I feel like one of the bigger reasons why people complain about high megapixel noise is on high MP sensors people feel very inclined to crop into images when they normally would not, which magnifies a lot of noise.

There is ONE exception to this. The only reason why Sony can put the second "high" 0db preamp at 12,800 ISO on the S-III is because those photosites are a very large 8+ microns in size. You wont ever see secondary preamps programed THAT high on photosites that are 4, 3 or 2 microns. You will see dual native ISO preamps on those smaller photosites...but they will be set MUCH closer together. (Like 800 and 2500 ISO or even closer than that) This is the main ability of that S-III sensor with giant photosites.

Great to see you both still making videos! It's been a while since I've been back in the game.

Camera manufactures often don't disclose if the camera is line skipping. Or they line skip in higher demand shooting modes like 4k 60. In addition cameras also have dual gain and perform differently if you're filming at the native iso.

Yep it’s always been the case and that’s why DXO low light (sports) score for high megapixels cameras is pretty much the same as the score for lower megapixel cameras, as DXO cleverly from day 1 id measuring normalized all sensors to 8MP. So 12mp sensor and 45mp sensor gets downscaled to same common number then measured.

The other thing to consider is that with some of the new and amazing noise reduction software we no longer need to make such a trade off of removing noise and losing detail. I would much rather have the raw image with more detail and more noise to start my workflow.

As an old school photographer, remember Kodachrome 25 😂😂, and broadcast engineer, I’ve learned a lot from your videos. You nailed it on HD recording sensor challenges. Keep up the good work and get more “toys”.

I think many go wrong in the exact way that you show in the video: they zoom to 100% and see more noise. But if you apply denoising at full resolution and then export the image at the same resolution as a lower megapixel camera, you will get slightly better results. The issue is that people like to crop their high mp images which magnifies the noise.

I feel like most of this is about resolution only here. Not low light high iso noise. You can read Paris and Barcelona at 400% because the a7riv has 5 times the resolution of the a7siii. I'd like to see real pictures at a low light event. And see which are more usable than others.

I think it is fair to say that for most cameras the video quality still remains better on lower megapixel sensor variants -- not because of the sensor altered features, but because of the limited readout ability with more megapixels!

I watched your old video on the same topic and this for a number of times... Couldn't understandbit until I understood your section on read speed and binning. Thanks Tony.

Lol, was it something I said? This comparison is fine for the practical aspect of what it demonstrates, showing that higher resolution sensors capture higher resolution details, but that's as equally true of low ISO levels in bright light. (The A7S III has a 48MP sensor btw, it's binned down to 12MP) Your bucket analogy is incomplete, because it fails to recognize the sources of noise and signal. The pixels of each sensor are not necessarily equal (ignoring size) when it comes to generating a signal from a certain number of photons. This is called quantum efficiency. To borrow a description of the benefits of a BSI vs FSI sensor that just happens to sum it up nicely, from a producer of astrophotography cameras (QHYCCD) where these nitpicks make a big difference: "As a result, more incoming photons strike the photosensitive layer and more electrons are generated and captured in the pixel well. This ratio of photon to electron production is called quantum efficiency. The higher the quantum efficiency the more efficient the sensor is at converting photons to electrons and hence the more sensitive the sensor is to capturing an image of something dim." If you're going to compare the ability to gather signal in low light between different sensors, you need to correct for the sensor's pixels' quantum efficiency. They don't all capture the same amount of rain even if they were the same size, to frame it in your analogy. And your analogy ignores that if each bucket needs 5 rain drops to generate 1 exposure value of signal, then the 9 small buckets will each generate less signal than the 1 large bucket, all other factors being equal. Which means even if you average those 9 buckets the total level of signal that they generate will be less than the 1 bucket spread over the same area. As well, there is the reality of noise and its' sources. To again adapt your analogy, depending on the sensor you are talking about, the one bucket may or may not be introducing the same amount of noise as the nine. Each of the nine could be individually introducing more noise, and thus total noise, or less noise individually but more total noise, or the one could be introducing more noise total than the nine. Noise comes from a variety of areas, both analog and digital. It's a little more complicated to delve into things like input-referred read noise, read noise, analog and digital gain. There's the fact that each camera will have different numbers of ADCs (analog to digital converters) which kick in at different levels. That makes comparing between cameras at the same ISO not so much a test of whether big or small pixels are better for low light but whether that individual camera at that ISO is better than another individual camera at the same ISO. There's also the fact that sensor density best matches itself with optical resolving capability at different focal lengths. Generally speaking, the more telephoto you go the lower the MP sensor you want, as you will otherwise be super-sampling to no benefit in resolution but with a noise penalty (this comes from astronomy where we're using 4000mm focal lengths, mind you). The opposite is true, denser sensors are generally a better match for wider angles. Which is why this video, while demonstrating the slightly (im)practical results of it's simple comparisons, doesn't actually contend with what's going on. And I'm not exactly sure what myth is busted. Bigger pixels - assuming factors such as quantum efficiency are controlled for - are much more capable of generating better SNR. That's a completely different duck from whether high resolution sensors capture more resolution than lower resolution ones.

