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

[EJA64]

Ok so who out there Believes that a Full Frame Camera, gathers more light then a crop sensor camera?
Or Who believes that a larger sensor gathers more then vs a smaller sensor??

I'd guess that-from aps-c / aps-h to FF, it is about the same. More, but smaller, sites on one sensor probably do as well as do the fewer, but larger, photo sites on the other sensor. When comparing m4/3, or 'one inch', or smaller, to FF, I'd guess that the number of photo sites is great enough that FF probably gathers more total light. Still, you can get good images from just about any sized sensor. Does it matter which sensor does what, light wise, as long as it does enough to get you a good image?

 

[mrca]

You know what makes a real difference in your photography? Not a sensor, not a camera, your mastery of the craft. I have gotten perfect scores on an image taken with an 8 mp d200 and one of Ken Rockwell's 10 worst nikon lenses of all time. All this hand wringing over minute differences is meaningless when most images have no message or meaning combined with crummy light and bad composition.

 

[petrochemist]

For photographic exposure photons per unit area is what matters.
Larger sensors NEED more photons in total than smaller sensors - yet everyone claims they are better in low light!

 

[greybeard]

Yes, I believe it.

 

[Solarflare]

Err, yes. Larger sensors collect more light in total. Obviously. Because for a given exposure the same amount of light per area shines on a larger area. Duh.

More importantly larger sensor usually leads to larger pixels. Larger pixels means they collect more light in total, again at the same exposure. More light in total results in better signal to noise which is why the output of larger sensors has less noise, more dynamic range, etc. Also larger pixels produced at the same resolution means less loss and better efficiency.

So assuming we use the smaller and the larger sensor to produce the same image, the image of the larger sensor will be from a larger amount of light and will have a better signal to noise, i.e. less noise, more dynamic range, better color resolution (aka bit depth), and more reserves for high ISO. Of course assuming both sensors have the same level of technology, however the advantage of having a twice as large sensor is pretty steep advantage compared to the rather slow progress in sensor technology we had recently.

Also the image from the larger sensor will have less depth of field, which depending upon subject might be desireable or not so much.

As to the "its the same exposure" - yes, but so what ? Thats of no practical consequence. The larger sensor still performs better.

So ... why are we discussing this ?

Yes, I believe it.

You've seen the light ! SCNR

 

[Gary A.]

You know what makes a real difference in your photography? Not a sensor, not a camera, your mastery of the craft. I have gotten perfect scores on an image taken with an 8 mp d200 and one of Ken Rockwell's 10 worst nikon lenses of all time. All this hand wringing over minute differences is meaningless when most images have no message or meaning combined with crummy light and bad composition.

This isn't entirely true ... as one's skill levels improves ... equipment becomes more important. A pro level photog can consistency capture more exceptional images with top level hardware than the same pro level photog can capture with entry level hardware.

 

[Dave442]

I like the pan example, but would like to try adding to that example by putting a crop in each pan. If plant type and spacing is the same in both pans (similar to two sensors of equal design - only different size) then each plant only cares about how many inches (mm) of water reaches it, the individual plant doesn't care about the total amount of water applied over the whole area.

Only the engineers care about making sure they can apply the total amount of water required, just like it is only the engineers that need to make sure the lens for the camera is capable of providing light coverage of the entire sensor area.

So just like a larger pipe is required to carry the larger total amount of water to the larger pan, a larger lens is required to deliver the larger amount of total light to the larger sensor.

However, in photography we run into wanting to capture the exact same image with two different size sensors. For example, our hand-held light meter gives a reading of 1/200th sec @ f/4 and we put that into both a FF and crop-sensor camera. The FF has the 50mm lens at f/4 and the crop-sensor has the 35mm at f/4. The only difference then is that for the same scene from the same distance the 50mm lens has a larger lens opening (50/4=12.5mm) than the crop-sensor (35/4=8.75mm). So is the extra light required to cover the FF sensor coming from the larger opening in the lens or is there something else going on that I am missing?

 

[greybeard]

I own a Nikon d7500, a Sony A6000, which are both crop frame and a full frame Nikon D750. I can recover at least 2 stops more shadow detail with the D750 than the D7500 and about 3 stops more than the A6000. Does this mean that the full frame gathers more light?

 

[Braineack]

Does this mean that the full frame gathers more light?

Yes.

5.9µm vs. 4.2 µm vs. 3.92µm

 

[OldManJim]

Try this experiment. Get 2 buckets, one larger than the other. Place them side by side in a rain storm for a the same amount of time. Measure the amount of water in each.

 

[Solarflare]

Try this experiment. Get 2 buckets, one larger than the other. Place them side by side in a rain storm for a the same amount of time. Measure the amount of water in each.

And then measure the water each of them got. The ones with the bigger diameter ... had collected more water.

Now realize that the circuit after the bucket will add a random amount of water, which we call noise. Its the same random amount. The bucket that had more water total will have thus less noise, because the larger amount of water is less changed by percentage from the same amount of noise.

For the same exposure the larger sensor will collect more light, simply because exposure is light per area and the larger sensor has more area.

Likewise the pixels on the larger sensor are likely to be larger, thus we will see better data from the larger sensor. What needs to be understood is that every pixel, no matter which size, runs through the same amplifier which has the same level of noise added. So if a pixel holds more charge the relative amount of noise will be less.

 

[dunfly]

There are only two things that determine how much light is gathered by any camera, aperture and shutter speed. It doesn't matter the size of the "bucket" the light falls in, the amount of light is the same.

 

[Ysarex]

There are only two things that determine how much light is gathered by any camera, aperture and shutter speed. It doesn't matter the size of the "bucket" the light falls in, the amount of light is the same.

You're confusing exposure with the topic of the thread which was total light -- see link:

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

 

[Dave442]

......
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.
.....
Joe

After going back over this link about equivalence it is pointed out that the aperture diameter is intimately related to the total light that lands on the sensor. Then he shows that an ASPC camera can receive the same amount of light on the sensor as a FF camera by opening the aperture (in the example with 50mm lens on FF and 35mm on ASPC for same FOV as same distance). This then gives the same Total Light on the sensor as the FF camera, but by then dropping the ISO on the ASPC camera the two images end up having the same brightness when processed by the camera.

 

[Derrel]

Not to derail this thread, but I'm looking for an iPhone app that will help me calculate the value percentage of the of China's tea industry as a separate part of the Chinese mainland's annual Gross Domestic Product. Any leads on a good app for that?

As far as this "total light" concept...it's amazing how at times, something nonsensical gets posted on a popular web site, or on YouTube, and it generates huge buzz, and despite inaccuracy, or utter B.S. reasoning, there is created a huge wave of misunderstanding,and the error is repeated over and over and over, and in that way, nonsense becomes "accepted fact". The idea of total light somehow being something to crow about, and forgetting that exposure is about Intensity X Duration at a given aperture value....ahh...sheesh....nevermind.