Lens Hype, What is really a good lens?

[donny1963]

Ok, so the very first thing I learned about bokeh. You never want to post anything about it to TPF. If you do you'll wind up in a hypertechnical discussion with dozens of posters attempting to one up each other to display their vast technical knowledge. There will corrections posted correcting corrections and it dissolves quickly into a complete cluster.

So, the first rule about bokeh? Don't talk about bokeh.

Sent from my N9518 using Tapatalk

It's not rocket science, it's just simple stuff misunderstood by a vast army of Youtube vloggers and bloggers.

Joe

And yet it generates a massive amount of snark whenever anything gets posted on the subject. Everyone dives for their professor hat and the conversation goes from nasty to nastier, with tons of condescension tossed in for good measure.

So yup, my advice to the op, walk away from this thread and don't post about bokeh in the future.


I suggest you avoid crop factor discussions as well, they seem to have a similar effect

Sent from my N9518 using Tapatalk

Yeah only because people who can't afford FF vs APSC gets offended because they realize they clearly can't get the same image quality with APSC as they can with FF & MED format...
lol

 

[Ysarex]

and here bokeh is about blur in the background, here is an article about it, so i'm not the only one who says this..

The Bokeh Effect: How Sensor Size Affects Background Blur

I gave you a reference to a good article that defines bokeh correctly: Kiev Cameras
Here are definitions:
Oxford dictionary:
bokeh
Pronunciation: /bōˈkā/

noun
Photography
The visual quality of the out-of-focus areas of a photographic image, especially as rendered by a particular lens

Dictionary.com:
noun
a Japanese term for the subjective aesthetic quality of out-of-focus areas of a photographic image.

So now that we know the blog you referenced is also wrong you'd be advised to hold everything else they say suspect as well.

Joe

yeah and that reference says exactly in other terms what i said, lol

WOW!!!!!!!!!!!

You said; "Bokah is a FAD people getting all hyped up thinking the only good portrait is a bokah one, meaning blur the background, but that is simply not true." [emphasis mine] Bokeh is not blurring the background.

Referenced article said; "Suffice to say that different lens designs have an effect on the appearance of the out-of-focus areas in photographs." [emphasis mine] This is a correct understanding of the term bokeh. It is not what you said in other terms.

Joe

 

[donny1963]

once they read that last reply i'm sure there eyes are going to go cross eyed,, but that's ok..

lol

 

[Ysarex]

Not an error, full frame vs APSC does effect exposure differently using the same situation , or should i say larger sensors have an advantage over smaller sensors with the amount of light, for instance a med format camera requires 28% less light then a full frame camera to get the same exposure with the same situation. same with full frame vs apsc ..

And how exactly does that alter the degree of background blur?

But wait! Before you try and answer that please confirm this: Describe specifically this advantage in amount of light for a FF sensor. Your saying that at same ISO, shutter speed and ambient light with lenses at same AOV and both at f/2.8 the APSC camera will be exposed less than the FF. Yes or no?

Joe

Intuitively, if you put the same lens with the same settings on both cameras, and if the distance from the lens to the sensor is the same in both cases, then the full frame sensor will collect more light because the sensor is larger and therefore covers more of the circle of light projected by the lens.
pretty simple physics and math, but maybe you and your friends was out skipping school when your teacher was explaining physics and math...

yes the same everything try to make the situation exactly the same, but with one sensor larger then the other..

An APS-C sensor is about 24x15mm, while a Full Frame (FF) sensor is 36x24mm. In terms of area, the APS-C sensor is about 360mm^2, and the FF is 864mm^2. Now, calculating the actual area of a sensor that is functional pixels can be rather complex from a real-world standpoint, so we will assumeideal sensors for the time being, wherein the total surface area of the sensor is dedicated to functional pixels, assume that those pixels are used as efficiently as possible, and assume all other factors affecting light (such as focal length, aperture, etc.) are equivalent. Given that, and given that our hypothetical cameras are both 8mp, then its clear that the size of each pixel for the APS-C sensor is smaller than the size of each pixel for the FF sensor. In exact terms:

