banjonut Loc: Southern Michigan

I've been following the discussion for a while on pixel size vs IQ and noise. The question has been asked regarding DX vs FX sensors. Mainly, assuming the same number of pixels on each sensor, is it better to use the DX for its longer apparent reach with a particular lens, or would the IQ be better if on were to use a FX and crop to the same view. In my informal tally, it appears that the majority say it would be better to use the FX and crop.

This morning I ran across in informal posting of a comparison of the Nikon D800E and Hasselblad H5D-40. 36 mpx for the Nikon and 40 for the Hasselblad, so they are very close in the pixel count.

The 35mm FX sensor size is 24x36, while the Hasselblad is 32.9x43.8, or 1.6 times larger.

The article stated that while the Medium format did give a better look, after ISO 400, the noise ramped up pretty quickly. The articles I have read, indicate the the D800 is good to 3200 at least.

Just wondering what the thoughts are on this. Mine are that pixel size alone does not dictate the quality of the photo. Also, perhaps now the FX should be called the new "crop" sensor.

Here is a link to the article:

http://petapixel.com/2014/02/27/does-the-nikon-d800e-hold-its-own-against-the-hasselblad-h5d-40/

jmizera Loc: Austin Texas

Pixel count does technically allow a higher resolution image, but in practice, more is not necessarily better. There are definitely high pixel count sensors outperformed by those of the same size with lower pixel count.

I do know from practical experience in the Canon world, a full frame 5DII has much lower noise at a given ISO than does the crop sensor Canon counterparts.

Among other things, I believe that a good deal of this is that a larger sensor would be able to capture more light, and therefore require less gain. As a videographer by trade, larger sensor video cameras always perform better in low light.

The fact that this seems to be the opposite for the Hasselblad must point to other issues, and not necessarily sensor size vs. pixel count.

MT Shooter Loc: Montana

The biggest issue with noise in the Hasselblad is that its sensor is a CCD as opposed to the CMOS sensor of the Nikon. The CCD sensors are not capable of high ISO's and indeed have terrible noise at even 800 ISO on most models. This is the CMOS strong point.
The next generation of the Pentax 645D medium format camera will get a CMOS sensor in it, at 40MP or MORE, specs are still in rumor format, but its got the potential to blow Hasselblad out of the water at 1/4 the price if it meets all expectations.

Rongnongno Loc: FL

Let's go to the basics here...

What we generally refers to a camera sensor is really a sensor array. A sensor is the smallest part of that array.

A sensor is what defines a pixel. 4 sensels within the sensor are what define the colors (RGB) and the luminosity (G) - Bayer model -.

A sensor size influences it's capacity to record luminosity. This is why a larger sensor is always better than a smaller one.

A D800 sensor array is great but the image quality does not match the D4's that has fewer sensor but record the light better at the same ISO.

Then you have the sensor type (architecture) that will influence the quality as MT Shooter explains.

rebride

35mm film (FF) was once considered the 'miniature format'

amehta Loc: Boston

Different technology is a bigger factor than sensor size. This would best be done with two comparable cameras from the same manufacturer, like the Nikon D610/D7100. Or wait until lukan reports back soon with the Sony A99/A77 comparison.

William Royer Loc: Kansas

To offer a blinding grasp of the obvious: Other than sensor and pixel size and CCD vs CMOS, the advancing technology of the camera's image processing capabilities has made, I think, a huge difference. Otherwise it'd seem that an older smaller megapixel camera like an older Nikon 6mp D50 would handle low light better than a new D7100 with, at 24mp on same size sensor, much smaller individual pixel size.