Myth busted: smaller pixels have more noise, less dynamic range, worse diffraction, etc.

[Daniel Browning]

I'll try to grab some photos and throw them up on the web later.

Here you go:




















I'm not going to win any Pulitzer Prizes, but I like my photos, and that's all that matters to me.


By the way, I shot the eagle with a $350 lens (2500mm f/10 newt telescope, actually) and then cropped 3/4 of the image.

[Keith B]

Daniel Browning = My favorite poster.


My Mind = Boggled.

[Jon Ruyle]

By the way, I shot the eagle with a $350 lens (2500mm f/10 newt telescope, actually) and then cropped 3/4 of the image.

Cool. I've never shot terrestrial with a reflector.


I wonder what's up with the fuzziness. Looks to me like high iso noise, not blurriness from optics or atmosphere. You weren't hand holding the thing, were you?

[Daniel Browning]

I don't normally shoot through my telescope, but this was the first time an eagle ever came by our own house (it was about a week ago), and I couldn't get any closer. It was ISO 1600, so probably around ISO 6400 after post processing. The (dobsonian) mount was very unstable, and I was holding the camera up to the light path since I didn't have an adapter. That's also the reason for some very strong flare and light leak.

[Colin]

My daughter took this with her point and shoot through her telescopeI bought at Toys 'R' Us.

[Jon Ruyle]

Way cool! Just don't let her get hooked on more expensive glass


This was taken with a little refractor and a 5DII. It's a little too wide and got cropped but I'm too lazy to resize it.





[img]/cfs-file.ashx/__key/CommunityServer.Components.UserFiles/00.00.00.25.93.5d+first+10000/moon.jpg[/img]





(Perhaps this belongs in the "is equipment more important than the photographer" thread. The difference between my picture and your daughter's is equipment. I don't doubt that your daughter is the better photographer.[] )

[HiFiGuy1]

peety3:


Another way to think about what Daniel is saying (or just to rephrase), is to think pixels the way Raid does: a pixel is just a bucket for holding photons. If you chop each bucket in two or replace each bucket with two smaller ones (double your resolution), each bucket will collect less light. But you can always just pour two adjacent small buckets together (resize) to get an result identical to what the low resolution sensor gives.


This doesn't take into account the space between buckets, of course (pixel gaps). You *do* get slightly less light with more buckets for this reason. But Daniel hasn't considered this (or if so, I missed it), I'm guessing because it is a negligible effect. (And obviously with a camera such as the 50D with a gapless sensor, we can forget it.
<div style="CLEAR: both"]</div>

Jon,


It is a small point, but the sensor isn't gapless, it is the Micro Lens Array that focuses the light onto it that is gapless. I am pretty sure there is still a small physical barrier between any twoindividual sensor wells.


Edit: Nevermind, it looks like Daniel already addressed this. [:$]

[Jon Ruyle]

Yes, I meant- and should have said- "gapless microlens array". Thanks for pointing that out.

[David Selby]

Canon XSi + 70-200 F/2.8 USM @ 200 mm and 2x II extender on left

[David Selby]