APS-C:
360mm^2 / 8,000,000px = 0.000045mm^2/px
-> 0.000045 mm^2 * (1000 µm / mm)^2 = 45µm^2 (square microns)
-> sqrt(45µm^2) = 6.7µm

FF:
864mm^2 / 8,000,000px = 0.000108mm^2/px
-> 0.000108 mm^2 * (1000 µm / mm)^2 = 108µm^2 (microns)
-> sqrt(108µm^2) = 10.4µm

In simpler, normalized terms of "pixel size", or the width or height of each pixel (commonly quoted on photo gear web sites), we have:

APS-C Pixel Size = 6.7µm pixel
FF Pixel Size = 10.4µm pixel

In terms of pixel size, a FF 8mp camera has 1.55x larger pixels than an APS-C 8mp camera. A one-dimensional difference in pixel size does not tell the whole story, however. Pixels have two-dimensional area over which they gather light, so taking the difference between the area of each FF pixel vs. each APS-C pixel tells the whole story:

108µm^2 / 45µm^2 = 2.4

An (idealized) FF camera has 2.4x, or about 1 stop worth, the light gathering power of an (idealized) APS-C camera! That is why a larger sensor is more beneficial when shooting in low light...they simply have greater light gathering power over any given timeframe.

In alternative terms, a larger pixel is capable of capturing more photon hits than a smaller pixelin any given timeframe (my meaning of 'sensitivity').

SNow, the example and computations above all assume "idealized" sensors, or sensors that are perfectly efficient. Real-world sensors are not idealized, nor are they as easy to compare in an apples-to-apples fashion. Real-world sensors don't utilize every single pixel etched into their surface at maximum efficiency, more expensive sensors tend to have more advanced "technology" built into them, such as microlenses that help gather even more light, smaller non-functional gaps between each pixel, backlit wiring fabrication that moves column/row activate and read wiring below the photo-sensitive elements (while normal designs leave that wiring above (and interfering with) the photo-sensitive elements), etc. Additionally, full-frame sensors often have higher megapixel counts than smaller sensors, complicating matters even more.

A real-world example of two actual sensors might be to compare the Canon 7D APS-C sensor with the Canon 5D Mark II FF sensor. The 7D sensor is 18mp, while the 5D sensor is 21.1mp. Most sensors are rated in rough megapixels, and usually have a bit more than their marketed number, as many border pixels are used for calibration purposes, obstructed by sensor filter mechanics, etc. So we'll assume that 18mp and 21.1mp are real-world pixel counts. The difference in light-gathering power of these two current and modern sensors is:

7D APS-C: 360mm^2 / 18,000,000px * 1,000,000 = 20µm^2/px
5DMII FF: 864mm^2 / 21,100,000px * 1,000,000 = 40.947 ~= 41µm^2/px

41µm^2 / 20µm^2 = 2.05 ~= 2

The Canon 5D MkII Full-Frame camera has about 2x the light gathering power of the 7D APS-C camera. That would translate into about one stops worth of additional native sensitivity. (In reality, the 5DII and 7D both have a maximum native ISO of 6400, however the 7D is quite a bit noisier than the 5DII at both 3200 and 6400, and only really seems to normalize at about ISO 800.

See: Canon EOS 7D Review) In contrast, an 18mp FF sensor would have about 1.17x the light gathering power of the 21.1mp FF sensor of the 5D MkII, since fewer pixels are spread out over the same (and larger than APS-C) area.

The above is irrelevant. I asked two questions. Any chance you can answer them. I'll repeat them:

You said, "Not an error, full frame vs APSC does effect exposure differently using the same situation , or should i say larger sensors have an advantage over smaller sensors with the amount of light, for instance a med format camera requires 28% less light then a full frame camera to get the same exposure with the same situation. same with full frame vs apsc ..

And I asked, "And how exactly does that alter the degree of background blur?

But wait! Before you try and answer that please confirm this: Describe specifically this advantage in amount of light for a FF sensor. Your saying that at same ISO, shutter speed and ambient light with lenses at same AOV and both at f/2.8 the APSC camera will be exposed less than the FF. Yes or no?"

