Discussion in 'Beyond the Basics' started by donny1963, Jun 8, 2018.
Let sleeping dogs lie.
... and I thought this thread was about soggy cookies.
I'll have to pay more attention next time when I'm not baking.
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?
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.
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!
Yes, I believe it.
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 ?
You've seen the light ! SCNR
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.
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?
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?
5.9µm vs. 4.2 µm vs. 3.92µm
Separate names with a comma.