Tony, great information when considering the ability to take and produce still images. However, in my experience the Sony A7Siii will out perform a larger megapixel camera like the 24MP Nikon Z6 when it comes to video in extreme low-light situations. I live in Alaska and use the A7Siii for Northern Lights video. I purchased the Nikon Z6 thinking that it would be able to perform at the same level as the Sony A7Sii/iii. They weren't even close. In this case the Sony A7Sii/iii out-performed the Nikon Z6!

This is the type of video that gave me a reason to subscribe. There may be other reasons to go with a lower-resolution sensor, especially for video, and that is for less rolling shutter or higher frame rates, depending on the specific read speeds of the sensors involved.

Dpreview has a web page where you can compare the same image taken from several different cameras. The lower mpx image usually looks cleaner, but there is an option to down sample them all to the same resolution. At the same resolution the noise difference virtually goes away.

Thanks for this! I've virtually given up on trying to correct the plethora of people that continue to parrot the erroneous concept of high mp being noisier for still images, even though DXOMARK numbers clearly demonstrate exactly what you're saying. When I got my a7Riv 2.5 yrs ago, and zoomed in to 100% pixels, I was initially shocked at the illusion of more noise, but quickly realized that the pixel level view was GREATLY magnifying any noise (compared to lower MP sensors) by taking a MUCH deeper dive into the image. This is a concept that has been so lost, to so many, that it's difficult to get folks to understand. Thanks again!

The A7S 1 and 3 have better dynamic range performance at high ISOs than the A7R IV. Tony is right about high megapixel cameras producing better detail at high ISOs - but the test here needs to compare dynamic range performance and colour sensitivity as well if the purpose is to make conclusions about overall image quality.

Agree and e.g. DXOmark has proven this in their test charts for years as well ... when you compare the print and not the screen measurement.

Thank you, thank you, thank you. It's the amount of light that falls on the sensor that really matters. So keep ISO low because it is a volume control for noise. It's reinforces the old adage that the three most important things in photography is light, light, light.

Thanks for the great info. Much older designs had wires & integrated circuits using space that couldn't then be used for photon collection. In those old designs, dividing a small sensor into more pixels really did harm low light noise as more % space was used for circuits to read pixels. Newer BSI-CMOS designs which moved wires&circuits, with smaller fabrication features (newer fabs able to do smaller nm) & large sensors greatly reduce that relative penalty. 200MPixels on a 1/2.5" style sensor is probably counter productive vs 20MP. YMMV.

Small pixels will always have greater noise PER PIXEL, BUT: Downsampling a higher resolution to a lower one on the resulting image will remove much of the noise due to the averaging lowpass effect, which is a big advantage of high res sensors. Anyway, high MPIX will only cause more processing work and more disk space requirement. In case you do not need the high resolution or your workflow involves downsampling anyway, there is no benefit from high MPIX sensors.

