# low noise or high megapixels?



## nojeb96 (Jan 6, 2012)

What's better low noise or high megapixels?


----------



## BZSPhotography (Jan 6, 2012)

I honestly think its a stupid question, but here it goes.

if you're shooting at low light, the low noise would be better.
if you're shooting in broad daylight, the high megapixels are better.


----------



## KmH (Jan 6, 2012)

It depends.

Better for what?


----------



## Derrel (Jan 6, 2012)

What is "better" is high-quality images at the pixel level. It's better to have fewer pixels with lower noise and better image quality than it is to have more pixels, with higher noise, and lower image quality.

Better per-pixel image quality is better than lesser or lower image quality.


----------



## unpopular (Jan 6, 2012)

It makes no difference if one camera has _less noise _at any given high ISO it's image quality is bad nonetheless.  I think the only small format camera which can adequately perform at very high ISOs is the D3 series.

Everything else is just going to be "well, this one sucks less than that one at ISO 6400."


----------



## Garbz (Jan 7, 2012)

unpopular said:


> It makes no difference if one camera has _less noise _at any given high ISO it's image quality is bad nonetheless.  I think the only small format camera which can adequately perform at very high ISOs is the D3 series.
> 
> Everything else is just going to be "well, this one sucks less than that one at ISO 6400."



The D3 doesn't have a small format sensor. If you're talking about 35mm then the D700 has the same sensor as the D3. If you're talking APS the D7000 has the best noise level of any APS sized censor and has no problem at all with ISO6400. 

I'm not entirely sure what you are trying to say. "This one sucks less than that one at this ISO" applies to every camera of every format type when judging low light performance.


----------



## gsgary (Jan 7, 2012)

unpopular said:


> It makes no difference if one camera has _less noise _at any given high ISO it's image quality is bad nonetheless.  I think the only small format camera which can adequately perform at very high ISOs is the D3 series.
> 
> Everything else is just going to be "well, this one sucks less than that one at ISO 6400."



It would suck against a Hassy H2 for a billboard campain


----------



## analog.universe (Jan 7, 2012)

gsgary said:


> It would suck against a Hassy H2 for a billboard campain



True, but relevant to like 1x(10^-6) percent of photographers..


All these assessments are so subjective anyway...  there is no black and white line that says a certain camera is usable at a certain ISO all the time.  I've gotten shots at 6400 out of my 60D that are just fine, other times I drool at what a D3s can do at 6400.  It all depends on the scene, the lighting, and the final destination of the photo.

To answer the OP, I think having extremely high resolution is very useful in a really narrow selection of circumstances.  If you need it though, there's no substitute.  (like the billboard campaign)  Otherwise, the cleaner the camera is at high ISOs, the more flexibility you have in wide range of situations.  For myself, the 18MP of my camera is more than enough for anything I've ever done, but I don't think any amount of awesome ISO performance would ever be more than enough for me.  I'd find something cool to do with it.


----------



## unpopular (Jan 7, 2012)

Garbz said:


> The D3 doesn't have a small format sensor. If you're talking about 35mm then the D700 has the same sensor as the D3. If you're talking APS the D7000 has the best noise level of any APS sized censor and has no problem at all with ISO6400.
> 
> I'm not entirely sure what you are trying to say. "This one sucks less than that one at this ISO" applies to every camera of every format type when judging low light performance.



Anything smaller than, and including 35mm is a small format, imo. 

Perhaps giving a specific ISO wasn't the best example. My point is at some ISO speed the noise level is just going to suck no matter what camera you use, and saying one camera performs better than the other is irrelevant. 

I'll admit, high ISO performance just isn't really important to me (not saying it isn't important, just not for me) so I haven't kept up on what the most modern cameras are capable of.


----------



## gsgary (Jan 7, 2012)

The only time you want to be shooting high ISO is sports photography or live performace when you need to get the shot and other times you should be aiming for the lowest possible ISO for picture quality, for me this is the only time i will use high ISO any other time if there is low light the photo is not worth taking


----------



## analog.universe (Jan 7, 2012)

gsgary said:


> any other time if there is low light the photo is not worth taking



Ahh, this is a sharp difference in perspective... to me the photo is always worth taking  


...often worth trashing after a frustrating few minutes in post, but you have to try I think.  I've got photos that I love that were taken in _dark_ rooms at max ISO and stupid shutter speeds.  They're not as high quality as my other photos, but I'm glad I have them.


----------



## cnutco (Jan 7, 2012)

Come on now... You can't group full frame as small format!



Derrel said:


> Here's a comparison of sensor sizes from a public domain (unlimited use, non-copyrighted) chart that I modified by removing the medium format digital sensor sizes, since so few people own MF digital backs.
> 
> 
> 
> ...


----------

