Quote Originally Posted by Kamelot


But if we have 1 biger pixel and 4 smaller pixel, you can not say, that this one bigger will produce stronger signal with less noise. Because maybe that 4 smaller pixels together would produce 2 time stronger signal comparing with that 1 bigger pixel (if the smaller pixel number would be enough bigger).
<div style="CLEAR: both"]</div>

Given the same technology, each area is receiving the same light. So four pixels would have more edges which do not gather light the same, and there has to be some finite space between pixels that do not gather information. This all causes the need to make processing assumptions about what is happening at the edges. Therefore, given the same light energy, the larger pixel gathers more information with less processor interpolation required. And I also contend that when youconvert light energy into some signal, there are losses every time you have to do that. With 4 pixels compared one large one, it would seem you have four times the likelihood of having conversion and processing errors/losses.


I agree with HDNitehawk... technology change is the big equalizer. Comparing the 5DII and the 7D. The pixel density on the 5DII is less than the 7D. The 5DII may have more pixels, but they are spread out over an area 1.6 times bigger. So if you cut down the 5DII sensor to the same size as the 7D, you would only have 13.1 mega pixels compared to the 7D's 18 mega pixels. The 5DII has bigger pixels but less of them over the same area. The end result is a sensor that handles noise better IMO.