The image resolution for the respective megapixels remains the same whether the camera is of medium format or full frame or APS-C or even mobile phones. However the sensor sizes differ in these aspects.  For example, the maximum output image resolution remains the same for a 20 megapixel full frame or APS-C sensors.  How is the image impacted here?
121861
I'm reading  on sensor size:     Digital compact cameras have substantially smaller sensors offering a   similar number of pixels. As a consequence, the pixels are much   smaller, which is a key reason for the image quality difference,   especially in terms of noise and dynamic range.   Could you please elaborate on the last sentence: what's the relation between sensor size and image quality? In particular, what are the advantages and disadvantages of a small sensor (of a compact camera, in contrast to a large sensor of a DSLR camera)?
1768
This is the original image (610x405)    This is the image after applying image style (scale and crop) to 290x190.    Both image have the same aspect ration, yet there is visible quality loss on downsizing. Am I applying the right image style? What should I be doing?
70354
I have been designing graphics for years.  I have gone through a dozen printers.  I have not found any difference in the printing of my 300 resolution images, and the 100 resolution, I changed the 300 resolution to.  Changing from 300 resolution to 100 saves space and I find no difference in quality or size of printed image.  Am I missing something?
16139
I just rendered an image with the 1920 x 1080 resolution, but when the image was done rendering it was 960 x 540. I don't know why it is coming out different from the dimensions specified in the render, what is the reasoning behind that? This is a Cycles Render, if that makes a difference. My rendering setup below:
5190
If I change the ISO settings on my camera, obviously the gain of the system is increased, amplifying the signal from the sensor. What's not clear to me is where the amplification takes place. I see several possibilities:   In the sensor, by increasing voltage or some other mechanism Via an analog amplifier outside of the sensor Digitally, after the signal has been digitized, but before storing data in the RAW file As a parameter applied solely in creating an image from RAW   If #4 is true, then you could take a 4-stop overexposed RAW picture at ISO 1600, and then in post processing produce a JPEG at ISO 100 that would be the same as if the original photo had been shot at ISO 100.  If #1 or #2 is true, then a RAW file shot at ISO 1600 would actually contain more information about shadows, and an ISO 100 RAW would contain more information about highlights.
11656
I have taken a picture whose resolution is less. I can resize the image easily (i.e I can scale to higher resolution) but the image quality goes for a toss, which is true because the image might not have enough pixels to scale properly.   Is resizing a means of increasing the resolution of the image ? Is it possible to increase the pixel density of the image and then resize, so that quality of the image is not affected much?   I mainly use GIMP and Picasa.
73227
I've seen in several forums that some phones have very good cameras and the photos  taken are compressed too much and the details are lost.  I was wondering whether a 3rd party application (forgetting the post processing done by the application) have access to the full resolution image without any compression.  So can another application access the raw data from the camera or all applications gets the same raw data when they access the camera?
91602
The second half of  says      Notice that I only shot full-stop ISO which is important with Canon DSLRs because the gain to obtain the 1/3 stops in between is applied in software by the processor which amplifies noise more than the on-sensor gain which is used to get the full stops.   Is that true? I spent some time looking online, and opinions really differ on it. Some people claim that it doesn't matter because increasing ISO is just increasing the electrical gain on the sensor, and it is a linear curve. Other people are convinced it does matter.  I am not really looking for opinion or "home brew" test. The best answer will be one that is based off of a reputable study.  If full frame vs. cropped sensor matters, please make sure to point that out.
69239
compares Canon EOS 550D and Canon EOS 500D cameras and mentions     18.7 million effective pixels   for 550D. However the best resolution possible using this camera is  5184 * 3456 = 17915904 ~ 17.9 million pixels   What are effective pixels, and why is that number greater than 17.9 million in this case?
40039
When setting image quality in my Canon EOS 1200d dSLR there are two options for the L, M and S1 size. What is the difference betwen these settings (I couldn't find it in camera documentation) ?
88590
I was reading about crop factor from various places on the internet, and the general idea that kept building in my mind was that full-frame cameras are good for wide-angle shots but not that good for tele-photo. In :     [...] a 200 mm lens on a camera with a crop   factor of 1.5 has the same angle of   view as a 300 mm lens on a full-frame   camera. The extra "reach", for a given   number of pixels, can be helpful in   specific areas of photography such as   wildlife or sports.   It makes sense, but how high would the level of detail be on a full-frame with 300mm compared to the other example?
55321
When someone wants to compliment a 35mm sensor, he can say that it's [almost] as good as medium format. Medium format appears to be the gold standard where image quality is concerned.  But. I'm usually working with natural light using my lenses wide open, and the widest lenses that I've seen for Hasselblad or Leica S2 are f/2.8, which I consider very dark. Also, when I watch clips on youtube concerning medium format, people usually use those lenses with artificial lighting, which also confirms my impression that medium format cameras aren't as light sensitive as DLSR systems.  So my question is - let's say I'm working with 1D X and 85mm f1.2. Is there anything in medium format sector, that can beat that combination when working in low light conditions?
40773
I would like to create a 60 inch x 20 inch canvas print using an image with a resolution of 4759x1798 (240 pixels per inch) and I would like to know if the image quality will still be good at that size.  To generalise the question, what is the recommended maximum size of an enlargement at varying image resolutions?  e.g. 3 megapixel, 5 megapixel, 8 megapixel, etc
39248
I want to experiment taking photos in which the sun appears. I'm afraid of what might happen if I take one with a narrower angle (where sun would be bigger). Can the lens act as a magnifying glass and burn the CCD or CMOS sensor?  Under which circumstances (zoom, exposure, aperture, etc...), can the sensor be damaged by the sun?
15950
Suppose you want to store your photos at some lower resolution, let's say about ~1 MB large.  You own a camera able to make photos at 5 MPix and more.  And, you want to have the maximum quality at the smaller size.  Would it be better to make a photo at highest resolution and then resize it with PC software (with a good filter of course), or to directly set the camera to make photos at 2 MPix only?
100059
Ever since I've heard of extension tubes I've been curious if they somehow crop the image that appears on the camera sensor.  Based on , the answer is "no" (at least not that I can tell).  Now that I know that, why not?  It seems like they would somehow muck up the image that appears on the sensor, and while they obviously do alter the DOF, it looks like the image still appears on the entire sensor. Obviously my understanding of how the lens forms an image on the sensor has something wrong with it, but what is the actual effect on the light when using an extension tube?
114178
Is it something like the sensor captures a circular image and then what we get is the cropped version?  Something like this:    Or did I get it completely wrong?