> >The pixel size only limits your ability to resolve fine >detail. The D800 proved it's not the large pixels of the D700 >which gave such great dynamic range and high-ISO performance. >In this case, Nikon triples the previous FX camera's >resolution. Yes the pixels are now 1/3 the size, which means >each is collecting fewer photons, which means lower signal, >which means lower signal-to-noise ratio, but you can also >downsample the images to 12MP, and now you have 3 independent >measuring circuits simulating a larger photosite. Is it >cleaner to measure 3 times and average that reading? It looks >like the answer is yes, so forget about the idea that larger >photosites are what made D700 better. The only challenge is, >you've got to be able to analog-to-digital convert and move >all that data in real-time. That wasn't reasonably doable in >the D700's time, but it is today. >
Larry, I'm not sure how you came to the above conclusion. The D800 has a better sensor with newer technology than the D700. It's not just more smaller pixels/ photosites which can be averaged for down sampling. If pixel size doesn't matter, why can the D4 w 16 MP give us an iso > 200K while the D800 gives a max of 25K? Keep in mind I'm not saying you are wrong but just that you can't prove your point comparing older technology with newer technology.
As I was under the assumption, (perhaps wrongly), pixel size was important for high iso sensitivity, I anticipated the D600 to have better iso performance than the D800, somewhere between the D4 and D800. But this is not the case. Did Nikon want to hold back on the best possible iso performance for marketing reasons? Is there a benefit to having larger pixel/ photsites for high iso performance? I have seen this argued both ways and I don't know the answer.
"Cameras and lenses are simply tools to place our unique vision on film. Concentrate on equipment and you'll take technically good photographs. Concentrate on seeing the light's magic colors and your images will stir the soul." Jack Dykinga