Is it myth busted for the high megapixel & low light performance debate? For many years its been hotly debated that lower megapixel sensors outperformed their higher megapixel count counterparts when it came to low light performance. The contention has been that since there were fewer "pixel sites" on lower megapixel sensors that each site was bigger & therefore was able to gather more light & thus had better performance in low light than higher megapixel sensors.
The truth is a bit more complex than that, but with the current crop of sensors & cameras on the market & a megapixel race that doest seem to be slowing anytime soon its a good time to take a closer look at this common conundrum.
Since the inception of the digital camera photographers have been comparing photos side by side in a detailed fashion now known as "pixel peeping". These comparisons are the basis of the pixel size myth we are exploring today. Pixel peeping has people comparing apples to oranges and trying to equate it to truth. Even the most astute of photographers have fallen victim to the power of pixel peeping and its fallacies.
In order to make a true performance comparison between the performance characteristics of both a high & low megapixel sensor & camera the photos must be compared at the same relative aspect ratios. Meaning that most photographers have been comparing their photos at 100%, however when comparing photos taken from different mega pixel count sensors you have to account for the difference and compare at apple to apple ratios. It's been extensively explored and it's now being noted that when compared at comparable relative resolutions there is NO visual differences between the performance of a low megapixel sensored camera vs. that of a high megapixel sensored camera.
So grab your high megapixel beast & get to shooting those low light photos!
Is this myth busted or just a deepening conundrum? Share your thoughts below.
Comments