Why go full frame?

[Ysarex]

OK Got it. But do you know why that happens. If the light on each pixel is the same, what's causing the "visable" noise overall?

The light on each pixel is not the same. The light is noisy and the pixels record that. Shot noise is in the light. Most of what we see in our photos as noise is shot noise.

Is it in the amploifiers, the assembly, or what?

It's in the signal. The noise is in the light. It's not in the pixels. The pixels aren't causing it. Nothing electronically connected to or part of the pixels is causing the dominant noise we see in photos. It's not about the pixels.

reference Bill Claff: Noise, Dynamic Range and Bit Depth in Digital SLRs

"Photon shot noise: Light is made up of discrete bundles of energy called photons -- the more intense the light, the higher the number of photons per second that illuminate the scene. The stream of photons will have an average flux (number per second) that arrive at a given area of the sensor; also, there will be fluctuations around that average. The statistical laws which govern these fluctuations are called Poisson statistics and are rather universal, encountered in diverse circumstances. For details and a variety of examples, see this Wikipedia article. The fluctuations in photon counts is visible in images as noise -- Poisson noise, also called photon shot noise; an example is shown in Fig. 1. The term "shot noise" arises from an analogy of the discrete photons that make up a stream of light, to the tiny pellets that compose the stream of buckshot fired from a shotgun (in particular, "shot" does not mean "photographic image").

Fig.1 - Photon shot noise in an image of the sky from a Canon 1D3 (in the green channel). In the histogram at right, the horizontal coordinate is the raw level (raw units are sometimes called analog-to-digital units ADU or data numbers DN), the vertical axis plots the number of pixels in the sample having that raw level. The photon noise was isolated by taking the difference of two successive images; the raw values for any one pixel then differ only by the fluctuations in the photon count due to Poisson statistics (apart from a much smaller contribution from read noise).​

The noise histogram is essentially a Gaussian distribution -- a standard "bell curve". The standard deviation of this bell curve is the width of the bell. Fluctuations in photon counts from pixel to pixel are completely uncorrelated; in terms of its spatial variation, photon shot noise is white noise (in other words, it has equal strength at all spatial frequencies); this means that it has a uniform salt-and-pepper appearance with no structure or pattern.
An important characteristic of fluctuations obeying Poisson statistics is that their standard deviation -- the typical fluctuation away from the average in the typical count -- is equal to the square root of the average count itself. That is, if 10000 photons are collected on average, the typical fluctuation away from this average number of photons will be about 100 -- the counts will typically range from about 9900 to 10100. If instead on average 100 photons are collected, the variation from count to count will be +/- 10. Thus, as the signal grows, the photon shot noise also grows, but more slowly; and the signal-to-noise ratio increases as the square root of the number of photons collected. The higher the illumination, the less apparent the shot noise; the lower the illumination, the more apparent it is."

What do you mean "visable" noise as opposed to what other kind?

 

[smoke665]

OK Got it. But do you know why that happens. If the light on each pixel is the same, what's causing the "visable" noise overall? Is it in the amploifiers, the assembly, or what? What do you mean "visable" noise as opposed to what other kind?

Houston we have progress! Joe did a much better technical explanation, here's my Cliff Notes version. The reflected light from your subject is the portion of the electromagnetic spectrum that’s visible to human eyes, and includes shot noise, random noise caused by the uneven emission of photons from their source. Since shot noise is caused by an inherent property of light it cannot be reduced by camera design, it can only be reduced by raising the total light recorded.

The distribution and magnitude of noise isn’t entirely uniform. The brighter parts of an image will exhibit less visible noise than the darker shawdows. More pixels on a larger sensor provide more useable light, making the noise less visable.

 

[Ysarex]

Houston we have progress! Joe did a much better technical explanation, here's my Cliff Notes version. The reflected light from your subject is the portion of the electromagnetic spectrum that’s visible to human eyes, and includes shot noise, random noise caused by the uneven emission of photons from their source. Since shot noise is caused by an inherent property of light it cannot be reduced by camera design, it can only be reduced by raising the total light recorded.

The distribution and magnitude of noise isn’t entirely uniform. The brighter parts of an image will exhibit less visible noise than the darker shawdows. More pixels on a larger sensor provide more useable light, making the noise less visable.

 

[AlanKlein]

Ok thanks everyone.

