Larger sensor just a luxury?

[c.cloudwalker]

ABSOLUTELY !

A larger sensor is nothing more than a luxury.

I spent all kind of crazy money on my Hassies because I had no idea what else to do with that extra cash...

 

[EchoingWhisper]

ABSOLUTELY !

A larger sensor is nothing more than a luxury.

I spent all kind of crazy money on my Hassies because I had no idea what else to do with that extra cash...

Luxury of more resolution.

 

[EchoingWhisper]

Not really true, two lens with the but covering a smaller sensor, light density is highly. The magnifying analogy is surprisingly accurate to what I am thinking.

This is what I keep trying to show you. IMAGE CIRCLE. Larger lens has larger image circle. Smaller lens has smaller image circle.

You assumption was wrong and that make you believe what you believe. You assume when DX lens change into a FX lens, the image circle remain the same, which is not the case.

So, just increase the aperture and turn it into the size of a FX lens and you'll get the same SNR and photon per pixel.

 

[c.cloudwalker]

Not really true, two lens with the but covering a smaller sensor, light density is highly. The magnifying analogy is surprisingly accurate to what I am thinking.

This is what I keep trying to show you. IMAGE CIRCLE. Larger lens has larger image circle. Smaller lens has smaller image circle.

You assumption was wrong and that make you believe what you believe. You assume when DX lens change into a FX lens, the image circle remain the same, which is not the case.

So, just increase the aperture and turn it into the size of a FX lens and you'll get the same SNR and photon per pixel.

:lmao:

Do you want to work?

Or do you just want to think about working?

 

[molested_cow]

Okok here's an analogy, not sure if this will work for you.

You got two cups. One with 5cm diameter and one with 10cm diameter, both have the same depth. Put both in a down pour and see which will collect more water at the same period of time.

A larger sensor vs a smaller sensor of the same pixel count, means the size of each pixel is different. If each pixel is like a cup, then a larger pixel will "collect" more light than the smaller pixel at the same given time.
You kept arguing that they will receive the same amount of light if the light source is the same. However it seems that you are quantifying the light by the number of photons that YOU ALLOW to hit the pixels, which is unrealistic. In the real world, the amount of light is controlled by the aperture and shutter open time, which means at the same given time, there will definitely be more photons hitting on a larger pixel than the small one.


Another way to look at it is, take the D700 sensor and turn it to DX mode(6mp). Its noise performance at DX mode will be the same as FX, which is better than D90 which has a 12mp DX sensor.

Not really true, two lens with the but covering a smaller sensor, light density is highly. The magnifying analogy is surprisingly accurate to what I am thinking.

Another way to look at it is, take the D700 sensor and turn it to DX mode(6mp). Its noise performance at DX mode will be the same as FX, which is better than D90 which has a 12mp DX sensor.

Not true. Because at 100%, the D700 sensor in DX mode will look better. But if you display both at the same size, you'll realise both have the same noise performance.

I don't really know what else to say. It's obvious that you are trying really hard to read things in ways you want to agree with.

I never mention anything about "magnifying" image. You are skewing the D700 vs D90 example by altering the condition of the comparison. You want to argue that D700's image will look worse by stretching a 6mp photo to match the D90's 12mp. How about compressing the D90's 12mp image to match the D700's 6mp DX image? If they indeed look equally good, won't that prove that D700's larger pixels are superior to D90's smaller pixels?

It rains all the time in Malaysia, I strongly suggest trying the cup experiment.

 

[Helen B]

I think you are asking the wrong question about luxury. As the committee has already decided, luxury shall be punished. You should be asking "Are larger sensors irrelevant?" That is much easier to answer, because everyone knows that relephants are large. Even the baby ones.

 

[molested_cow]

But but elephants are much more relevant to the well being of planet earth than the smaller human kind!

 

[bentcountershaft]

If you have a 7D (crop) and a 5D (full) and use the same 200mm EF lens on both using the same aperture value and the same distance to subject then the 5D will have a slightly shallower DOF.

Sorry, depth of field is determined by circle of confusion, aperture and subject - sensor is not a factor.

The circle of confusion is determined by how much enlargement is necessary which is directly related to sensor size.

 

[EchoingWhisper]

Okok here's an analogy, not sure if this will work for you.

You got two cups. One with 5cm diameter and one with 10cm diameter, both have the same depth. Put both in a down pour and see which will collect more water at the same period of time.

A larger sensor vs a smaller sensor of the same pixel count, means the size of each pixel is different. If each pixel is like a cup, then a larger pixel will "collect" more light than the smaller pixel at the same given time.
You kept arguing that they will receive the same amount of light if the light source is the same. However it seems that you are quantifying the light by the number of photons that YOU ALLOW to hit the pixels, which is unrealistic. In the real world, the amount of light is controlled by the aperture and shutter open time, which means at the same given time, there will definitely be more photons hitting on a larger pixel than the small one.


Another way to look at it is, take the D700 sensor and turn it to DX mode(6mp). Its noise performance at DX mode will be the same as FX, which is better than D90 which has a 12mp DX sensor.

Not really true, two lens with the but covering a smaller sensor, light density is highly. The magnifying analogy is surprisingly accurate to what I am thinking.

Another way to look at it is, take the D700 sensor and turn it to DX mode(6mp). Its noise performance at DX mode will be the same as FX, which is better than D90 which has a 12mp DX sensor.

Not true. Because at 100%, the D700 sensor in DX mode will look better. But if you display both at the same size, you'll realise both have the same noise performance.

I don't really know what else to say. It's obvious that you are trying really hard to read things in ways you want to agree with.

I never mention anything about "magnifying" image. You are skewing the D700 vs D90 example by altering the condition of the comparison. You want to argue that D700's image will look worse by stretching a 6mp photo to match the D90's 12mp. How about compressing the D90's 12mp image to match the D700's 6mp DX image? If they indeed look equally good, won't that prove that D700's larger pixels are superior to D90's smaller pixels?

It rains all the time in Malaysia, I strongly suggest trying the cup experiment.

If they look equal, they are the same then. Sensel size don't determine SNR. Sensors size do, at the same f-stop. But a larger sensor would require a larger lens, therefore getting more light. If the smaller sensor use a lens as large as the large sensor, it will get the same light. The cup experiment is applicable too, but goes against your opinion. A good example would be someone trying cup experiment testing two different versions - test one - less cups, larger cups, test two - more cups, smaller cups. Moreover, we're not talking about sensels, but we're talking about sensors now.

 

[HughGuessWho97 12]

"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.

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

:er: WHAT??

 

[EchoingWhisper]

"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.

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

:er: WHAT??

lol. Just go with the magnifying glass analogy. XD

 

[Helen B]

Echoingwhisper,

I can't speak for anyone else, but I would find it easier to discuss this issue with you if you were able to explain your theories in a clearer manner. You seem quite confused, and you use vague and confusing phrases, such as "If the smaller sensor use a lens as large as the large sensor, it will get the same light." In this example, could you try to be more specific about the 'size' of the lens - if you mean its image circle, then say so, and also say whether the f-number stays the same or not. When you say 'same light' can you be more specific about what you mean - for example, do you understand enough to use terms like 'luminous flux' and 'illuminance' (or radiant flux and irradiance, if you wish)?

Best,
Helen

 

[o hey tyler]

Summation of what's going on in this thread with EchoingWhisper... and everyone else.

 

[2WheelPhoto]

TTT bump!

 

[Kolia]

I'm amazed at how many different analogies we can come up with and still the idea doesn't get across.