Larger sensor just a luxury?

[EchoingWhisper]

You say large sensor, yet your talking about 35mm. When I hear large sensor I think medium format and large format. I'm not sure about the advantages, but I can tell you what I personally like about portraits produced with medium/large format sensors. You get a wider FOV, with longer focal lengths. People look their best at longer focal lengths, and with medium/large format you can use very long focal lengths in smaller spaces.

Yeah, I was saying larger sensor, but not necessarily meant medium format etc, cause' my statements are relative. That's why I say the different perspective is quite debatable, it depends. Some might like the strong perspective of smaller sensors cause' they might look more 3D.

 

[mjhoward]

Isn't a larger sensor just a luxury? I can only name a larger sensor's benefit - more resolution. A different perspective is debatable - whether it's better or not. Depth of field and low light ability is almost the same, given that the lens is the same size and sensor design is the same (same megapixels).

Given that the lens is the same size (not including VR and AF), you get the same amount of light no matter how large of a sensor it hits as long as they have the same amount of pixels. [...]

And depth of field should also be the same.

Given that both of the lens are the same size, both will get. Since APS-C sensors' pixel are denser, the light that falls on it is also denser, given that the lens are the same size as full frame. Light in the lens in full frame is spread out more so photons will be more spread out and less dense. Not sure if I'm right too.

If I am right, full frame cameras' only benefit is resolution. A larger sensor also mean a more expensive sensor and also a larger body and a more expensive body. Whether a larger body is good or not, I'd say bodies larger than the current full frame camera bodies are too big to be comfortable, at least for me.

You are very misinformed. As just ONE example, a larger sensor doesn't automatically mean more resolution. There are lots of FF sensor that have LESS resolution than crop sensors (even with current sensors,ex. D4 vs A77). I can't even begin to understand your logic of light somehow becoming more or less dense depending on the sensor behind it

 

[EchoingWhisper]

You say large sensor, yet your talking about 35mm. When I hear large sensor I think medium format and large format. I'm not sure about the advantages, but I can tell you what I personally like about portraits produced with medium/large format sensors. You get a wider FOV, with longer focal lengths. People look their best at longer focal lengths, and with medium/large format you can use very long focal lengths in smaller spaces.

I always thought that it was the camera-subject distance that mattered with portraits, not the focal length of the lens itself.

Yeap.

 

[EchoingWhisper]

Isn't a larger sensor just a luxury? I can only name a larger sensor's benefit - more resolution. A different perspective is debatable - whether it's better or not. Depth of field and low light ability is almost the same, given that the lens is the same size and sensor design is the same (same megapixels).

Given that the lens is the same size (not including VR and AF), you get the same amount of light no matter how large of a sensor it hits as long as they have the same amount of pixels. [...]

And depth of field should also be the same.

Given that both of the lens are the same size, both will get. Since APS-C sensors' pixel are denser, the light that falls on it is also denser, given that the lens are the same size as full frame. Light in the lens in full frame is spread out more so photons will be more spread out and less dense. Not sure if I'm right too.

If I am right, full frame cameras' only benefit is resolution. A larger sensor also mean a more expensive sensor and also a larger body and a more expensive body. Whether a larger body is good or not, I'd say bodies larger than the current full frame camera bodies are too big to be comfortable, at least for me.

You are very misinformed.

Then please correct me.

If you have the same amount of light falling on the sensor, there's no difference no matter how large the sensor is (given that they have the same amount of pixels), the same amount of light will still hit the sensor. Each pixels will still get the same amount of photons, only that the smaller sensors have much denser photons than the larger sensor.

Correct me if you wish, cause' I don't like to see myself being misinformed for too long.

 

[brush]

Hold on...you keep going back to this thing about a large sensor having higher resolution than a smaller one. That's not even true. Resolution has nothing at all to do with the size of the sensor. If you have an 18mp crop sensor it's the same resolution as an 18mp full frame and the same resolution as an 18mp point & shoot. 18mp is 18mp no matter what kind of sensor captures it. But if you're squeezing that 18mp onto a sensor the size of your thumbnail in a point & shoot, the individual light receptors are tiny, have a crap signal to noise ratio, and produce noisy ugly pictures. I don't know if you're confused by the fact that Canon's line has 18mp for the 7D and 21mp for the 5Dii, but that extra 3mp is not a product of the larger sensor. You can buy a 5Di that's full frame and only has 12mp. Don't confuse image sensor size with resolution...