 

[Don Fischer]

In your question you focus on the pixels and using the same pixels as if the difference must be due to or related to the pixels. It's not. The difference is a difference in noise in the image that is not sourced from the sensels/pixels. You may have previously heard that one reason FF cameras have better low light performance is because they have larger pixels and possibly that idea stuck with you. That's true but now meaningless. The noise that comes from the sensels is read noise. Go back 15 years and we could see examples of read noise in our images and see that larger sensels generated less read noise. Times change. They have engineered the read noise in our modern sensors down to a level that is insignificant.

The size of the sensels/pixels is responsible for a difference that you now can't see if even detect. So the fact that when an FX sensor is placed in DX mode the same pixels are still being used is pretty meaningless. Again we can look to sensor DR for verification of this: Canon R5-6 The R6 is a 24mp FF camera while the R5 is a 45mp FF camera. The sensels/pixels in the R5 are only half the size of those in the R6. The smaller sensels/pixels must be noisier but they're not. The DR plots for the two cameras overlay. Pixel size doesn't mean squat. It used to, but we fixed that.

Read noise was always a secondary source of less importance than shot noise which is the dominant source of noise in our images. The pixels and their size have nothing to do with shot noise. The noise is in the signal itself (the light) and the only way to reduce the noise is strengthen the signal (light) -- either more exposure and/or more total signal collected.

Back to the cookie tins in the rain analogy. The rain is dirty (the light is noisy). When we collect more water the dirt in the water is less visible. As we collect less water the dirt in the water becomes more visible. When we collect more light (by total area) the noise in the light is less visible (and the pixels aren't involved). When we collect less light (by total area) the noise in the light is more visible (and the pixels aren't involved).

Below is quoted from Richard Butler's article in DPReview on noise: What's that noise? Part one: Shedding some light on the sources of noise

[my bold] "There are three factors that affect how much light is available for your sensor to capture: your shutter speed, f-number and the size of your sensor.

...at the same f-number (both cameras set to F2.8), the full frame camera will see four times as much light as a camera with a Four Thirds sensor, since it is exposed to the same light-per-unit-area but has a sensor with four times the area.

As a result, when you shoot two different sized sensors with the same shutter speed, f-number and ISO, the camera with the smaller sensor has to produce the same final image brightness (which the ISO standard demands) from less total light. And, since we've established that capturing more light improves your signal-to-noise ratio, this means every output tone from the larger sensor will have a better signal-to-noise ratio, so will look cleaner."

This is one of the thing's wrong with photography. Actually I got started in it to take picture's. I really don't care about all the cool sicencetific garbage, just want a picture I like! Yet every time a company brings out a new model it adds stuff a computer specialist would have a hard time figuring out. As I said I only wanted to take a picture I liked! I doubt I will ever upgrade from my D7000, infact don't even have a clue how to work everything on it!

 

[Original katomi]

katomi claps Don. If it works for you brill. the Latest upgrade does not automatically mean better pics

 

[Ysarex]

This is one of the thing's wrong with photography. Actually I got started in it to take picture's. I really don't care about all the cool sicencetific garbage, just want a picture I like! Yet every time a company brings out a new model it adds stuff a computer specialist would have a hard time figuring out. As I said I only wanted to take a picture I liked! I doubt I will ever upgrade from my D7000, infact don't even have a clue how to work everything on it!

What are you whining about. Take your pictures and be happy.
I have a Nikon too and it has lots of stuff like your D7000 that I have no use for. Would it be better if they took all the stuff off that I don't need or use? It'd be better for me right and the camera would cost less.

I want the auto focus removed.
I want the multiple metering modes removed and replaced with a new metering mode that reads out a value for the brightest highlight in the frame that I can translate to the value that will store in the raw file. It'd be great if it was actually the digital value, like 15,450 that would store in the raw data.
I don't want the camera to create a JPEG image -- what a waste of time and money.
All camera functions that apply to JPEG creation like ADL can please go.
I like the dual gain sensors and frankly what I'd really like is a triple gain sensor and then just 3 ISO settings on the camera; low gain, medium gain and high gain that engage each of the sensor's read channels.

It's starting to sound like a camera I could be happy with and it should cost a lot less with all that crap gone. Does it sound like the perfect camera for you too?

If Nikon made my ideal camera they wouldn't be able to sell it to more than a small group of people and they'd go out of business. So even though I'm at times inconvenienced I'm glad Nikon includes features that make the camera usable for you and lots of other folks as well. I'm even happy, well resigned at least, that those useless (to me) camera functions increase the cost of the camera if it means Nikon can sell lots of cameras and stay in business. I don't think there's anything wrong with that.

