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

[donny1963]

No I think you're the one that is confused.
Sensors do not gather more white regardless of its size just because it's bigger.
In terms of how much light hits the sensor the sensor really has nothing to do with it the amount of light that hits the sensor is determined by how much light the lens allows onto the sensor.
The only way for the sensor to get more white is to turn up the lights on the subject that the sensor is recording.
If you have two giant boxes in a football field one of them 20 ft by 20 ft and the other one 10ft by 10ft and you have nothing in its path no trees or anything like that the amount of light that hits those two boxes will be the same regardless of how biger the box is.
The only way for those two boxes to receive more light as for the sun to shine brighter
same thing with the senses no matter how big the senses are the same amount of light will be projected On Any Given sensor determining how much light is allowed through the lens.
It's just like exposure and ISO people think that is oh is connected to exposure it really isn't if you turn up the iso dial on a camera from 100 to 3200 the same amount of white is going to hit the sensor the only reason I underexpose picture would be more exposed turning up the ISO is because you're applying the gain which is the signal from the sensor to the computer in the camera that's why you get noise when you go to a higher number turning up the iso dial does not increase the amount of light that comes into the lens on the sensor.
The same amount of light shines down on the sensor regardless if you're at 100 ISO or at 2 million ISO it doesn't matter

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

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

 

[Overread]

Donny I'm, not honestly even sure what the point of this thread is nor what is being argued here.

You keep mixing up the total amount of light with the level of exposure of light across the sensor.


Lets try this. Forget cameras and think solar cells.
Think of two solar cells, one larger and one smaller. If exposed to the same amount of light over the same period of time with no interruption in the light then its clear that even though the exposure of light levels is identical, the larger solar cell will have had more area to gather that exposure over. Ergo it will have collected and generated more energy than the smaller solar cell.


A camera sensor is the very same; a larger sensor will have gathered more light than a smaller sensor.

HOWEVER With a camera we are not comparing the total amount of light energy, but the exposure. And yes you are correct, it doesn't matter about the size of a sensor (all other things being equal). The exposure over time will be the same; which is why external light meters work regardless of sensor size.
I don't think anyone here has argued against that. Indeed all we have here for 3 pages is a pedantic argument/debate on the terminology which is further confused by the flip-flop between casual and scientific terminology.

 

[Ysarex]

No I think you're the one that is confused.
Sensors do not gather more white regardless of its size just because it's bigger.
In terms of how much light hits the sensor the sensor really has nothing to do with it the amount of light that hits the sensor is determined by how much light the lens allows onto the sensor.
The only way for the sensor to get more white is to turn up the lights on the subject that the sensor is recording.
If you have two giant boxes in a football field one of them 20 ft by 20 ft and the other one 10ft by 10ft and you have nothing in its path no trees or anything like that the amount of light that hits those two boxes will be the same regardless of how biger the box is.

OK, let's use your boxes in the football field. They're being exposed to light. Light is made up of photons. We can count photons. In fact that's what a digital camera sensor does -- it counts photons.

Just to make the math easier let's say 100 photons per square foot per second are falling on your two boxes. How many photons will the 20 ft X 20 ft box count and how many photons will the 10 ft x 10 ft box count in a one second exposure? Do that math unless you need me to do it for you. Will both boxes count the same number of photons? Yes or no?

If you're going to claim yes then please show your work -- let's see the math.

You continue to confuse exposure with total light gathered. Here's a link to the definitive reference on this issue: Joseph James Photography article on equivalence. I've linked to the appropriate page in the article for you where you can see that he correctly defines total light as: "Total Light = Exposure · Effective Sensor Area." In other words he's saying you're confused.

Another repetition of your rambling is worthless without both the math for your football field boxes shown and some appropriate references that support your claim.

The only way for those two boxes to receive more light as for the sun to shine brighter
same thing with the senses no matter how big the senses are the same amount of light will be projected On Any Given sensor determining how much light is allowed through the lens.

The below about ISO is unrelated and only serves to cause greater confusion -- we're not talking about ISO and you probably shouldn't.

Joe

It's just like exposure and ISO people think that is oh is connected to exposure it really isn't if you turn up the iso dial on a camera from 100 to 3200 the same amount of white is going to hit the sensor the only reason I underexpose picture would be more exposed turning up the ISO is because you're applying the gain which is the signal from the sensor to the computer in the camera that's why you get noise when you go to a higher number turning up the iso dial does not increase the amount of light that comes into the lens on the sensor.
The same amount of light shines down on the sensor regardless if you're at 100 ISO or at 2 million ISO it doesn't matter

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

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

 

[BananaRepublic]

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

Actualy Im Irish, I realise it may not seem much different to Americans but after 800 hundred years of colonisation we can tell see the difference.

That said English is English no matter which way you look at it.

