ISO vs Sensor Size (Noise)

prodigy2k7

No longer a newbie, moving up!
Joined
Apr 22, 2008
Messages
1,668
Reaction score
22
Location
California, USA
Can others edit my Photos
Photos OK to edit
I am very confused... LETS HAVE A DISCUSSION :)

reference video:

He says the 7D MK II has a more efficient sensor (20% more) than the 5d mk iii but the 5d has a larger sensor and therefore is gathering more light. I understand it gathers more total light, but how does that play into iso performance? I thought what is important is the light gathered per pixel?

He also says the 7D mk ii is only 3% behind the D810 in terms of sensor efficiency which I find hard to believe...

What am I not getting exactly?
 
The % numbers are bs
 
Whilst Ken Rockwell is famous for being very biased in his opinion this guy is slowly becoming famous for being generally wrong with his maths/theory/understanding.
 
I don't think the "sensor efficiency" really matters. It's just saying that IF canon applied that same tech to a full frame sensor that it would THEN be better.

Regardless-- I absolutely love my 7dmkii.
 
"very confused" + Tony N. video = Braineack not surprised.
 
What counts is not the overall sensor size, but the size of a single pixel.
Smaller pixels develop less signal and tend to have a signal-to-noise ratio (SNR) that promotes image noise.
 
What am I not getting exactly?

Exactly you're not getting that Tony is a clueless clickbait monger who would otherwise be censored by an editor in any legitimate form of media. You've only made one mistake so far -- you watched it. Self-hypnosis may help you forget what you saw.

P.S. Here's comparison specs on the 7DmkII and the D810: Photographic Dynamic Range versus ISO Setting

Joe
 
Because I've posted twice in this thread, my post efficiency is now 50%.
 
Because I've posted twice in this thread, my post efficiency is now 50%.
That makes you 50% illogical.

Catching up to Tony at 100% ...

I've tried watching his videos in the past. I just can't follow it because he deviates from reality too much.
 
Yeah but if you take reality, and multiply it by crop factor squared, it doesn't even matter.
 
I'm starting to think that Youtube just isn't a good place to get information.
 

Most reactions

Back
Top