Imagemaster wrote:
dclark wrote
I'll pass on starting a thread, but I know that previous upgrades in equipment have made a very noticeable improvement in the images I can get. Of course, that would not apply to everyone. Some people are so good that there is no room for improvement. Not the case for me. I need all the help I can get. I find that the older I get the more help I need. I expect the extra pixels combined with some improvement in AF and noise performance will be a bit more help and will produce noticeable improvement in my images. At least I will notice it. That's my story and I'm sticking to it.
Dave Agree, and all those other factors contribute to better 'quality' images even when the number of pixels remains the same.
And unless my math is wrong, sensor size remains the same with just more pixels being jammed into that sensor. So unless the newer models have better/more efficient pixels how would you get better 'quality' images just because there are more pixels on the same-size sensor?
Your math is right. On a per pixel basis, big pixels have better performance that small pixels. On a per unit area basis (how photographic dynamic range is determined) you come out about the same if the read noise is low. On an information theoretic basis, my preferred approach, it's complicated, but if the read noise is low enough you get more image information out of more pixels. That is why I look at both photographic dynamic range and input referred read noise on Claff's web site. The A1 looks really good on both criteria. I think the input referred read noise chart looks extremely good. A lot better than I expected. Not only is the read noise lower, it's flat above ISO 500, which indicates a lot of noise problems in the A9 related to image noise induced by fast electronics downstream of the sense node have been eliminated.
The question you pose is an excellent one that does not have a simple answer. And although I believe the analysis of the image information is the right way to analyze the question, it is especially complex and can be controversial even among people who specialize in that type of analysis. Regardless, I am convinced the A1 will deliver more image information than the A9 and on a par with the A7R4, along with operational improvements on both. I'm sufficiently convinced that I coughed up the required $6500.
Dave