A brilliant, yet simple analogy to explain light collection via pixels! Made things clearer for me at any rate. Great work.

Interesting, entertaining, and informative. You nailed the trifecta. Great video.

We’re talking apparent noise here (which is what matters anyway) because pixels produce noise. More of them=more noise. There’s read, bias, gain and thermal noise and its more of an issue in astrophotography and nightscape photography. Particularly in astrophotography with a telescope stacking hundreds of 5 min long exposures of very faint objects. In these situations you really see how noisy sensors can be. And high mp sensors have more of it, but they also produce more detailed images. At some point though the detailed resolution becomes useless because it can’t be perceived. It’s just noisier.

wouldn't many smaller pixels have more edges, thus losing some light on the edges between pixels? like, your results speak for themselves, but I am honestly shocked by them. great work ♥

Every few years this myth needs busting, thanks for this video. Two identical exposures on identical-sized sensors capture the same amount of light, regardless of how big the photosites are.

Very informative. Thank you for this important info. Love and respect.

Thanks for posting your research. I've been a professional photographer for 45+ years, full on digital since 2001 and I too thought the lower megapixel cameras brought about less noise. I still shoot with the Canon 5D MkIII but almost always at the medium raw setting (10mp) but starting today will jump it to full 22mp capture and if I don't need to much larger file size I can always export from Lightroom to a lower JPEG size. Thanks!

Hi Tony, great video. I also find that the same amount of noise on two sensors for the same framing, will look less "noisy" with double the MPX as the noise is "half the size" for the high mpx camera in the final image even if all post processing is the same. I wonder if that made sense?

I agree. With my A7R III it doesnt do bad in low light. But Ive also noticed I get more noise at ISO 400 or 640 than I do at ISO 1600. Maybe next video can go into detail about why this is so for those that dont understand how my higher ISO 1600 produces cleaner low light photos than at ISO 400 or 640.

Excellent clarification! Thank you!

Wow, nice to see this video reconfirmed the one from few years ago. Good job by you

when i rented a sony a9 years ago that thing was nuts, could shoot in pretty shitty light conditions but still somehow managed to recover shadows and some exp when editing. wild camera. Also borrowed a gfx 50r from a friend for a shoot and that thing also recovered A LOT in editing. but the sony still felt like it took better night shots.

Bucket analogy works against him. You would collect slightly more water with the one large bucket because, with the multiple buckets, there would be more loss when water hits the rims inbetween buckets (even with square buckets).

Loving the Pluto shirt! :D Also appreciate the video--going after a Fuji X-T5, and had concerns with low light with the higher pixel density. This alleviated that concern.

Awesome video, thank you Tony!

I’d suggest that one exception to this rule would be astrophotography. A lower megapixel sensor will allow longer shutter speeds without visible star trailing. This allows either lower iso or more light gathering at the same iso (longer shutter), both of which are likely to produce a superior image. I know that’s a pretty niche scenario but a valid one nonetheless.

Tony, I know ISO is just q number as you said, but what does the uniquely high ISO of the A7S3 provide over the A1 provide in terms of image quality? Thanks in advance.

Thank you, Tony, i used to have this disagreement between me as a canon 5d2 user and a friend who shoots a nikon d700, we both can agree that the D700 has better dynamic range, but at the end of the day, the higher pixel count has better low light

I noticed this too with my GH5 and GH6 for photography that the GH6 had more detail when the noise was cleaned up and I preferred it, especially the better color on the GH6. For video I found the GH5 was sharper and had a bit more detail than the GH6. I think it does also depend on the lenses you use if you go to a higher MP sensor camera. Some lenses just won't be sharp enough to resolve the detail from the sensor that they can on lower MP sensors. With the softer video I noticed on the GH6, my guess as to why that was, could be in camera noise reduction that cannot be lowered below 0, was reducing the fine details, making the image a little soft. I also thought it could also be the lens I was using, an Olympus 12-40mm not being sharp enough for the higher MP sensor as no M4/3 camera had such a high MP sensor before and M4/3 had maxed out at around 20MP. The Olympus 12-40mm worked fine on my GH5 and gave me sharp photos and video, just not on the GH6. What made me think this was when I got a Panasonic 9mm f/1.7. It was sharper than the 12-40 on the GH6.

