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

[Ysarex]

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.

That article is a perfect example of taking the equivalence idea way past the point of any pragmatic application and it's silly since the whole point get's lost when he shrugs off the variations that he was bound to get by comparing different brand/manufactured sensors.

We all know we get better low-light noise performance from larger sensors and we can say that one reason for that is because the larger sensors are larger -- but there are additional complicating factors.

Joe

 

[BananaRepublic]

I opened the equivalents link read the first paragraph and then thought to myself why am I reading this trash. Some times reviewers use jargon and long words like marmalade and dodecahedron to make it sound like the sky is falling when in actual fact they are just hacks looking to push their product.

Just point the thing at the thing and take a picture; yes knowledge is power but at the same time a little knowledge can be a dangerous thing. You dont have to worry about the getting round pegs into square wholes thats for manufactures to worry about.

 

[BananaRepublic]

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

That makes no sense what so ever !!
View attachment 159150

Just like this thread ...

Isnt that guy dead anyway

 

[Ballistics]

4 pages in and no one has said it...

Who cares? What difference does knowing this or not knowing this effect anything in anyway shape or form?

 

[pez]

My phone cam sucks in photons like a black hole.

 

[limr]

4 pages in and no one has said it...

Who cares? What difference does knowing this or not knowing this effect anything in anyway shape or form?

Don't know about anyone else, but I didn't care enough to say I didn't care.

 

[MartinCrabtree]

If size didn't matter would a solar cell the size of a dime would power a city?

 

[480sparky]

Here's a better idea:

Take your camera, regardless of sensor size, and just go out and shoot something.

 

[zombiesniper]

Take your camera, regardless of sensor size, and just go out and shoot something.

It's much more appropriate to show your photographic prowess with a keyboard than a camera......or so it would seem some days.

Edit: Crap I promised myself I'd stay out of this thread and got suckered in by @480sparky. Dagnabbit!

 

[limr]

Take your camera, regardless of sensor size, and just go out and shoot something.

It's much more appropriate to show your photographic prowess with a keyboard than a camera......or so it would seem some days.

Edit: Crap I promised myself I'd stay out of this thread and got suckered in by @480sparky. Dagnabbit!

 

[BananaRepublic]

4 pages in and no one has said it...

Who cares? What difference does knowing this or not knowing this effect anything in anyway shape or form?

Actually I said it

 

[480sparky]

Silly me, but here's my take on it:

If larger sensors 'gather more light', why is it they produce the same exposure as smaller sensors when the three settings of aperture, shutter speed and ISO are the same on both cameras? If there's a 'crop factor' for focal length equivalences, then there would be a corresponding 'exposure factor' between the two formats.

Full-frame: ISO 200, 1/60 sec, f/8 would require ISO 250, 1/30 sec f/5.6 for a crop. But since any triad produces identical exposures for both (given the same scene), then I guess 'full-frame gathers more light' doesn't stand up.

 

[Braineack]

Silly me, but here's my take on it:

If larger sensors 'gather more light', why is it they produce the same exposure as smaller sensors when the three settings of aperture, shutter speed and ISO are the same on both cameras? If there's a 'crop factor' for focal length equivalences, then there would be a corresponding 'exposure factor' between the two formats.

Full-frame: ISO 200, 1/60 sec, f/8 would require ISO 250, 1/30 sec f/5.6 for a crop. But since any triad produces identical exposures for both (given the same scene), then I guess 'full-frame gathers more light' doesn't stand up.

which is correct.

but..................


cover your entire body with SPF50 suntan lotion except for a micro 4/3 sensor sized patch and a 35mm patch.

expose them for the same amount of time in direct sunlight. Which patch is going to piss you off more the next day?

Think about it you've exposed two different sized areas with the same amount of light, so it's kinda hard for the larger sensor not to gather more -- there's more area of coverage, so more light is captured.

Or I liked the sheet pan analogy before.

let's say it takes 1 cup of water to fill an 8x8" baking dish with 1/4" of water.

if you pour 1 cup of water in a 13x9" baking dish, can you still measure 1/4" of water?

If 1/4" of water is the equal exposure, then the larger pan/sensor needs more water/light in order to achieve the same exposure.



I'm still in the "who cares" crowd however.

 

[mrca]

Two comments. I think it was Shaw that said England and that could include Ireland are 2 countries separated by a common language. Second is I too started to write a post pages ago indicating who cares. I care about my and your images, not semantics.

 

[480sparky]

Silly me, but here's my take on it:

If larger sensors 'gather more light', why is it they produce the same exposure as smaller sensors when the three settings of aperture, shutter speed and ISO are the same on both cameras? If there's a 'crop factor' for focal length equivalences, then there would be a corresponding 'exposure factor' between the two formats.

Full-frame: ISO 200, 1/60 sec, f/8 would require ISO 250, 1/30 sec f/5.6 for a crop. But since any triad produces identical exposures for both (given the same scene), then I guess 'full-frame gathers more light' doesn't stand up.

which is correct.

but..................


cover your entire body with SPF50 suntan lotion except for a micro 4/3 sensor sized patch and a 35mm patch.

expose them for the same amount of time in direct sunlight. Which patch is going to piss you off more the next day?

Think about it you've exposed two different sized areas with the same amount of light, so it's kinda hard for the larger sensor not to gather more -- there's more area of coverage, so more light is captured.

Or I liked the sheet pan analogy before.

let's say it takes 1 cup of water to fill an 8x8" baking dish with 1/4" of water.

if you pour 1 cup of water in a 13x9" baking dish, can you still measure 1/4" of water?

If 1/4" of water is the equal exposure, then the larger pan/sensor needs more water/light in order to achieve the same exposure.



I'm still in the "who cares" crowd however.

So a rock band is louder when they play to 100,000 people as opposed to just 1,00 pairs of ears?