Giz Explains: Why ISO Is the New Megapixel – Digital Cameras – Gizmodo
BOOM.
And THAT is why I’d rather have a 12MP Nikon D3S than a 24MP most anything else – because the D3S has a sufficient but not overly large # of pixels spread across a BIG HONKIN sensor.
This is why I was vexed to see Red spec out Scarlet at 5K for S35 sized sensor – I’d MUCH rather have 3K Bayer (to generate a sharp 1080p) with more dynamic range, better low light performance, and less rolling shutter (aka image skew when panning) than a 5K similar sensor.
EDIT – see Graeme’s response in the comments – it is more subtle than just these issues. Rolling shutter is read/reset, not total pixel count. More pixels may make it more difficult to reduce the read/reset time (I am GUESSING), but higher resolution doesn’t HAVE to mean lower read/reset. My bad. Higher resolution also offers the benefit of reduced aliasing, and cleaner signal/noise once scale back down to target size.
I’d been meaning to write an article about this, but like most things, if you wait a bit, somebody will write a better one than you were going to.
I am, apparently, quite the lazy writer.
My backup on this? Arri went with 3K for their next gen digital camera – dynamic range and better high ISO performance beats “high resolution” any day. EDIT – again, see the comments.
-mike
The human eye sees contrast and color before it sees detail. That’s why I’d rather have better dynamic range and high ISO performance (with low noise, please) rather than a massive megapixel count on my cameras, be they still or motion. EDIT – results vary – see comments again.