Don´t know, if the information provided here is new for everybody, but I think it is worth a closer look:
http://6mpixel.org/en/
Steve
http://6mpixel.org/en/
Steve
... DSLRs have much bigger sensors.
This is only relavent to compact cameras, DSLRs have much bigger sensors, and have single pixel sizes bigger than the optimum size(3 microns) mentioned in this article, the new EOS 1Ds MkIII is 21.4Mp and has pixels that measure 6.2 microns.
Nigel,
I think they made this differentiation in the next to last paragraph.
Steve
This is only relavent to compact cameras, DSLRs have much bigger sensors, and have single pixel sizes bigger than the optimum size(3 microns) mentioned in this article, the new EOS 1Ds MkIII is 21.4Mp and has pixels that measure 6.2 microns.
So, in layman's terms: There's an optimal pixel count for a sensor of a given size, above and below which (more or fewer pixels), the image can be said to deteriorate?
Indeed that is the case, it is really down to optimum (individual) pixel size and pitch. However the quality of optics does have an influence here, higher quality optics have smaller 'circles of confusion' and less 'divergence' when stopping down to smaller apertures, so provided that the sensor is of high quality as well, with little 'on-chip' noise, you can have with smaller pixels and therefor resolve greater detail.
Thanks, Nigel. I'm therefore guessing that all of the combined characteristics above is why my Leica Digilux 3, at 7.5 mp, produces a higher quality image than would be intuitively assumed given the modest pixel count. Correct assumption?
At 300dpi 8.3" X 11.7" it works out at 8.7399 megapixels