So Who Believes that Full Frame Camera's Gather More Light Then APSC

[Gary A.]

I believe a full frame gathers more total light than an APS-C sensor. When in use, a FF also gathers no moss.

 

[Ysarex]

Larger sensors DO NOT GATHER MORE LIGHT..

The problem is that you don't understand what this means and why it matters. You, like the idiot blogger I suspect you've been reading or watching, have confused the intensity of exposure with this different concept of total light gathered. That would explain the silly light meter comment.

if that was true the light meters would have to have a setting to account for large sensors vs small sensors, there is no such setting why?

Because you're confused. Intensity of exposure and total light gathered are two different things. You're failing to recognize that.

because The sensor size has nothing to do with how much light you get in your image, NONE!!!!
You can keep thinking that but you would be wrong..

The analogy I made in my previous post should help you understand if you think about it. Two cookie pans -- one is 12 x 12 inches and the other is 16 x 16 inches. Put them both outside in the rain. The rainfall amount is the exposure intensity. Both pans will receive the same exposure intensity -- 1 inch of rainfall (note: light meter and rain gauge work for both!) The water in each pan will be one inch deep. This is equivalent to the exposure of the camera sensor and it's the same for both. But you also can't argue that the 16 x 16 inch pan will not have more total water in it. This is not equivalent to the exposure of the camera sensor as you're thinking about it.

Total light gathered is a concept that matters to digital camera sensors and what it basically tells us is that a sensor that gathers more total light will produce an image that is less noisy than a sensor that gathers less total light at the same exposure.

Joe

 

[smoke665]

When in use, a FF also gathers no moss.

No that's stone, but a FF does make you a "professional" if you use the "P" mode. LOL

 

[astroNikon]

The analogy I made in my previous post should help you understand if you think about it. Two cookie pans -- one is 12 x 12 inches and the other is 16 x 16 inches. Put them both outside in the rain. The rainfall amount is the exposure intensity. Both pans will receive the same exposure intensity -- 1 inch of rainfall ...

I don't understand. That only makes my cookies soggy and icky !!

 

[480sparky]

people always thing a lot of things.

.............. which is a different think altogether.

I'm confused.

Are we thinging about thinks, or thinking about things?

Or thinging about things?


Or thinking about thinks?

 

[astroNikon]

people always thing a lot of things.

.............. which is a different think altogether.

I'm confused.

Are we thinging about thinks, or thinking about things?

Or thinging about things?


Or thinking about thinks?

yeah, who woulda' thought about how those things think ?

 

[astroNikon]

btw, does the OP own a FF and a Crop camera of the same generation at this very moment. Does the OP do any low light photography ?

 

[smoke665]

From the OP's original post it appears it was a rhetorical question, that has morphed into a scattered thread, as I'm always interested in the more technical aspects, my personal feeling is that it would be better if the OP were to open another thread on a more specific point.

was making a statement to those who think just because you got a bigger sensor your getting more light

 

[BananaRepublic]

Oh No! Math?

Its maths short for mathematics. Im not picking on you I just wanted to crowbar something into this thread.

 

[donny1963]

Exposure doesn't work that way, it's not like a window in a room if you open the shades wider you get more light..
one corner of the sensor has nothing to do with another part of the sensor..
the same amount of light hits all sensors, sensors do not pull light into itself, the light hits the sensor when it's directed to it from the image circle of the lens.

if you lay both a full frame camera and crop sensor on it's back and have the aperture set the same on each lens and bot camera's are facing the same sky with the mirror open,
The same amount of light is reaching each sensor in terms of exposure.
just because the sensor is bigger on the full frame doesn't mean that the exposure is going to be greater then the crop sensor camera..
Donny




YOU SAID: I suspect you're having some difficulty with the simple concept that the same intensity spread over a larger area produces a larger volume. Consider this: Place a 12 x 12 inch cookie pan and a 16 x 16 inch cookie pan together out in the rain. Allow them to both collect 1 inch of rainfall. Then pour the water from each into separate containers. Will you have the same volume of water from both or more water from the 16 x 16 inch pan?