 

[smoke665]

This is one of the thing's wrong with photography. A

Sorry but I disagree. I have a Pentax K3II and a K1MII, with loads of features. In studio except for autofocus, I'm in full manual, tethered to a laptop. Outside are where those extra features shine, because I took the time to learn how to use them.

If all you want to do is take a picture, just use your cell phone.

 

[cgw]

Sorry but I disagree. I have a Pentax K3II and a K1MII, with loads of features. In studio except for autofocus, I'm in full manual, tethered to a laptop. Outside are where those extra features shine, because I took the time to learn how to use them.

If all you want to do is take a picture, just use your cell phone.

Amen. I still carry my Sekonic 308 and know enough to use it when I reason lighting can and will outfox my Nikons' and Fujis' metering.

 

[Don Fischer]

I think the vast majority of people using cameras have little use for modern DSLR's, that is what makes i phones so popular! Get on a photo site and they attract people like this site does, same with any speciality internet site. Not saying there's anything wrong with people on sites, well most of them anyway. The more into it you are, the more likely you'll end up on a site like this. Photography has pretty much been turned into a science involving a tool called a camera. I phone's are in about the same situation and of course I don't have one of them either. Never could figure out how to use them. If I've insulted anyone I do apologize. I wasn't my intention.

 

[smoke665]

Photography has pretty much been turned into a science involving a tool called a camera. I phone's are in about the same situation and of course I don't have one of them either. Never could figure out how to use them. If I've insulted anyone I do apologize. I wasn't my intention.

Photography started with limited access to only a few because of the equipment and knowledge required. Over the years new advances morphed into two paths one for serious photographers and one for the consumer. As point and shoot consumer grade offerings lost ground to cell phones, manufactures phased the low end stuff out, concentrating more on the high end lines. Consumerism being what it is, led many to buy into a high end offering with the mistaken belief that it would automatically make them a photographer. Unfortunately they soon found it requires more effort to master than they are willing to do. Fortunately you'll find an Auto button that does everything for you, but that's kind of like granny buying a Corvette and only driving it 20mph to church.

 

[slat]

I've learned a little more. Being that the R5 in crop and R7 have similar plots then the R7 would be better in that particular situation since it would have more MP? If you used the R5 with a 1.4 teleconverter you lose a stop of light but would still use the full frame right?
Just trying to figure out the ins and outs to make a good decision on a camera.

 

[Ysarex]

I've learned a little more. Being that the R5 in crop and R7 have similar plots then the R7 would be better in that particular situation since it would have more MP?

The difference between 33mp and 30mp is somewhere between insignificant and meaningless. I'd let the other features of the cameras tip the scale.

If you used the R5 with a 1.4 teleconverter you lose a stop of light but would still use the full frame right?
Just trying to figure out the ins and outs to make a good decision on a camera.

 

[slat]

I may wait it out and see if the R5 mark ii comes out in the first quarter of next year and see what it has before making up my mind.

 

[GWWhite]

I currently shoot both a FF (1D) and a crop body (7D) Canon. As can be seen, I don't use mirrorless. What I like about the crop body is the extra reach when shooting for distance. I like to use it for air shows, racing and civic events. The 7D frame rate is quick enough to get me the shots I want when the speed is needed. In the studio, it requires specific lenses to hit the two focal lengths I prefer, 50mm and 100mm due to the crop factor.

The addition of the 1D changed my thoughts of the 7D in the studio. First, the 1D shutter speed is unmatched by the 7D, although the 7D shutter is fast in its own right. Ironically though, I rarely use that speed in the 1D. It's biggest edge by far is in low light performance. Because of that, my 1D has become my go-to camera for my band work. The 64 focal points destroys the 7D for portrait photography. I LOVE being able to customize the AI Servo mode operation and have that set up for my frequent band work.

In the end, they both have their place. The 7D has its superior areas of operation as does the 1D. I was wise enough when I first got the 7D to carefully choose my lenses so that I have only one EF-S lens (60mm f/2.8 macro, my 7D 100mm) that can't be used with the 1D. For the 1D I added a 50mm lens for the studio. I am about to add a 24-70mm f/2.8 L to the 1D and that is all I need to purchase.

Someone mentioned crop body emulation in the FF R series Canons. That is a GREAT move since it eliminates the need for 2 bodies as I have. At the moment, I have no interest in mirrorless because after my first forays into mirrorless and EVFs, I wasn't at all impressed. When the day comes I do, I will have to check to see if the EVFs have improved with technology...