FF vs. APS-C - Aperature Behaviour

[Kamelot]

I'll argue that we're both right about noise, because I think we were looking at it in different ways.


Both cameras have the same pixel size and bits per pixels, so the buckets aren't 5 and 10 litres, they're both the same. I wasn't arguing about the total light captured, but the total captured per mm, or per bucket. The same amount of water will be captured in the center buckets in each case, as they're the same size and depth. That's what makes me right.


Due the the extra buckets, you can downsample, and get the effect of less noise (Daniel had a whole big thread all about it), but at the original capture size, the noise is identical at the pixel level. Or due to the extra resolution, when printed, any noise will be rendered smaller, and thus less visible. That makes you (and DxO) right.

Yeah, maybe i wasn't reading your post carefuly. Maybe you were saying some truth []


I know that Daniel's thread about all pixel size and dependency of that. In previous post forgot to mention the key think. I already edited it.


And in my opinion, the pixel size doesn't matter if the overal pixel surface is larger.


It does'nt matter if you have 1,6 square metre and you will split it to the 10 smaller squares or to the 20 squares . It still will be the same 1,6 square metre surface. And if you will compare it to the only 1 square metre surface, does not matter, how large the squares on that 1 square metter will be. The overal surface capacity will be smaller. Bigger surface can collect more light, and the noise is smaller. That's what i wanted to express []

It all depends on how you're measuring the noise. The per pixel noise
is identical with identical pixel sizes, but as you have more pixels,
the effect of the noise is lessened.

Yes, i agree. And want to add.. like were said in that big thread, that you can not compare pixels one by one (if this
is larger - good, smaller - worse). One pixel does not do the job. The
picture comes from collection of pixels.