This thought arose after reading a post on a user checking the LCD screen in bright light. Someone mentioned Chimping and I am just curious how many of you Chimp or not Chimp. Is there some sort of unwritten stigma attached to chimping that would flag you as a deplorable and not worthy of being recognized as a serious photographer or is it a useless endeavor that is just a waste of time ? Personally I like to Chimp and look at my capture; I make adjustments and move on. I fully understand the concept of " Getting it right the first time " and fully endorse that as it makes you a better photographer. Just curious as to WHY or WHY NOT you personally choose either approach. Maybe we can get a few humorous pages out of this.... Bob

I ask this as a hypothetical because I don't want to get into debates about camera brands or models. Suppose I have two raw files, both 24 megapixels, both with the same subject filling the frame, both with "Normal" lenses, shot with identical exposure. All other conditions identical.

What differences in image quality would I expect between these two files based only on the difference in sensor size? What about enlargement, would there be differences in quality of an enlargement based only on the sensor size difference?

I've read that in enlargement the larger sensor would be better because it would not have to be enlarged as many times as the smaller sensor due to the larger original area, but this doesn't make sense to me if the smaller file has crammed in the same number of megapixels and the full image fills the frame and covers the subject with the same number of pixels. I thought pixels were dimensionless once they were in a raw file.