If you disagree at all with the above you must present the math that proves otherwise.

Joe

 

[BananaRepublic]

If you disagree at all with the above you must present the math that proves otherwise.

Joe

Its Maths as in the science of numbers PLURAL

 

[donny1963]

btw, does the OP own a FF and a Crop camera of the same generation at this very moment. Does the OP do any low light photography ?

I got a Nikon D810 and done plenty of night photography.
I know how a full frame works vs APSC..

Also work with video, and sense i brought up video, i have learned that when you go buy a lens for a DSLR camera like a Nikon 70-200 F2.8
i have learned that these lenses are false as far as the F-stops spec's on alot of these lenses.
for example the 70-200 f2.8 aperture, measurement is incorrect it's not really F2.8 it's more like F3,2 or something similar.
you see light going through the lens is measured in T-stops, T-stops is more accurate, with video lenses they measure that and label it in T-stops,
and if they put a label on that 7-200 F2.8 with the T-Stops it would really be a higher number then F2.8
Wish lens manufacture's would label the DSLR lenses with T-stops because they re miss-leading people thinking they are getting one F-Stop when it's really another.

Donny

 

[Ysarex]

Exposure doesn't work that way, it's not like a window in a room if you open the shades wider you get more light..
one corner of the sensor has nothing to do with another part of the sensor..
the same amount of light hits all sensors, sensors do not pull light into itself, the light hits the sensor when it's directed to it from the image circle of the lens.

You are still confusing exposure and total light gathered. Until you can get past that misunderstanding you're going to stay confused. Total light gathered is not the same as photographic exposure. Two cameras can both receive the same photographic exposure and at the same time gather different amounts of total light (different size sensors). From my very first response I started to make that point for you:

3 = 3.
423,900 != 9,432.

and then again in a follow up response:

3 = 3.
2592 > 1,104.

You see the 3 = 3 in both cases? 3 is the same as 3 -- that's your photographic exposure. The other figures are different because they represent total light gathered.

if you lay both a full frame camera and crop sensor on it's back and have the aperture set the same on each lens and bot camera's are facing the same sky with the mirror open,
The same amount of light is reaching each sensor in terms of exposure.

That is correct. The intensity of exposure would be the same for both. Now don't confuse that with total light gathered and you'll be OK. When people talk about total light gathered they are not confused and do not believe that the two different sized cameras are receiving different photographic exposures. Of course they're not. But if the sensors are different in size then the larger sensor will gather more total light just like the cookie pans in the rain where the larger pan gathers more water even though both experienced 1 inch of rainfall. You're confusing 1 inch of rainfall with how much water is collected in each pan. Go back and read the cookie pan analogy: you quoted it below. The 1 inch of rainfall represents "exposure" as you're using the term. That is not how much water is collected.

You started this whole thing off with that fundamental misunderstanding. Total light gathered is not photographic exposure. You're still making that same mistake in this post.

just because the sensor is bigger on the full frame doesn't mean that the exposure is going to be greater then the crop sensor camera..

No one who understands what total light gathered means or why it's worth knowing would claim that. We're not confusing the two concepts, you are.

Joe

Donny


YOU SAID: I suspect you're having some difficulty with the simple concept that the same intensity spread over a larger area produces a larger volume. Consider this: Place a 12 x 12 inch cookie pan and a 16 x 16 inch cookie pan together out in the rain. Allow them to both collect 1 inch of rainfall. Then pour the water from each into separate containers. Will you have the same volume of water from both or more water from the 16 x 16 inch pan?

If you disagree at all with the above you must present the math that proves otherwise.

Joe

 

[limr]

If you disagree at all with the above you must present the math that proves otherwise.

Joe

Its Maths as in the science of numbers PLURAL

Oh enough already. Brits say maths. Americans say math. Get over it.

 

[KmH]

If you don't feed a troll it goes elsewhere for sustenance!