximum IQ from larger pixels or maximum detail from smaller (more crowded) pixels?

I personally can get beautiful 20X30 prints from both. So, who cares.

mindzye Loc: WV

Delderby wrote:

But I am correct in thinking that there will always be a trade-off between IQ and detail when comparing pixel numbers and pixel size in any given sensor? I'm thinking that less pixels means larger pixels, which logically means more room for more detail?

Please reconsider Chg_Canon's reply / information

Longshadow Loc: Audubon, PA, United States

billnikon wrote:

I personally can get beautiful 20X30 prints from both. So, who cares.

Juy Loc: Delaware

Define image quality
I don't believe it is the same for each induvidual.

Longshadow Loc: Audubon, PA, United States

Juy wrote:

Define image quality
I don't believe it is the same for each induvidual.

Delderby Loc: Derby UK

billnikon wrote:

I personally can get beautiful 20X30 prints from both. So, who cares.

Those who care are those confused by the choice of cameras available to buy with their hard earned cash.

neillaubenthal

billnikon wrote:

I personally can get beautiful 20X30 prints from both. So, who cares.

Yep…the primary advantage in high MP bodies is the ability to crop more and still have an acceptable number of pixels on target which is what defines detail which is not all but a big percentage of IQ. Yes, longer lenses and p/or getting closer are good…but physical limitations, geographic limitations, or safety limitations can preclude a longer lens or getting closer. As I always say…better is the enemy of good enough and outside of the photographer or post processor…nobody looks at an image at 1:1…they look at it on a screen or in a print and given printing and display technology anything more than 20MP or so at output size (and really 12 is enough for most instances) isn’t fundamentally useful except for the ability to crop to the desired composition. Obviously wall size prints are different…but few of us are printing those…and for those that do viewing distance means you don’t need as many pixels per inch in the print because your eye can’t see them anyway.

camerapapi Loc: Miami, Fl.

I agree with User ID, there seems to be an obsession here with high resolution. How good is a lens without basic photographic knowledge and technique? Probably useless.
It is not my intention to start a fight with those who are obsessed with high resolution lenses. I am not in that group of those who buy the latest or the best, all of my cameras and lenses except for the recently bought refurb EM-5 D Mk III from Olympus is old, as old as 1967. Those cameras and lenses have served me well, regardless of the number of pixels and irrespective of how old the lens is.

Yes, it is a hobby.

BebuLamar

camerapapi wrote:

I agree with User ID, there seems to be an obsession here with high resolution. How good is a lens without basic photographic knowledge and technique? Probably useless.

Yes, it is a hobby.

I think I am right now want high resolution because I am quite happy with all aspects of image quality with my Nikon Df except the resolution which is fine if I don't crop. When I start cropping I have little left or resolution.

jackpi Loc: Southwest Ohio

Delderby wrote:

All things being equal, should a sensor with 12MP give a higher IQ but less detail than the same sensor with 20MP? If so, which is best - maximum IQ from larger pixels or maximum detail from smaller (more crowded) pixels?

Detail is only one attribute of image quality. Detail is a function of lens quality, number of pixels and, if present, the antialiasing filter. Other attributes of image quality which are attributes of the lens, sensor, sensor electronics, and processing algorithms are: noise, dynamic range, tone reproduction, contrast, color, distortion, vignetting, exposure accuracy, lateral chromatic aberration, lens flare, color moiré, and artifacts related to RAW conversion software. So it is possible to have lower image quality or higher image quality independent of the number of megapixels the sensor has, depending on the lens and the camera.

Longshadow Loc: Audubon, PA, United States

camerapapi wrote:

I agree with User ID, there seems to be an obsessi... (show quote)

CHG_CANON Loc: the Windy City

The whole point of owning a camera with the most megapixels is that you don’t have to explain things with words.