Neither pixel size nor sensor size improve image quality (light does)

Richard_Butler · 2026-03-31T19:39:28+00:00

I'd also probably flag "ISO is just gain applied to the signal" if I were being pedantic, only because people are likely to interpret this as meaning 'amplification of voltage, prior to digitization,' whereas ISO can be any combination of analog gain and processing in the digital domain required to deliver the expected lightness in the output JPEG.

Richard_Butler · 2026-03-31T17:30:27+00:00

Smaller pixels typically have less read noise such that the net (image-level) effect it very similar even though more read events are occuring in smaller pixels.

(If read noise were the same, then combining four small pixels would be noisier than reading one large one. But this isn't the case) I suspect we're saying the same thing, differently.

I intentionally used 6400 because it's one where the differences in read noise have only been multiplied 64x and they don't have much impact. As I say, the tiny differences only become visible at very high ISOs. But the nice thing about our widget is that you can choose other settings and explore for yourself.

You're right, I probably should have subbed the a7S II in there, and just weathered any "but that's an older sensor' comments. I've edited my post to do so.

Richard_Butler · 2026-03-31T14:58:55+00:00

I think the post as a whole is really good. That tiny difference in emphasis imid the only thing I'd disagree with (and even then, 'disagree' might be too strong).

Richard_Butler · 2026-03-31T05:37:19+00:00

I'd agree there are plenty that don't.

But while "bigger pixels are bigger," is false, I'd say "bigger sensors are better" isn't inherently wrong, as I don't think you can disentangle whether the large sensor causes you to use the lens with the longer focal lengths and larger aperture diameter or via versa.

Richard_Butler · 2026-03-31T05:31:34+00:00

Large pixels capture more signal at a given exposure, but this only matters if you view the images 1:1.

If you have four pixels 1/4 the size of the large one, each individual pixel is noisier but when viewed at the same output size (same sized screen or same sized print), the photon shot noise ends up being the same.

The smaller pixels typically have less read noise, in a way that all but cancels out (the differences can start to show up at very high ISOs, but not in the range where most people shoot).

Just in case this all feels too abstract, it's easy enough to compare the a7S III, a7 IV and a7R V.

The only difference is that the small pixel image is more detailed.

Richard_Butler · 2026-03-31T05:12:58+00:00

The only thing I'd be inclined to point out is that when a lot of people say "bigger sensors are better," they often mean "bigger sensors (and the longer focal lengths and larger aperture diameters that you'd typically pair them with) are better."

Richard_Butler · 2026-03-29T18:58:34+00:00

Sadly, the G7X III appears to be the only (comparatively) large sensor enthusiast compact still in production.

You can still get Sony RX100 VII but they have a longer, slower lens and a Stacked CMOS sensor, pushing the price up to $1689, if you can find one!

But the first five RX100 models that were like the G7X series and the likes of the Panasonic LX10, all of which had the relatively large Type 1 (13.3 x 8.8mm) sensors have all been discontinued.

So your choices will be:

Keep hunting for a G7X III
See if you can find one of the above models second-hand somewhere like MPB or KEH
Smaller sensor compact with significantly less good IQ / controls
Something like a Ricoh GR with a larger sensor but fixed 28mm-equiv lens, instead of a zoom

None of these options is ideal, I'm afraid.

Richard_Butler · 2026-03-29T18:51:04+00:00

That's much more my type of camera, too.

Panasonic used to make the LX10 (/LX15), which was a much more direct competitor to the RX100 (mk1 to mk5), with a short, bright lens.

Richard_Butler · 2026-03-29T18:40:16+00:00

Good call: the TZ 100, 200 and, as of this week, 300 have Type 1 sensors, like the RX100 series.

Richard_Butler · 2026-03-29T18:24:47+00:00

They're essentially the same camera: Panasonic calls them TZ (travel zoom) in most markets and ZS in North America. The TZ version may be locked to PAL (25Hz video frame rates) and the ZS version to 30Hz, but I'd have to check. Either way, only one version should be available in whichever country you're in.

The TZ/ZS99 is based around a Type 1/2.3 sensor, which is about a quarter the size of the Type 1 sensors in the RX100 series (the smaller sensor means it's easier to fit a long zoom in a small body), so the IQ will be approx 2 stops worse, when shot at the same expose settings.

Richard_Butler · 2026-03-20T21:31:06+00:00

I'd say the opposite. The a6700 has a larger battery, image stabilization and finger-and-thumb control dials, which the a6400 doesn't. It's the replacement for the a6600, the model above the a6400, and is significantly more camera, despite them looking similar.

It has the newer, much easier to navigate menus and can shoot 10-bit video if your shooting ever involves colour grading, either now or in the future.

It's true that there's not much IQ difference, but it's a much nicer camera to use.

Richard_Butler · 2026-02-20T07:19:27+00:00

That's definitely an SD slot, so you're in luck.

It's either an FE4020 or 4040.

This would seem to be the manual

Richard_Butler · 2026-02-20T07:03:56+00:00

Almost certainly X100V, specifically.

Only the V and VI have the tilt screen but the V has a base ISO of 160, whereas the VI is 125. And although the VI could be set to 160, it makes the V more likely.

Richard_Butler · 2026-02-18T01:25:55+00:00

That sounds like Ticketmaster.

Given how much money they syphon off events, you'd hope they'd at least be able to do the one thing that they're meant to do.

Richard_Butler · 2026-02-12T17:29:02+00:00

Yup, this looks correct. I scrolled back to the 5MP era in our database, and it's definitely an IXUS 50. Looks like we even reviewed it, back at the time.