Joe

 

[480sparky]

 

[donny1963]

Not an error, full frame vs APSC does effect exposure differently using the same situation , or should i say larger sensors have an advantage over smaller sensors with the amount of light, for instance a med format camera requires 28% less light then a full frame camera to get the same exposure with the same situation. same with full frame vs apsc ..

And how exactly does that alter the degree of background blur?

But wait! Before you try and answer that please confirm this: Describe specifically this advantage in amount of light for a FF sensor. Your saying that at same ISO, shutter speed and ambient light with lenses at same AOV and both at f/2.8 the APSC camera will be exposed less than the FF. Yes or no?

Joe

Intuitively, if you put the same lens with the same settings on both cameras, and if the distance from the lens to the sensor is the same in both cases, then the full frame sensor will collect more light because the sensor is larger and therefore covers more of the circle of light projected by the lens.
pretty simple physics and math, but maybe you and your friends was out skipping school when your teacher was explaining physics and math...

yes the same everything try to make the situation exactly the same, but with one sensor larger then the other..

An APS-C sensor is about 24x15mm, while a Full Frame (FF) sensor is 36x24mm. In terms of area, the APS-C sensor is about 360mm^2, and the FF is 864mm^2. Now, calculating the actual area of a sensor that is functional pixels can be rather complex from a real-world standpoint, so we will assumeideal sensors for the time being, wherein the total surface area of the sensor is dedicated to functional pixels, assume that those pixels are used as efficiently as possible, and assume all other factors affecting light (such as focal length, aperture, etc.) are equivalent. Given that, and given that our hypothetical cameras are both 8mp, then its clear that the size of each pixel for the APS-C sensor is smaller than the size of each pixel for the FF sensor. In exact terms:

APS-C:
360mm^2 / 8,000,000px = 0.000045mm^2/px
-> 0.000045 mm^2 * (1000 µm / mm)^2 = 45µm^2 (square microns)
-> sqrt(45µm^2) = 6.7µm

FF:
864mm^2 / 8,000,000px = 0.000108mm^2/px
-> 0.000108 mm^2 * (1000 µm / mm)^2 = 108µm^2 (microns)
-> sqrt(108µm^2) = 10.4µm

In simpler, normalized terms of "pixel size", or the width or height of each pixel (commonly quoted on photo gear web sites), we have:

APS-C Pixel Size = 6.7µm pixel
FF Pixel Size = 10.4µm pixel

In terms of pixel size, a FF 8mp camera has 1.55x larger pixels than an APS-C 8mp camera. A one-dimensional difference in pixel size does not tell the whole story, however. Pixels have two-dimensional area over which they gather light, so taking the difference between the area of each FF pixel vs. each APS-C pixel tells the whole story:

108µm^2 / 45µm^2 = 2.4

An (idealized) FF camera has 2.4x, or about 1 stop worth, the light gathering power of an (idealized) APS-C camera! That is why a larger sensor is more beneficial when shooting in low light...they simply have greater light gathering power over any given timeframe.

In alternative terms, a larger pixel is capable of capturing more photon hits than a smaller pixelin any given timeframe (my meaning of 'sensitivity').

SNow, the example and computations above all assume "idealized" sensors, or sensors that are perfectly efficient. Real-world sensors are not idealized, nor are they as easy to compare in an apples-to-apples fashion. Real-world sensors don't utilize every single pixel etched into their surface at maximum efficiency, more expensive sensors tend to have more advanced "technology" built into them, such as microlenses that help gather even more light, smaller non-functional gaps between each pixel, backlit wiring fabrication that moves column/row activate and read wiring below the photo-sensitive elements (while normal designs leave that wiring above (and interfering with) the photo-sensitive elements), etc. Additionally, full-frame sensors often have higher megapixel counts than smaller sensors, complicating matters even more.

