sonyalpharumors

What counts is saturation capacity per area not per pixel, eg, e- per square micron, since your argument was not about sensor size but about pixel size.
Here all Nikon DSLRs since the D2H:
http://img405.imageshack.us/img405/4218/71060379.png
I don’t see any trend that larger pixels correlate with higher specific saturation capacity (SC per area), rather quite the contrary. Of course, you can always pick two cameras where your statement is true but overall the trend you proclaim is not there.

Assume for a second that saturation capacity per area is constant (it isn’t, it tends to go up with smaller pixels). If your scene DR requires the large saturation capacity of a 6 MP sensor pixel or by extension the SC of four pooled 24 MP sensor pixels, then it does not matter which sensor you use, both will capture the same DR in a final 6 MP image. So, zero advantage for the larger pixels but also zero advantage for the smaller pixels. If your next shot then has a smaller scene DR, your 24 MP sensor will resolve noticeably more detail while capturing the DR as well as your 6 MP sensor. Advantage 24 MP sensor.

BTW, your sentence: “For highlights you can’t replace a single pixel with several pixels; so the option is to underexpose and pray scaling down (binning) will take care of noise.” That is exactly what is also happening with larger pixels. For constant SC per area, a larger pixel will be equally blown at the same exposure, thus you have to reduce exposure in both cases, and rely in both cases that either the ‘binning’ by using a larger pixel or by actual binning of smaller pixels reduces your noise.

And I would love to hear how pixel size interacts with flare, I have no idea what relationship you have in mind there.

In the end it very much feels like your thinking is guided by the correct idea that a 24 MP FX sensor is better than a 24 MP DX sensor, but then you make the incorrect conclusion that the reason is the larger pixels and not the larger sensor area that is covering a given detail in your scene.

You claim that smaller microlenses lead to more flare? Care to provide some evidence or corroboration from other people?

And care to provide some data on those huge pixel sensors? Like pixel size, definition of DR that was used for the 120 dB (eg, the DxO criterion)? So we can compare them to other sensors instead of just taking your word that they are ‘better’ than other, smaller-pixel sensors.

How do I do the experiment if I don’t have cameras which can take the same lens but have differently sized pixels? I cannot.
BTW, ‘we’ refers to the majority of people discussing these things at a somewhat technical level. Your position is a minority position.

You obviously want to make two points, a first one you refuse to explain in more detail (because it would be below you to waste your time explaining anything to people more stupid than you) and a second one that I am too stupid to understand your first point (which neatly puts into question everything I have said). I cannot help but feel that that second point is more important to you since you make it much more clearly than the first one.

Speaking for others is a bad thing? I thought whenever a group of people agree on something and want to articulate that, using ‘we’ is the most straightforward way of declaring that there is more than one person behind a position.

But naturally, if your experience is nobody ever agrees with you, it might feel strange to you that others might agree on something.

I am presenting how I understand your posts. I am not speaking for you, I am just relaying how I perceive things at my end.