One thing is missing. If you want to take bright details simultaneously to dark shadow details, lower megapixel sensor probably would have different exposure settings but also better detailed image. You may try to compare those cameras in video using SLog or CLog and zebras. You don't need a high ISO for that, you probably should use a lowest native one and compare it

Excellent video, as someone who shoots handheld in low light environments, exactly what I needed to confirm my own experience. One follow up question. Does the stacked sensor in the Sony A1 make any difference shooting low light against say the new a7Rv. Thanks.

Thank you for clearing this all up.

Solid, informative video. Thank you.

Great, as always. Thanks. A few off topic comments perhaps for another episode: - Sharpness may not be everything. So here is another myth: 'Fewer, larger pixels are far better for dynamic range than more, smaller pixels'. - Moreover, for adapted lenses or more 'budget friendly' lenses (non professional) what is really the tradeoff between high megapixels and lower pixel pich?

Thanks Tony, I did think larger pixels were more sensitive to light and had less noise but it makes sense that the most important thing to consider is total light across the sensor area. I guess one variable to consider is dual gain circuits. E.g. my black magic pocket 4k has dual native ISO at 400 and 3200 and it's a bit of a low light beast at 3200.

Tony thank you for your truth about these camera. Also the photo at 9:31 shows huge quality difference in the Fuil-frame vs APS-C photo. Also your wife is eternally beautiful and amazing. congrats on the two of you both being great in photography and also making most of your videos together, where I can see and feel the love and respect that you have for each other. Best wishes to both of you in ever way. I'd had 2 marriages and for years they were heaven on Earth, even though they ended at my decision, I would do them again they were that awesome. I am still friends with them both. I'm single now at my preference for now. Peace out. Love live amazing cameras and photography and women. LOL!

I almost fell for the same marketing. I almost bought an A7S3 for my astrophotography instead of the A1, because I believed that the smaller pixels would give me better astro photos. Instead, I decided to grab the A1 and haven't looked back.

This has been my anecdotal experience with same generation sensors. I’ve shifted to higher megapixels for my night work, like the Fuji-xh2 and the Leica m11. Thanks for doing the objective look

Didn't this used to be true before sensors had gapless pixels? To use your bucket metaphor, some water used to be lost hitting the edge of the buckets. I believe it used to be the same with pixels in sensors.

Great video! I remember you being the first to make me realize this when you mentioned it about the D850. But to nitpick, the myth being busted is that low megapixel is best for low light and high ISO, hence my confusion at the title at first :)

I come at this from an astrophotography angle. For a given technology level larger pixels (fewer pixels in a given area) gives you a better SNR. But if you use different tech (including noise reduction firmware, more modern pixel tech, etc.) then the smaller pixels (more pixels in the same area) may do as well or better than the larger pixels. So you cannot simply say that more pixels gives you less noise than do fewer pixels - or that fewer pixels means less noise. And when it comes to low light the issue isn't exactly noise which is paramount, it is the SNR. One other note? There are some cameras which use noise reduction circuitry. That makes normal testing look better but can end up tossing out some stars and similar which it thinks are noise but are actually signal. When that happens then the SNR for that pixel (or set of pixels) goes to zero and if your testing is simplistic it might look like the camera isn't noisy but it is doing at the expense of signal. It really isn't a simple issue and you can't accurately claim that in low light that more pixels is better - or worse. There really is much more that goes into it.