A real-world example of two actual sensors might be to compare the Canon 7D APS-C sensor with the Canon 5D Mark II FF sensor. The 7D sensor is 18mp, while the 5D sensor is 21.1mp. Most sensors are rated in rough megapixels, and usually have a bit more than their marketed number, as many border pixels are used for calibration purposes, obstructed by sensor filter mechanics, etc. So we'll assume that 18mp and 21.1mp are real-world pixel counts. The difference in light-gathering power of these two current and modern sensors is:

7D APS-C: 360mm^2 / 18,000,000px * 1,000,000 = 20µm^2/px
5DMII FF: 864mm^2 / 21,100,000px * 1,000,000 = 40.947 ~= 41µm^2/px

41µm^2 / 20µm^2 = 2.05 ~= 2

The Canon 5D MkII Full-Frame camera has about 2x the light gathering power of the 7D APS-C camera. That would translate into about one stops worth of additional native sensitivity. (In reality, the 5DII and 7D both have a maximum native ISO of 6400, however the 7D is quite a bit noisier than the 5DII at both 3200 and 6400, and only really seems to normalize at about ISO 800.

See: Canon EOS 7D Review) In contrast, an 18mp FF sensor would have about 1.17x the light gathering power of the 21.1mp FF sensor of the 5D MkII, since fewer pixels are spread out over the same (and larger than APS-C) area.

The above is irrelevant. I asked two questions. Any chance you can answer them. I'll repeat them:

You said, "Not an error, full frame vs APSC does effect exposure differently using the same situation , or should i say larger sensors have an advantage over smaller sensors with the amount of light, for instance a med format camera requires 28% less light then a full frame camera to get the same exposure with the same situation. same with full frame vs apsc ..

And I asked, "And how exactly does that alter the degree of background blur?

But wait! Before you try and answer that please confirm this: Describe specifically this advantage in amount of light for a FF sensor. Your saying that at same ISO, shutter speed and ambient light with lenses at same AOV and both at f/2.8 the APSC camera will be exposed less than the FF. Yes or no?"

Joe

yes but i knew i would get an answer like that because i knew my formula would be way over your year to understand but it does explain my theory in full detail to prove what i said.
However, you keep stick with your own idea of what you think is reality, i'm sure it works for you..

lol

 

[table1349]

Not an error, full frame vs APSC does effect exposure differently using the same situation , or should i say larger sensors have an advantage over smaller sensors with the amount of light, for instance a med format camera requires 28% less light then a full frame camera to get the same exposure with the same situation. same with full frame vs apsc ..

And how exactly does that alter the degree of background blur?

But wait! Before you try and answer that please confirm this: Describe specifically this advantage in amount of light for a FF sensor. Your saying that at same ISO, shutter speed and ambient light with lenses at same AOV and both at f/2.8 the APSC camera will be exposed less than the FF. Yes or no?

Joe

Intuitively, if you put the same lens with the same settings on both cameras, and if the distance from the lens to the sensor is the same in both cases, then the full frame sensor will collect more light because the sensor is larger and therefore covers more of the circle of light projected by the lens.
pretty simple physics and math, but maybe you and your friends was out skipping school when your teacher was explaining physics and math...

yes the same everything try to make the situation exactly the same, but with one sensor larger then the other..

An APS-C sensor is about 24x15mm, while a Full Frame (FF) sensor is 36x24mm. In terms of area, the APS-C sensor is about 360mm^2, and the FF is 864mm^2. Now, calculating the actual area of a sensor that is functional pixels can be rather complex from a real-world standpoint, so we will assumeideal sensors for the time being, wherein the total surface area of the sensor is dedicated to functional pixels, assume that those pixels are used as efficiently as possible, and assume all other factors affecting light (such as focal length, aperture, etc.) are equivalent. Given that, and given that our hypothetical cameras are both 8mp, then its clear that the size of each pixel for the APS-C sensor is smaller than the size of each pixel for the FF sensor. In exact terms:

APS-C:
360mm^2 / 8,000,000px = 0.000045mm^2/px
-> 0.000045 mm^2 * (1000 µm / mm)^2 = 45µm^2 (square microns)
-> sqrt(45µm^2) = 6.7µm

FF:
864mm^2 / 8,000,000px = 0.000108mm^2/px
-> 0.000108 mm^2 * (1000 µm / mm)^2 = 108µm^2 (microns)
-> sqrt(108µm^2) = 10.4µm

