Maximum useful resolution

[noramila]

For a fullframe DSLR such as 36 mm x 24 mm sensor, the maximum useful resolution could be lower than the sensor maximum potential. While the computed 216 megapixel for photos and 16k (8640p) for video seem feasible, shooting at a lower resolution might increase image quality by yielding larger pixels aligning with the manual advice.

[rlacasse67]

Thanks, I have a good understanding of the basic notions of sensor noise vs pixel size. I’m looking for more insights into the specifics of the manual statements and the 2 μm statement in the manual.

[cam3d]

Hi rlacasse67

If you want to understand the physics behind all this a bit better, I recommend a couple of resources:

https://www.cambridgeincolour.com/

https://www.photopills.com/calculators

TLDR: Larger photosites on sensors usually give better image quality, but sensor technologies are improving non-linearly so this isn't always true.

[rlacasse67]

Hi, I read in the manual that camera pixel size must be higher than 2 μm. the manual also states: Pay attention to pixel size rather than pixels count for each picture. For instance, if a 36
megapixel full-frame reflex (35.9 x 24 mm) is being used it is advisable to shoot at a lower resolution than the maximum provided. It is better to get bigger pixels in the
images even though fewer

I want to understand what all of this means for various camera sensor sizes. As an example, what would be the maximum useful resolution for a full frame DSLR (36 mm x 24 mm) sensor. I compute 216 megapixels for photo and 16k (8640p) for video. Given the statement that shooting at a lower resolution than the maximum may be preferable, I have the impression that I am missing something. Anyone with insights?