This realization hit me when I replaced my a7ii with an a7Rii. The “R” actually seemed to have better low light performance mainly because I could shoot at higher ISO’s and apply more aggressive noise reduction in post to compensate while losing very little detail in the bargain. (Being a BSI sensor probably didn’t hurt). 😉

I've noticed that myself in several cases (less MP is cleaner, but more MP is more detailed so the final result is similar), but the idea that "less MP is better for low light" still lived in my mind. Thanks Tony & Chelsea for this revelation!

Nice video, learned new things... 🙏

Sony a7siii sensor has a 48mp native resolution. It combines pixels in 4 pixel stacks to achive better image quality for 4k video. It allows the camera to turn on a secont readout method after iso 1600 for basic picture profile, or after 12 800 for slog3, when the noise completely dissapear. It can also achive a larger dynamic range by using subpixels at different exposure levels. That is the true advantage over larger mp cameras, and that is what sony refers to on its website. I dont know how it works for photo, maybe the extra data lose during lightroom workflow.

It’s so fun to watch Tony when he’s needing out on camera tech! 😂 keep it up Tony! You’re doing GREAT!

On the Fujifilm GFX 100s (102mp) the noise is extremely small compared to the size of the photos. At ISO 12800 the image quality is insane.

Thanks for the video. There's actually one pretty important component to the Sony test that you may have missed, which is that the a7S III's sensor is not actually 12MP. Surprisingly, the IMX510 found in the a7S III is a 48MP quad-bayer sensor with 2x2 pixel binning, so the pixel size is actually fairly similar to that of the a7R IV's 61MP IMX451 sensor, and especially close to that of the a1's 50MP IMX610 sensor. Binning doesn't get around all of the penalties that are associated with smaller pixels (increased readout noise, lower fill factor, etc.), so it's not very surprising to see that the two cameras have incredibly similar noise levels. As far as I know this isn't documented anywhere by Sony.

Great insights, thank you!

Thanks for the video. Have you tried comparing high resolution cameras/sensors vs their low resolution counterparts for something like astrophotography and would (did) you get similar results?

Thanks for the video and reminder that 'more is still more'. I had been considering an a7siii alongside my a7iv, but I'm minded to think that despite the higher cost that an a1 makes a better overall second body for a variety of reasons. Perhaps off topic but a pity that Sony's a1 flagship (which does an amazing amount) doesn't have a flip screen (trickier without a physical re-build - maybe in a1 mk ii) or firmware update features (it's prob just a firmware tweak needed) adding benefits like 'focus breathing'. Anyway for still and video it seems that an a1 is still streets ahead of an a7siii.

Hi Tony great video, in your view which camera is best suited to landscape astro photography.

Tony confuses the issue here by oversimplifying. Sensors have a lot of factors to deal with besides light gathering. a 20 MP sensor will have different signal to noise depending on whether it is medium format, full frame or APSC. The medium format will have larger photo sites which gather more light for each pixel than the full frame, and likewise for full frame compared to APSC. More light per pixel equals better signal to noise ratio. Using his bucket example how much water was in ONE of the nine buckets compared to the one big bucket? The total light gathered by the entire sensor is irrelevant to the inherent noise. The noise is always there. In broad daylight the signal is strong enough to drown out any noise. It's only when we run out of leeway on the other ends of the triangle and must crank the exposure (gain) that the signal to noise becomes a force to contend with. As he mentions himself, but breezes right past. You have readout to contend with. Higher density sensors take more voltage and generate more heat than lower density ones. What is really going on is that the noise is finer on higher resolution sensors, because the sensor is finer. The manifestation of thermal randomness will have bigger chunks on a lower res sensor. For this to be scientific he would have explored ISO settings with compensation to keep them all the same exposure.

