Pixel size verses low light capability (Page 2): Learn about downsampling images to reduce noise. I can shoot my D800 and D810 at 6400 or 12800 ISO as long as I a)downsample the image...

Gene51 Loc: Yonkers, NY, now in LSD (LowerSlowerDelaware)

Bison Bud wrote:

I was reading the release data on Canon's new 90D ... (show quote)

Learn about downsampling images to reduce noise. I can shoot my D800 and D810 at 6400 or 12800 ISO as long as I a)downsample the image, b)apply sharpening carefully, c)avoid underexposure, and d)shoot raw to keep all options open for sharpening, denoising, sharpening masking, etc at processing time.

jeep_daddy Loc: Prescott AZ

I like most of the specs on the 90D but it only has one card slot. Ugh!

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

rehess wrote:

The individual cells are about 75% as large as pixels on a 18mp sensor - 86% as large as pixels on a 24mp sensor. I am not an EE, let alone an engineer working for Canon. When Canon announced their 50mp “FF” cameras, I predicted they would be weak at higher ISO ..... they are, but only Canon knows if their sales are meeting goals.

Unless you need a camera right now, see what testers and early adopters report.

I am, a shooter, not an engineer or camera designer. I shoot lots and lots of images in Florida Wetlands in low light early morning shooting.
I have noticed after 1000's of exposures the following:
1. low light performance of my D850 (45.7 mg.) mirrors favorably the low light performance of my D5. Yea, surprised me too.
2. Low light performance of my D500 (20.9) approaches the low light performance of my D850.
3. I print out at 20X30 and all three camera's deliver.
4. My personal preference for low light shooting in early morning wetlands in my D850 and either the Nikon 300 PF or the 500 PF lens. The results are outstanding.
5. I have also found that fast telephoto lenses perform much better than slow telephoto lenses in low light.

Hamltnblue Loc: Springfield PA

Bison Bud wrote:

I was reading the release data on Canon's new 90D ... (show quote)

The basic answer is that the recommendations and comments on Sensor Size, Mega Pixels, iso,etc is based on current technology. Any info from 10 or 20 years ago for instance, doesn't apply today since the technology available was significantly different.

This will continue to change and evolve as the room for improvement is vast.
Consider, for instance the ultimate goal. Matching human eyesight, or even an Eagles eyesight.

What is the equivalent sensor size to an eyeball? Maybe the same as a good cell phone sensor?
Yet a quick google yields that the Dynamic range of the eye is about 20 stops, which is much higher than consumer sensors. The MP equivalent is 500+ Megapixel.

The best full frame sensor now is about 60 MP with only 15 stops.
Comments on what is good enough etc is based on these numbers today.
What will they be 10 years from now?

jerryc41 Loc: Catskill Mts of NY

Several articles about pixels have used the analogy of a bucket. A larger bucket gathers more water. Larger pixels gather more light. What's the trade-off between the number of pixels and the size of pixels? I have no idea, but I do know that Canon is not going to introduce a camera that doesn't take good pictures.

Lots of information here - and lots of numbers!
https://www.ephotozine.com/article/complete-guide-to-image-sensor-pixel-size-29652

yssirk123 Loc: New Jersey

Since you're looking into switching camera systems, also check out the Nikon D3 / D4 series cameras. Built like tanks, they have amazing low light performance and are a bargain on the used camera marketplace. After years of missing the D3S I previously owned, I bought one with a low shutter count for ~ $1000.

Low Budget Dave

All pixels collect the same amount of noise, but larger pixels (usually) collect more signal, so they tend to have a higher signal-to-noise ratio. The issue has been researched many times (see DP Review, Reed Hoffmann and others), and the TLDR summary is "sensor size matters more than pixel count".

So if you can afford the bigger sensor (and bigger lenses, etc.) AND if you are shooting in low light, then get the bigger sensor.

If you are shooting outdoors, or at a low shutter speed, or with a big strobe, then the pixel noise is so low that it is unimportant. It is still there, of course, but in bright sunlight, the quality of the lens becomes way more important.