In simpler, normalized terms of "pixel size", or the width or height of each pixel (commonly quoted on photo gear web sites), we have:

APS-C Pixel Size = 6.7µm pixel
FF Pixel Size = 10.4µm pixel

In terms of pixel size, a FF 8mp camera has 1.55x larger pixels than an APS-C 8mp camera. A one-dimensional difference in pixel size does not tell the whole story, however. Pixels have two-dimensional area over which they gather light, so taking the difference between the area of each FF pixel vs. each APS-C pixel tells the whole story:

108µm^2 / 45µm^2 = 2.4

An (idealized) FF camera has 2.4x, or about 1 stop worth, the light gathering power of an (idealized) APS-C camera! That is why a larger sensor is more beneficial when shooting in low light...they simply have greater light gathering power over any given timeframe.

In alternative terms, a larger pixel is capable of capturing more photon hits than a smaller pixelin any given timeframe (my meaning of 'sensitivity').

SNow, the example and computations above all assume "idealized" sensors, or sensors that are perfectly efficient. Real-world sensors are not idealized, nor are they as easy to compare in an apples-to-apples fashion. Real-world sensors don't utilize every single pixel etched into their surface at maximum efficiency, more expensive sensors tend to have more advanced "technology" built into them, such as microlenses that help gather even more light, smaller non-functional gaps between each pixel, backlit wiring fabrication that moves column/row activate and read wiring below the photo-sensitive elements (while normal designs leave that wiring above (and interfering with) the photo-sensitive elements), etc. Additionally, full-frame sensors often have higher megapixel counts than smaller sensors, complicating matters even more.

A real-world example of two actual sensors might be to compare the Canon 7D APS-C sensor with the Canon 5D Mark II FF sensor. The 7D sensor is 18mp, while the 5D sensor is 21.1mp. Most sensors are rated in rough megapixels, and usually have a bit more than their marketed number, as many border pixels are used for calibration purposes, obstructed by sensor filter mechanics, etc. So we'll assume that 18mp and 21.1mp are real-world pixel counts. The difference in light-gathering power of these two current and modern sensors is:

7D APS-C: 360mm^2 / 18,000,000px * 1,000,000 = 20µm^2/px
5DMII FF: 864mm^2 / 21,100,000px * 1,000,000 = 40.947 ~= 41µm^2/px

41µm^2 / 20µm^2 = 2.05 ~= 2

The Canon 5D MkII Full-Frame camera has about 2x the light gathering power of the 7D APS-C camera. That would translate into about one stops worth of additional native sensitivity. (In reality, the 5DII and 7D both have a maximum native ISO of 6400, however the 7D is quite a bit noisier than the 5DII at both 3200 and 6400, and only really seems to normalize at about ISO 800.

See: Canon EOS 7D Review) In contrast, an 18mp FF sensor would have about 1.17x the light gathering power of the 21.1mp FF sensor of the 5D MkII, since fewer pixels are spread out over the same (and larger than APS-C) area.

Please explain in your own words the physics of your plagiarized post. Why are larger sensors better at low light?

The physics of a lens is simple. The same lens will transmit the same amount of light given the exact same conditions no matter what size the sensor. PERIOD! Sensor size has NOTHING to do with the amount of light being transmitted. Only with what it can record. I repeat "Mixing Apples and Oranges will not give you Peaches."

 

[Ysarex]

yes but i knew i would get an answer like that because i knew my formula would be way over your year to understand but it does explain my theory in full detail to prove what i said.
However, you keep stick with your own idea of what you think is reality, i'm sure it works for you..

lol

It wasn't your formula you copied it from here: Why are larger sensors better at low light?

And that article topic is unrelated to what you have no idea about is being discussed.

Joe

 

[unpopular]

Debating about Bokeh is like debating Santa's criteria for the naughty or nice list.

It's subjective and largely imaginary.

 

[donny1963]

Not an error, full frame vs APSC does effect exposure differently using the same situation , or should i say larger sensors have an advantage over smaller sensors with the amount of light, for instance a med format camera requires 28% less light then a full frame camera to get the same exposure with the same situation. same with full frame vs apsc ..