But it doesn't take in consideration that when you're using a high megapixel sensor you need to pair it with a very sharp lens in order to take advantage of the higher megapixel, so it makes the whole combo quite expensive, 20 or 24 megapixel on a full frame sensor for me are still great

3:05 - unpopular opinion - if you were to simply ask me 'which photo do you prefer', I actually would say the R6. Based on what I notice first and foremost, and based on my own priorities, the colours are more saturated and accurate, the contrast is noticeably better, the grain looks consistent and natural, the image looks less processed, and just noticeably crisper edges. The R5 image on the right is more detailed - granted - but my eye is far quicker drawn to the smeary look of Lightroom's noise reduction and the lower contrast, more processed look. I'm a happy owner of an R5 and an R6, but the reason I reach for the R6 more readily for low light work, family dinners etc, is that the files are simply easier to look good with minimal work. I think some of it comes down to how much I dislike the look of Lightroom's luminance noise reduction. I am a big fan of Topaz DeNoise - which I use for wildlife photography but only on special images I intend to print or publish somewhere larger than social media - however the workflow simply isn't fast or convenient enough for bulk editing hundreds of photos from a party or other low light event.

Thank you. I purchased an R6 initially. Six months later I realized the error of my ways and I sold it in favor of an R5. The reality you explain here was one part of my decision to trade up. I like having the extra megapixel sensor. I'm persuaded that when you take everything into consideration the R5 is actually the better camera (over the R6) in low light. If your concern is low light performance - get the R5, not the R6.

Yes, I think that phenomenon is less a myth and more a tech limitation that has recently been ironed out. DSLRs suffered from this much more than the latest mirrorless offerings. For example, my 36mp Nikon D800 starts showing visible noise at around ISO 800, while my 16mp D4S never has noise at ISO 800, and only ever starts showing noise at around ISO 2500

I won’t believe this until I see a comparison with LESS LIGHT! And Tony you should know, that it’ll be much more interesting when the noise ruins the few photons collected by a small “bucket” while the more photons collected with the bigger “buckets” will have a far better noise to signal ratio thus showing more information. Who are you kidding,Tony?

Thank goodness for some sense and logic applied to this. I've long argued that the only comparison should be after optimum processing and then downsizing to the lowest resolution of the two. It's the main reason I use a GFX100s.

I love your videos. Aside from how informative they are, I really enjoy the technical explanation. Is it just me, or is there a sneaky, cheeky reference to Super Troopers? "Enhance" 🤣😂

Perfect video.

I always thought lower megapixels = better low light performance. The Nikon Z APS-C are very, very good at low light and that is a 21 Mp sensor I think.

Great video. Reversed some misconceptions a lot of us had.

This is really useful, thanks.

I ordered a Sony a7RV last night and I’m not gonna lie, this lowlight thing was a concern before I decided to purchase the camera after all. I’m glad there’s really not much to worry about.

I saw the method he used to get everyone confused, he scaled the high megapixel camera to 100% while scaling the lower megapixel camera to 400% but he never scaled the high megapixel camera to 400%

Totally had the same experience few years back going from 24 to 36mega pixel DSLR(!) thank you for pointing this out Tony.

This is very enlightening, especially since I bought myself a Canon R5C recently. Thank you!!

Thanks for the great video. I don't like to resize all my High MP pics, so I go for lower pixels. Just buy what fits your needs.

Please talk about another myth: Do lower pixel counts (on same sensor size) contribute to better dynamic range?

Thank you for this. Thirty-six hours ago I compared performance of my 33mp a7iv with that of my 61mp a7Riv. On a mountain summit I shot starry sky landscapes at ISO 3200 and 6400 using a Zeiss Loxia 21 wide open at f/2.8. Viewed at 200% on a 27" monitor there was no benefit to using the lower pixel count, same size, sensor. Shots from both cameras benefited from good noise reduction and Topaz DeNoise worked well.

You nailed it on the concept of scene brightness or faster lens.... the dynamic range of the sensor (all of them) goes away rapidly as the ISO demand increases.

PLEASE talk about how Dual Native ISO's compare with high & low MP Cameras in regard to noise.