 

[limr]

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

Actualy Im Irish, I realise it may not seem much different to Americans but after 800 hundred years of colonisation we can tell see the difference.

That said English is English no matter which way you look at it.

I know the difference between the Brits and the Irish, but my apologies for not knowing that you are Irish. The point remains, however. You also say "maths" while Americans say "math." English has many different dialects and no one dialect is more correct than another. This thread is pointless enough as it is without someone introducing meaningless spats over language differences. Get.Over.It.

 

[pixmedic]

if its not the Queen's English, it is not proper.

 

[limr]

if its not the Queen's English, it is not proper.

Oh, you hush!

 

[Derrel]

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).

And yet, a few years ago, a well-respected web site, dPreview if I am not mistaken, published a long article proclaiming that a larger sensor "gathers more light" than a smaller sensor, and because of that, performs better in low light. The article gave the wrong impression to many,many people. The author of that article seemed to be confused about exposure, and total light gathered, but because his feeble thoughts were written down and had been published by a well-known web outlet, his thinking sort of came to be accepted by many. Yet another case of the internet being used to add credibility to half-baked thoughts.

 

[Ysarex]

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).

And yet, a few years ago, a well-respected web site, dPreview if I am not mistaken, published a long article proclaiming that a larger sensor "gathers more light" than a smaller sensor, and because of that, performs better in low light. The article gave the wrong impression to many,many people. The author of that article seemed to be confused about exposure, and total light gathered, but because his feeble thoughts were written down and had been published by a well-known web outlet, his thinking sort of came to be accepted by many. Yet another case of the internet being used to add credibility to half-baked thoughts.

Yes, and it remains a difficult and confusing topic with lots of bad info out there. It initially derives from the hashing out of the whole "equivalence" idea and gets taken to some pretty extreme ends that certainly get ridiculous. I was reluctant for that reason to post the link above to Joseph Jame's article. I've found plenty of reason myself in the past to rant on about some of that stuff including some presentations of this "total light" concept. Upon first introduction to the concept a photographer's knee jerk reaction is to think in terms of exposure and do exactly what's being done in this thread. Obviously a 35mm fujichrome in a 35mm camera and a 6X6 fujichrome in a 6X6 camera are going to get the same exposure for the same scene -- and by exposure that means same shutter speed and f/stop. It doesn't matter if the two film sizes are different, so what do you mean the 6X6 fujichrome is gathering more light, that's nonsense it get's the same exposure.

So where's this "total light" idea come from and why the bleep should anyone care?! It's an "equivalence" measurement of shot noise between digital sensors of different size. And frankly most of us shouldn't care very much if at all. It can be used as a technical way to explain the fact that larger sensor cameras perform better in low light than smaller sensor cameras and it allows for a quantization measurement of that phenomena. Two days ago Smoke posted a photo from his new camera taken at ISO 819,200. I can use my new 1" sensor compact indoors at ISO 3200 and get noiseless results. "Total light" then as a way to compare sensor noise performance over size is pretty bleepin' esoteric -- but that's what it is.

If we can just identify it for what it is we can leave it alone.

Joe

 

[Derrel]

Here's where the bullspit originated from.... and yes, it was dPreview and Richard Butler. What is equivalence and why should I care?

RE your comment, "If we can just identify it for what it is we can leave it alone."

You mean like a teenager with a big pimple on his nose? The one he cannot leave alone? This idea is like that big-pimple-on-teenager's-nose. Even though identified for what it is, it can not simply be left alone.

 

[BananaRepublic]

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

Actualy Im Irish, I realise it may not seem much different to Americans but after 800 hundred years of colonisation we can tell see the difference.

That said English is English no matter which way you look at it.

I know the difference between the Brits and the Irish, but my apologies for not knowing that you are Irish. The point remains, however. You also say "maths" while Americans say "math." English has many different dialects and no one dialect is more correct than another. This thread is pointless enough as it is without someone introducing meaningless spats over language differences. Get.Over.It.

Don't get me started on aluminium

 

[tirediron]

Don't get me started on aluminium

How are you on alyoominnyum?

 

[BananaRepublic]

Don't get me started on aluminium

How are you on alyoominnyum?

phonetically I would say it sort of like: al - you - min - yum, where as state side it sounds like: a - loo - min - um.

 

[ClickAddict]

Ok. To use your logic...... if you place a small sensor and large sensor on the table facing up, they both get the same amount of light......

you are missing a key point....

Imagine the two sensors side by side. Take a pencil and draw the edge of the large sensor onto the table. Now swap them places putting the small sensor in the spot outlined by the large sensor....

You following?

Now you are correct the large sensor and the OUTLINE of the large sensor will get the same amount of total light. but the small sensor in that outline is missing some of it as it is hitting the table... not the sensor.

 

[astroNikon]

if its not the Queen's English, it is not proper.

That makes no sense what so ever !!

Just like this thread ...