And how exactly does that alter the degree of background blur?

But wait! Before you try and answer that please confirm this: Describe specifically this advantage in amount of light for a FF sensor. Your saying that at same ISO, shutter speed and ambient light with lenses at same AOV and both at f/2.8 the APSC camera will be exposed less than the FF. Yes or no?

Joe

Intuitively, if you put the same lens with the same settings on both cameras, and if the distance from the lens to the sensor is the same in both cases, then the full frame sensor will collect more light because the sensor is larger and therefore covers more of the circle of light projected by the lens.
pretty simple physics and math, but maybe you and your friends was out skipping school when your teacher was explaining physics and math...

yes the same everything try to make the situation exactly the same, but with one sensor larger then the other..

An APS-C sensor is about 24x15mm, while a Full Frame (FF) sensor is 36x24mm. In terms of area, the APS-C sensor is about 360mm^2, and the FF is 864mm^2. Now, calculating the actual area of a sensor that is functional pixels can be rather complex from a real-world standpoint, so we will assumeideal sensors for the time being, wherein the total surface area of the sensor is dedicated to functional pixels, assume that those pixels are used as efficiently as possible, and assume all other factors affecting light (such as focal length, aperture, etc.) are equivalent. Given that, and given that our hypothetical cameras are both 8mp, then its clear that the size of each pixel for the APS-C sensor is smaller than the size of each pixel for the FF sensor. In exact terms:

APS-C:
360mm^2 / 8,000,000px = 0.000045mm^2/px
-> 0.000045 mm^2 * (1000 µm / mm)^2 = 45µm^2 (square microns)
-> sqrt(45µm^2) = 6.7µm

FF:
864mm^2 / 8,000,000px = 0.000108mm^2/px
-> 0.000108 mm^2 * (1000 µm / mm)^2 = 108µm^2 (microns)
-> sqrt(108µm^2) = 10.4µm

In simpler, normalized terms of "pixel size", or the width or height of each pixel (commonly quoted on photo gear web sites), we have:

APS-C Pixel Size = 6.7µm pixel
FF Pixel Size = 10.4µm pixel

In terms of pixel size, a FF 8mp camera has 1.55x larger pixels than an APS-C 8mp camera. A one-dimensional difference in pixel size does not tell the whole story, however. Pixels have two-dimensional area over which they gather light, so taking the difference between the area of each FF pixel vs. each APS-C pixel tells the whole story:

108µm^2 / 45µm^2 = 2.4

An (idealized) FF camera has 2.4x, or about 1 stop worth, the light gathering power of an (idealized) APS-C camera! That is why a larger sensor is more beneficial when shooting in low light...they simply have greater light gathering power over any given timeframe.

In alternative terms, a larger pixel is capable of capturing more photon hits than a smaller pixelin any given timeframe (my meaning of 'sensitivity').

SNow, the example and computations above all assume "idealized" sensors, or sensors that are perfectly efficient. Real-world sensors are not idealized, nor are they as easy to compare in an apples-to-apples fashion. Real-world sensors don't utilize every single pixel etched into their surface at maximum efficiency, more expensive sensors tend to have more advanced "technology" built into them, such as microlenses that help gather even more light, smaller non-functional gaps between each pixel, backlit wiring fabrication that moves column/row activate and read wiring below the photo-sensitive elements (while normal designs leave that wiring above (and interfering with) the photo-sensitive elements), etc. Additionally, full-frame sensors often have higher megapixel counts than smaller sensors, complicating matters even more.