This is the exact conundrum I am currently mulling over, thanks for shedding some light on this. Interesting analogy with the buckets, but surly the issue is not the total amount of water (light) collected by the total combined area, but the amount of water collect by each bucket? And therefor the need for less gain where more is collected? Not to mention the higher percentage of “dead” space at the perimeter of each bucket. It’s a lot to get your head around and I’m looking at this from the perspective of a layman, so I guess the results speak for themselves. Is the improved detail of the higher megapixel sensor not simply the result of higher resolution?

Thanks for the comparison.

Thermal noise is higher with more megapixels, and this is significant in low light long exposure, like astrophotography.

When you scaled the 12MP image did you scale it to the same size as the 60MP image or vice versa? If it's the former, there's a fatal flaw that you're upscaling a 12MP image to a 60MP image and any small noise will be magnified largely. If done vice versa, you're downscaling a 60MP image to a 12MP image which then makes it even more useless since then you're using a 60MP camera as a 12MP camera so what's the comparison being done for in the first place unless done pixel to pixel equally unless you plan to always print a 60MP image on a

For photographers that need to get photos out fast, such as when covering sporting or other live events, they won’t be processing RAW images. They will be using the image quality of the immediate JPEG file from the camera. In that scenario, don’t the lower megapixel sensors produce better low-light images compared to the high megapixel sensors? Maybe that is what the camera companies are using for the claimed low light advantage of lower megapixel cameras.

Really helpful video. A key point you mention is that some higher megapixel cameras skip pixels when filming because the processor isn't fast enough or cool enough to handle the light data. If we compare the FX3 (10.2 megapixels (effective) for movies) to the FX30 (20.1 megapixels (effective) for movies) do they use different processors ? Does the FX30 skip lines ? How does this relate to down sampling from 6 to 4 without pixel binning ?

Meaningful information. Thank you

Completely agree, this is exactly what we found in comparisons we did too. High resolution sensors always outperform low resolution sensors of the same size and generation when shot at high ISO.

Sorry Tony, I have to disagree here in regards to “real world” low light usage. I set up an ARs3 & an A7r4 next to each other with identical settings & lenses & shot a Milky Way Time lapse, & the A7s3’s images were much clearer & less noisy. I understand what you are saying in regards to scaling( 12mp v 61mp) but I’m just giving you a “real world” example. Lol keep up the great work. 👍

Very clear video, thank.

Yep, tried to tell this at a forum, not an easy task. It is something you learn through experiences and learn from them.

Bless you Tony! I went with a Nikon D800 for shooting live concerts. To the standard thinking of the time that is the opposite of what is recommended. The D800 is awesome in low light and allows for cropping a lot better than some other cameras.

If you are going to fiddle with noise reduction on every photo, then sure- I agree with you here. I shoot a lot of low-light PJ work and the noise processing in-camera for JPGs, for whatever reason, seems to perform better for me in the R6 than it did in my R7. I know it's also a crop sensor, but ultimately, I switched to the R6 from the R7 because it was far better in low light in my experience and the R7 was too fast for my needs. I can shoot 12,800 ISO on the R6 without significant issues, the R7 made it hard to shoot anything over 3200, and anything shot any higher than that certainly needed a heavy post-processing hand, as even out of camera JPGs were almost unusable.

You're looking at one very specific parameter here: detail sharpness at *high shutter speeds*. If you're looking for smooth textures at low shutter speeds (as you would when photographing a typical night-time nature/city scene) - you're likely to see a reversal, and here's why: when comparing pixel to pixel - larger pixels are lower noise, however, higher MP cameras have the advantage of being able to average multiple pixels and get a lower noise image at the same target resolution (this is basically what you are doing with the "same zoom" comparison). As exposure times increase, noise levels rise much faster in smaller pixels - up to the point where averaging 4 pixels in a 40MP camera still produces a nosier result than a single large pixel in a 10MP camera. This is where low-MP large-pixel sensors begin to outperform their high-MP counterparts.

Thanks for the great video! What's the difference concerning dynamic range and color reproduction?

Anyone who pays 3500 for a 12mp camera strictly to shoot photos in lowlight is actually in the pool of financial Darwinism.