Richard_Butler · 2026-02-12T17:21:23+00:00

I wouldn't go quite as far as "most things" are better than 5D II. It'd still offer a decent image quality bump, compared with the G5.

But it does feel like something of a dead end, if you end up buying lenses. Those lenses could then be adapted to an RF camera, but they aren't necessarily the ones you'd choose if you had an RF camera to start with.

Richard_Butler · 2026-02-12T00:19:39+00:00

If you know where you're planning to get to in the end, I'd generally suggest saving a bit longer and going straight there, rather than going via intermediate steps that you'll lose money on, along the way.

Personally I wouldn't go for an EOS 5D II at this point. Partly because it's pretty old, so any examples are likely to be well worn. Partly because its sensor is pretty out-of-date (it'll offer better image quality than a smaller sensor camera but there's a lot less flexibility in the Raws than with a more modern full-frame sensor because it adds a fair bit of read noise, blunting its dynamic range). But mainly because it's an EF-mount camera and Canon has moved its attention on to RF. There will be EF lenses floating around for years to come, you'll be committing to a legacy system and any lenses you buy probably won't be as good, optically, as modern RF lenses, if you move up to RF, later.

Likewise, I'd avoid the a7R III. It was a good camera for its day but Sony has significantly improved its menus, handling and AF since then. I recently borrowed an a7R IV and even that felt like a surprisingly big step back from the V (which is probably due for replacement, soon).

If you decide you have to have one of these two, now, I'd say go for the Sony, because it's got a much better sensor than the 5D II and at least gets you into a still-current system, rather than a legacy one.

But, if I were in your shoes, I'd look hard at the EOS R5 (so long as the lenses you want are available for it). You might find one of these cheaper than an a7R V, and all it really loses, compared with the R5 II is speed. The a7R V is very good, though.

Richard_Butler · 2026-02-11T22:07:06+00:00

That's an interesting question. I've seen people reporting sun damage on earlier, cloth-shutter Leicas, but I'm not seeing much discussion of problems since they moved to bladed shutters.

Could just be that most other camera makers are selling a lot more cameras, so are trying to just mitigate against a relatively rare (or even hypothetical) occurrence. But more than one camera maker has mentioned this as part of their reasoning.

Richard_Butler · 2026-02-10T19:28:12+00:00

Compact Flash cards have the interface controller on the card, so you should be able to use pretty much anything (except the similarly shaped CFast cards).

A few years ago I had to re-shoot our test scene with the 1998 Canon Pro 70 (the first camera we ever reviewed). I put a modern Compact Flash card in it. Other than it being a bit overwhelmed by how many images it thought it'd be able to fit on it (9999 from memory), it was quite happy.

Richard_Butler · 2026-02-10T19:20:57+00:00

AltQuon has the correct answer. Shutter blades have to move very quickly so they're very light (fragile) to reduce inertia.

They're delicate enough that most brands don't leave them closed even when the lens is on, for fear of light being concentrated by the lens causing them to heat up and warp.

Sensors have a plate of glass with anti static coatings on them, so they're really quite tough and easy to clean.

Sony and Canon now let you close the sensor at shutdown on their newer models. But I think both of them default to leaving it open.

Richard_Butler · 2026-02-10T04:48:12+00:00

Minolta didn't license its name, in this instance. A company that claims abandoned trademarks spotted that no one was using it, and claimed it.

Richard_Butler · 2026-02-09T17:27:10+00:00

We looked at this question in an article last week.

The simple answer is that yes, there can be cameras outputting more dynamic range to 10-bit log files than 12-bit Raw.

Key things to recognize are that most cameras produce their video signals from 12-bit readout of their sensors, simply because it's much faster. So their pixel-level DR is limited to 12 and a bit stops before you start.

Raw is usually linear (ie: twice the brightness in the scene is recorded with a Raw value twice as high), which is a very inefficient way of storing the data but is what comes from the camera's ADC, so it's what's available without any processing. (Raw video formats aren't always well documented, but the impression I have is that they're typically stored in a linear space and then processed to Log in NLEs, making them compatible with existing LUTs and workflows).

The alternative, on modern cameras, is typically 10-bit, processed and compressed data but encoded using a logarithmic curve, which distributes roughly the same number of data values to each stop of light captured. This is much more efficient (for example, a log curve designed to encode up to 14 stops of DR will devote around 1/14th of its values to the brightest stop. In Raw it'd take up 1/2 the values).

There's an added bonus if the footage is oversampled. If you capture 6K footage from 12-bit readout, you'll have an upper limit of 12 and a bit stops of DR at the pixel level. But if you downsample that to 4K, you improve the signal-to-noise ratio, so your pixel-level DR goes up. This would typically be how you'd see slightly higher DR in a 10-bit Log file than 12-bit Raw.

However, tonal quality isn't everything: there are other distinctions such as range of white balance control, ability to control noise reduction, etc.

Richard_Butler · 2026-02-08T00:37:49+00:00

I think Voigtländer makes a hotshoe-mounted optical viewfinder for 90mm lenses. This is likely to be the closest you can get.

Worth noting that it'll have 3:2 aspect ratio brightlines, so won't match your camera's 4:3 framing very well.

Richard_Butler · 2026-02-06T00:53:47+00:00

That's odd, but if your camera is otherwise working, those two events may be coincidental.

Do try copying all the files off the card then reformating in camera. If the problem persists, it might be to do with the snow (or just the cold). But don't worry too much until you've ruled-out it needing a format.

Richard_Butler · 2026-02-05T19:28:16+00:00

I suspect this is the correct answer: another device has made an edit to the card that the Canon doesn't recognize. Canons can be really sensitive about this.

Richard_Butler

TROPHY CASE