G2 <-> S50'smaller pixels = ? more noise at higher ISO

[aravet]

Would it be possible that the G2, although older, would make better pictures than the S50 at 400 ISO?

I'm the happy owner of a G2, but I've always found it bulky, and heavy. Now that I have a 10D, I'm tempted by the S50, - smaller, lighter, more pixels - but I wonder how it performs under "low" light condition (400 ISO).

As their sensors have the same size,
, the S50 pixels (sites) must be smallers.
and smaller sensitive site requires more light/photons to reach the sensor.
Am I right?

[Jos Vromen]

So you have a 10D. Why use a S50 then?
The quality of the pictures made by a digital camera depends on the amount of pixels, but also on the quality of the lens. The way the pixels are stored, how they are jpegged and so on and on...
So it's hard to say wich pictures are better, those made with a 5 or 4 million pixel camera.
And don't forget, the photographer makes the difference.....

[aravet]

Jos Vromen wrote:
So you have a 10D. Why use a S50 then?...
The quality of the pictures made ...


The picture I'll make with my G2 is much better than the one I'll never make with the 10D, because it doesn't fit into my pocket.

[Kodack]

In practice, the larger the CCD array (ccd doesn't have pixels) the more light it collects and the better the picture.

However, most of the noise you see at higher ISO's is from raising the gain on the CCD.

So two CCD's of the same size but of different quality may find one of them increasing the gain to get the right exposure and the other being of higher quality so it uses less gain and has a cleaner picture.

The Canon has a very clean CCD.

[Mancini]

Jos Vromen wrote:
And don't forget, the photographer makes the difference.....

Actually, I disagree on this one. I don't think that the photographer makes any difference to the amount of noise generated by a certain camera model (post processing work excluded).