 

[KmH]

The problem with your logic is the assumption it's the same amount of light, because it isn't.

 

[jake337]

You say large sensor, yet your talking about 35mm. When I hear large sensor I think medium format and large format. I'm not sure about the advantages, but I can tell you what I personally like about portraits produced with medium/large format sensors. You get a wider FOV, with longer focal lengths. People look their best at longer focal lengths, and with medium/large format you can use very long focal lengths in smaller spaces.

I always thought that it was the camera-subject distance that mattered with portraits, not the focal length of the lens itself.

I'm not sure how to explain what I'm trying to say. Yes camera to subject distance is what is important, but with larger sensor/film one can keep that distance while using longer focal lengths for more magnification. Does that read better?

 

[mjhoward]

Then please correct me.

If you have the same amount of light falling on the sensor, there's no difference no matter how large the sensor is (given that they have the same amount of pixels), the same amount of light will still hit the sensor. Each pixels will still get the same amount of photons, only that the smaller sensors have much denser photons than the larger sensor.

Correct me if you wish, cause' I don't like to see myself being misinformed for too long.

There are two problems with your reasoning. The first is that the same AMOUNT of light does not fall on a ASP-C sensor as a FF sensor given the same lens. The same DENSITY of light does, but the larger area of the FF sensor allows it to collect more light.

The second problem with your reasoning is that the density of light doesn't change, meaning it also doesn't vary depending on the number of photosites. Consider the case of your sensor only having one pixel. That one pixel will collect all of the light. Now consider your sensor having two pixels. Each pixel will collect half the light. This is because each pixel will occupy half the area and the light hitting each pixel maintains the same density. As a whole, the 2 pixel sensor collects the same amount of light as the one pixel sensor because the total area of both sensors is the same. Your statement "Each pixels will still get the same amount of photons, only that the smaller sensors have much denser photons than the larger sensor" cannot be true because a sensor with more pixels AND denser light would mean more light had to have been input. It's not more dense and it's not less dense... it is the same density over a smaller area, hence less light collected by each photosite.

 

[EchoingWhisper]

The problem with your logic is the assumption it's the same amount of light, because it isn't.

Okay, so I'm wrong. But do you have any clearer explanation?

 

[EchoingWhisper]

Hold on...you keep going back to this thing about a large sensor having higher resolution than a smaller one. That's not even true. Resolution has nothing at all to do with the size of the sensor. If you have an 18mp crop sensor it's the same resolution as an 18mp full frame and the same resolution as an 18mp point & shoot. 18mp is 18mp no matter what kind of sensor captures it. But if you're squeezing that 18mp onto a sensor the size of your thumbnail in a point & shoot, the individual light receptors are tiny, have a crap signal to noise ratio, and produce noisy ugly pictures. I don't know if you're confused by the fact that Canon's line has 18mp for the 7D and 21mp for the 5Dii, but that extra 3mp is not a product of the larger sensor. You can buy a 5Di that's full frame and only has 12mp. Don't confuse image sensor size with resolution...

I did not, I simply said that you could get more resolution from larger sensors, ain't that true? At the same pixel pitch, a full frame sensor would get 1 time more resolution.

 

[EchoingWhisper]

Then please correct me.

If you have the same amount of light falling on the sensor, there's no difference no matter how large the sensor is (given that they have the same amount of pixels), the same amount of light will still hit the sensor. Each pixels will still get the same amount of photons, only that the smaller sensors have much denser photons than the larger sensor.

Correct me if you wish, cause' I don't like to see myself being misinformed for too long.

There are two problems with your reasoning. The first is that the same AMOUNT of light does not fall on a ASP-C sensor as a FF sensor given the same lens. The same DENSITY of light does, but the larger area of the FF sensor allows it to collect more light.

The second problem with your reasoning is that the density of light doesn't change, meaning it also doesn't vary depending on the number of photosites. Consider the case of your sensor only having one pixel. That one pixel will collect all of the light. Now consider your sensor having two pixels. Each pixel will collect half the light. This is because each pixel will occupy half the area and the light hitting each pixel maintains the same density. As a whole, the 2 pixel sensor collects the same amount of light as the one pixel sensor because the total area of both sensors is the same. Your statement "Each pixels will still get the same amount of photons, only that the smaller sensors have much denser photons than the larger sensor" cannot be true because a sensor with more pixels AND denser light would mean more light had to have been input. It's not more dense and it's not less dense... it is the same density over a smaller area, hence less light collected by each photosite.