A real-world example of two actual sensors might be to compare the Canon 7D APS-C sensor with the Canon 5D Mark II FF sensor. The 7D sensor is 18mp, while the 5D sensor is 21.1mp. Most sensors are rated in rough megapixels, and usually have a bit more than their marketed number, as many border pixels are used for calibration purposes, obstructed by sensor filter mechanics, etc. So we'll assume that 18mp and 21.1mp are real-world pixel counts. The difference in light-gathering power of these two current and modern sensors is:

7D APS-C: 360mm^2 / 18,000,000px * 1,000,000 = 20µm^2/px
5DMII FF: 864mm^2 / 21,100,000px * 1,000,000 = 40.947 ~= 41µm^2/px

41µm^2 / 20µm^2 = 2.05 ~= 2

The Canon 5D MkII Full-Frame camera has about 2x the light gathering power of the 7D APS-C camera. That would translate into about one stops worth of additional native sensitivity. (In reality, the 5DII and 7D both have a maximum native ISO of 6400, however the 7D is quite a bit noisier than the 5DII at both 3200 and 6400, and only really seems to normalize at about ISO 800.

See: Canon EOS 7D Review) In contrast, an 18mp FF sensor would have about 1.17x the light gathering power of the 21.1mp FF sensor of the 5D MkII, since fewer pixels are spread out over the same (and larger than APS-C) area.

Please explain in your own words the physics of your plagiarized post. Why are larger sensors better at low light?

The physics of a lens is simple. The same lens will transmit the same amount of light given the exact same conditions no matter what size the sensor. PERIOD! Sensor size has NOTHING to do with the amount of light being transmitted. Only with what it can record. I repeat "Mixing Apples and Oranges will not give you Peaches."

simple terms the size of the sensor that is capable of gathering that light, doesn't matter, if you got the same amount that is transmitted and the final source where it gets transmitted is larger then it's going to collect more isn't it? the smaller source will just collect the limit it's capable of collecting.
the larger source will get MORE which is light where talking about..
when the smaller sensor reaches it's limit of what it can collect, then the rest is just not used..

If you have 2 buckets one hold 20 gal of water and the other only 10, and you throw 50 gals at each one, then the one holding the 20 gal bucket is going to walk off with more water then the one holding the 10 gal.. OMG!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!

 

[donny1963]

yes but i knew i would get an answer like that because i knew my formula would be way over your year to understand but it does explain my theory in full detail to prove what i said.
However, you keep stick with your own idea of what you think is reality, i'm sure it works for you..

lol

It wasn't your formula you copied it from here: Why are larger sensors better at low light?

And that article topic is unrelated to what you have no idea about is being discussed.

Joe

yes but it's my formula that i presented doesn't matter where i got it, i posted the link earlier and you said yes they are others who are with you that are wrong like you are lol

 

[unpopular]

Donny, you are mistaking signal strength over sensitivity. All sensors of similar technology capture light at the same rate. What changes is the amount of signal is present relative to noise inherent to analog circuitry.

Simply increasing the sensel area does not make analog voltage greater, which is always a fraction of the sensor's control voltage, rather a larger sensel will result in a greater proportion of that voltage reflects the image.

This allows the user to increase analog gain or make post exposure corrections without visible noise.

 

[donny1963]

Donny, you are mistaking signal strength over sensitivity. All sensors of similar technology capture light at the same rate. What changes is the amount of signal is present relative to noise inherent to analog circuitry.

Simply increasing the sensel area does not make analog voltage greater, but rather a greater proportion of that voltage reflects the image.

not true sorry.. you didn't read the formula.. that is not what the formula shows..

and it even said
"The Canon 5D MkII Full-Frame camera has about 2x the light gathering power of the 7D APS-C camera"

end results ff camera gets more light in each shot the aps-c bottom line,
end of argument..
stop trying to twist the point to cover your error..

 

[Ysarex]

yes but i knew i would get an answer like that because i knew my formula would be way over your year to understand but it does explain my theory in full detail to prove what i said.
However, you keep stick with your own idea of what you think is reality, i'm sure it works for you..

lol

It wasn't your formula you copied it from here: Why are larger sensors better at low light?

And that article topic is unrelated to what you have no idea about is being discussed.

Joe

yes but it's my formula that i presented doesn't matter where i got it, i posted the link earlier and you said yes they are others who are with you that are wrong like you are lol

And it has nothing to do with the questions at hand. You posted irrelevant material. You still haven't answered my questions.

Joe

 

[Tee]

Am I the only one who cringes when a poster attempts to make their opinion as fact yet doesn't even know what bokeh is? Yikes!