Canisdirus

Don't worry about pixels .... you won't notice the difference with the human eye.
Aspc ... just use the fastest lenses you can afford.
The rest is up to you.....

SuperflyTNT Loc: Manassas VA

Hamltnblue wrote:

The basic answer is that the recommendations and c... (show quote)

Exactly. Sensor technology has improved so much that the smaller pixels perform better than smaller pixels from the last generation. My old D40 was 6mp and had a pretty low usable ISO range compared to my 24mp D7200. Even my MFT Panasonic G9 at 20mp on a smaller sensor gives me better low light capability. Yes bigger pixels will give you better results, but smaller pixels on newer cameras will give you better results than larger pixels on old technology.

Jim1938

I thought low light performance was a function of aperture, shutter speed and ISO, not pixel size. Can someone explain in 25 words or less why pixel size figures into the equation? Also, why would a FF camera offer more light gathering capabilities than a crop sensor camera?

CatMarley Loc: North Carolina

Bison Bud wrote:

I was reading the release data on Canon's new 90D ... (show quote)

You are always going to have to compromise, and the decision ought to be based on what is most important to the kinds of images you want. Noise or detail? Which is most important, because you are always, no matter how advanced the technology of sensors becomes, going to have to balance the two. Pack more pixels on the same surface area, and you WILL get more detail, but also more noise at the same ISO. Larger and fewer pixels? Less detail, can't crop as much, but cleaner at higher ISO's. So the wildlife guy who wants to enlarge that tiny bird will tolerate a little noise, and the guy who eschews flash and does a lot of low light work will opt for the bigger pixels.

Bison Bud

Apparently everyone agrees that the sensor technology has improved considerably and that the size of the pixels is not as big an issue as it once was. However, there has to be a point of diminishing returns when making higher and higher Mega-pixels sensors and I guess we will just have to wait and see where it eventually goes. While I agree that Canon would not build a new model that didn't take good pictures, the low light performance is far more important to me than all the other new bells and whistles and evaluating and comparing performance in this area is indeed difficult from model to model. Being on a fixed and limited income, my budget is restrictive and I have to get the best bang for the bucks or it's no sale. While I would love to move to a full frame body, this would also have to include some new lenses as well. Therefore, my interest is primarily in the best crop sensor body I can afford and I've been doing research for quite a while now. My backup camera is a Canon T1i and I have several nice EF-S lenses for it. Therefore, Canon would be my first choice, but I have to admit that some of the newer Nikons look like they might just address my primary concern of low light performance a bit better than Canon does. If I did decide to move to a full frame system, it might just be time to make the switch to Nikon. Anyway, I appreciate all the input and recommendations, but it's going to be a tough choice when I make the move to upgrade! Canon does have the 80D on sale now and I must admit that it is tempting. Good luck and good shooting to all.

Rich1939 Loc: Pike County Penna.

Jim1938 wrote:

I thought low light performance was a function of aperture, shutter speed and ISO, not pixel size. Can someone explain in 25 words or less why pixel size figures into the equation? Also, why would a FF camera offer more light gathering capabilities than a crop sensor camera?

Larger pixel size = more light gathering surface area. (8)
Pixel count for pixel count, FF pixels are larger (9)

catchlight.. Loc: Wisconsin USA- Halden Norway

1DX Mkii is my personal choice for color and low light at 22 mpx, Detail could be argued for my the 5D MK4 at 36mpx... and then, my Fugi X100f at 24 mpx can do great job when least expected.

Pixel quality far outweighs pixel density in my opinion. Recent video's on youtube are claiming that the Fugi 100mpx has too much detail, and claim that portrait retouch artists hate it. Printing is one thing, but when is too much?

rehess Loc: South Bend, Indiana, USA

Jim1938 wrote:

I thought low light performance was a function of aperture, shutter speed and ISO, not pixel size. Can someone explain in 25 words or less why pixel size figures into the equation? Also, why would a FF camera offer more light gathering capabilities than a crop sensor camera?

Higher ISO is one way to deal with low light, but that makes noise a more important part of the image. Larger pixels is one way to lower noise.