Ah, you're essentially saying what I'm trying to say. What I mean from an APS-C lens is a lens that only covers the APS-C sensor, not a full frame lens that covers for full frame but used on APS-C sensor.

Do you realise that even at the same f/stop, full frame lenses are larger than APS-C lenses? If you made the APS-C lens the same size as the full frame lens, then the same total amount light will hit the sensor. Density of light does change. A larger f/stop will bring higher density of light, even if the total amount of light is the same. The reason DX *seems* to have worse low light capabilities is because most of the time, when people compare DX with FX, they're using FX lens and the same aperture. The FX lens is not made for the DX sensor, so, you'll be wasting a lot of the glass. If you utilise the entire glass, a DX lens at the same size as FX will essentially transmit about the same amount of light to the sensor.

Your statement "Each pixels will still get the same amount of photons, only that the smaller sensors have much denser photons than the larger sensor" cannot be true because a sensor with more pixels AND denser light would mean more light had to have been input.

That is simply not true. Here is an easier explanation. Humans are pixels on full frame, mice are pixels on cropped frame, apples are photon, fullness is density of photon. There is 100 apples given to 100 humans and 100 apples given to 100 mice. Each human and mouse gets to eat 1 apple. To a human, they don't feel really full. To a mice, they feel really full, even though they actually got the same apples.

Because light are more spread out in full frame, they're less dense. DX sensor size is smaller light are not as spread out, so the light is denser.

Another way to think of this - at the same weight, short people are normally fatter/larger/denser than tall people.

Although I might not be sure if full frame really had no low light advantage compared to cropped frame, I'm pretty sure if both full frame and cropped frame get the same total amount of light (same amount of light per pixel), cropped frame will always get denser light.

 

[Austin Greene]

2 pages of this thread = instant headache

 

[o hey tyler]

So are you saying that you'll get a different exposure with a Nikon D3000 with a DX 35mm f/1.8 shot at f/1.8, ISO 200, 1/100s...Than you would with a Canon 5D and a 35mm f/1.4L @ f/1.8 ISO 200, 1/100s?

 

[mjhoward]

Density of light does change. A larger f/stop will bring higher density of light, even if the total amount of light is the same.

You just added a variable that should be a constant between your comparisons. The only variable here should be the sensor size.

The reason DX *seems* to have worse low light capabilities is because most of the time, when people compare DX with FX, they're using FX lens and the same aperture. The FX lens is not made for the DX sensor, so, you'll be wasting a lot of the glass. If you utilise the entire glass, a DX lens at the same size as FX will essentially transmit about the same amount of light to the sensor.

This is wrong in so many ways. By this logic, if you used a FF body in DX mode, which only makes use of that part of the lens and sensor, your exposures would all be darker and noisier.

Because light are more spread out in full frame, they're less dense. DX sensor size is smaller light are not as spread out, so the light is denser.

Light is NOT more sparse for a FF sensor over a DX all other things being equal. And your analogies are bogus and do not apply here. If you're that interested in it, then pick up a physics book that covers specifically optics. But coming here and asking a question that you think you already know the answer to is not going to help.

 

[EchoingWhisper]

Density of light does change. A larger f/stop will bring higher density of light, even if the total amount of light is the same.

You just added a variable that should be a constant between your comparisons. The only variable here should be the sensor size.

The reason DX *seems* to have worse low light capabilities is because most of the time, when people compare DX with FX, they're using FX lens and the same aperture. The FX lens is not made for the DX sensor, so, you'll be wasting a lot of the glass. If you utilise the entire glass, a DX lens at the same size as FX will essentially transmit about the same amount of light to the sensor.

This is wrong in so many ways. By this logic, if you used a FF body in DX mode, which only makes use of that part of the lens and sensor, your exposures would all be darker and noisier.

Because light are more spread out in full frame, they're less dense. DX sensor size is smaller light are not as spread out, so the light is denser.

Light is NOT more sparse for a FF sensor over a DX all other things being equal. And your analogies are bogus and do not apply here. If you're that interested in it, then pick up a physics book that covers specifically optics. But coming here and asking a question that you think you already know the answer to is not going to help.

I'm not trying to say I'm right. But I think my logic applies. What you're saying is right but you don't understand what I'm trying to tell you.