3 ms·

> This is part of the reason why a 16MP SLR and a 16MP point-and-shoot have vastly different image qualities. I'm sure the fact that the SLR's sensor is physic

> This is part of the reason why a 16MP SLR and a 16MP point-and-shoot have vastly different image qualities. I'm sure the fact that the SLR's sensor is physically sixteen times larger has nothing to do with it... As I said above, MP is just one way to measure a sensor's performance characteristics, and they have kind of ignored some others (dynamic range in particular). I'm not sure I follow your argument about "light behaving differently as pixels get smaller." I'm not even sure if that argument has scientific merit.

deleted 13y ago
[deleted]
deleted 13y ago
[deleted]
superuser2 13y ago
>I'm sure the fact that the SLR's sensor is physically sixteen times larger has nothing to do with it... He's agreeing with you. When consumer-level devices boost megapixels, they don't usually boost the sensor's physical size. The explanation I've heard is that the denser you pack the sensor elements, the more interference they receive from each other. This is why digital images become grainy at higher ISO, and why the problem is worse with higher-megapixel cameras (when the sensor size isn't also increased). SLRs can go higher than P&S cameras while maintaining acceptable levels of noise because their pixel density is lower (even if there are more total pixels). In this particular case, they did make the sensor larger, which is great. But this is part of why more megapixels does not mean better.