RoyGBiv: Someone with a signal processing background has to re-write this. FF's advantage with respect to light capture has less to do with the cone of light, and more with size of photo-cell and pixel count. The reason that the real-life total light demonstration doesn't appear to display a linearly-related drop-off in noise performance is because it has little to do with the "total light capture" that this article (and so many well-meaning people) are blaming the lost performance on the light that falls outside the sensor. Unless the lenses are made of drastically different material capable of significantly different light refraction (which they aren't) , the light density is roughly equivalent. What's lost is the sensitivity of the photocells, and their ability to discern signal from noise. The smaller they are, the more difficult it is to discern. Drawing the light cone and showing that FF's light cone is larger than the APS-C light cone is a red herring.
Essentially everything except exposure.
Nicholalala: I used to shoot on the street with a Hasselblad, and medium format (and square) were always my preferred format. My perfect camera is probably an Alpa with a digital back. This is for all practical purposes that camera more refined. As somebody said on Luminous-Landscape, “If you don't see that as a breakthrough, then pick up a Phase XF body with an IQ350 back and three LS lenses and take a nice long hike or walk around a city for the day.” Just take the camera on a walk.
So, why would I buy a camera like this? Three things: It’s medium format and 50mp, so it has larger pixel sensors. It has 16 bit color depth. I’m sorry if color is not appreciated in photography. I look at my film images and am simply shocked by the color difference. The camera is reasonably priced for what it delivers in the package size. I paid $500 for 20x24" Cibachrome paper in 1990. Seriously, this camera will be useful for a decade.
I bet that I see a lot of these at weddings and environmental photo shoots.
They say it's 16-bit colour but I'm fairly sure that the ADCs on that chip are 14-bit, so it's probably the same 14 bit data you'd get from most Raw files, mapped into a 16-bit space.
Also, it's the sensor size, not the pixel size that will make the difference.
Klorenzo: Hi Richard I think that this "equivalent aperture" idea is doing only harm and confusion.Try this: take three different cameras with different sized sensors and shoot a moving subject with the same aperture number, shutter speed and ISO and equivalent focal lenght.You'll get three "identical" pictures with the same "brightness" and the same amount of motion blur. Do you agree?
Yes, DoF will be different in a precise amount and you can calculate the "equivalent DoF aperture". And yes, the noise will be different but it vastly depends on the actual sensor you are using: try a 5D classic vs a Sony A7S. Do you agree?
So the "equivalent aperture" is NOT equivalent with respect to exposure and motion blur and it is equivalent for DoF and, with a big approximation, for noise.What is more important? Exposure and image content or noise and out of focus areas?
In which why this "equivalent aperture" concept is better then saying that there is a two stops difference in DoF and less noise?
Pat Cullinan Jr - There's no need to apologise - many people are far more blunt than you're being.
The problem is that we're not just talking about depth-of-field equivalence. Equivalence is just a way of looking at the total amount of light (light per unit area x capture area), so tells you about depth-of-field, diffraction and the potential for noise performance (subject to sensor performance).
By all means send me a personal message and I'd be happy to discuss this. If we can find a means of discussing this without adding confusion or controversy, we'd be happy to do so. I'm open to suggestions in this respect.
So you're suggesting that the same light per-unit-area captured over a greater area isn't more light?
Taking into account differences in sensor performance (which is why we only say that equivalence gives a *good idea* of noise performance, not an absolute understanding), all our tests and real-world observations show that equivalence gives a very good understanding of the magnitude of the differences between sensor sizes.
Which aspect, specifically, do you believe we're getting wrong?
n3eg: Wow! It has ABSOLUTELY NO EQIVALENCE! f/3.2 is like, what, f/zero-point-nothing on micro four thirds? And DOF of a butterfly wing! Ooooh, I can't wait to shoot this at f/256!!!
I see you're saying but, since 135 is used as the reference point everywhere else (and I made it reasonably clear that it was the reference point I was using), it makes sense to be consistent.
Only a small number of our audience will ever have used medium format, so it would be unnecessarily confusing for me to suddenly use a different reference point.
Abandoning the use of 35mm as a common reference point would also increase the perception that equivalence implies the supremacy of one format, which it doesn't. So I hope you understand why I didn't follow the medium format world's convention on this.
The F3.5 on this is equivalent to F2.8 on full frame and the F3.2 is equivalent to F2.5 on full frame, so not super-shallow in either case.
Equivalence isn't *about* 35mm 'full frame,' it's just about comparing on a common basis. The basis most commonly used just happens to be the 35mm format because it's the one most people (and manufacturers) use as a reference point for focal lengths.
phoenix1386: Canon does not offer 4K in 80D, gets a load of bad press. Nikon doesn't do simple WiFi right, which is a feature that many have found actually useful, and doesn't get more than a passing mention. Sweet!
[This is a 'passing mention?'](http://www.dpreview.com/reviews/nikon-d500/5)
That said, although the camera scored poorly for 'connectivity,' I didn't give it as much prominence in the conclusion as I could have. I've added a line linking back to the Wi-Fi page now.
georgehere: "24-600mm equivalent F2.4-4 Zeiss Vario-Sonnar T* lens"
Why is DPR so shy to tell the truth? The lens is equivalent to 24-600mm f/6.5-11.
All the following statements are true:8.8-200mm F2.4-424-600mm equivalent F2.4-424-600mm F6.5-11 equivalent
The middle option is the most common usage.
It's not just depth of field equivalence, though. It also define diffraction and gives a very good idea of image quality. Everything except exposure. [Demonstrably](http://bit.ly/equivap).
And yes it does relate to the real aperture. Equivalent F-number is to equivalent focal length what F-number is to actual focal length.
barrym1966: Sorry Nikon but Bluetooth is not WiFi whichever way you try to spin it
The camera does have Wi-Fi. That's not in question.
It's the fact that you can only activate and use it with Bluetooth and the Android app.
Rich Rosen: That is one aspect of the D500 that is disappointing. While I did my research, and knew that Snapbridge and D500 connectivity wouldn't be available until after the Summer, for iOS, the apple logo is all over the D500 box and in the manual. I also understand that The Snapbridge App isn't much better than the WMAU app that is available for the D750 and other models. It is primitive at best.
WMU at least used Wi-Fi for all transfers. Snapbridge, as it stands, uses Bluetooth for transferring images in most cases.
emare37: This page Studio Comparison is deceived. Rx100mk3 out sharply from all the cameras. This is a mockery. I rx100mk3 and this is the bottom. Through you, I did not buy the Panasonic tz100 because enter into comparisons terribly out of focus. This studio comparison spoils the opinions of cameras.
I'm not sure what you mean by 'out sharply from all the corners.' By all means send me a personal message to discuss this.
AKH: I think Dpreview should take price into account when rating a camera.
The A6300 is no doubt a very fine camera, but taking the price into account it is clear why so many people are much better off buying an entry level DSLR.
An entry level DSLR like the D3300 including a kit lens only cost around 1/4 of the price the A6300 body and will provide as good or better image quality and it is not even much bigger or heavier.
Of course you will only get a plastic fantastic camera with the D3300, but what the heck it takes as good images for most purposes.
AKH - I take your point, with regards the cost of some of Sony's lenses are.
PKDanny: Waiting too long for review!!??!!
It's on its way. It is being worked on.
But it's long been the case that you get the same image quality across much of a maker's range: I remember it being true when I was looking at the Canon 350D (Rebel XT) many years ago. It had a very similar sensor to the EOS 30D but was much cheaper (Nikon D50/D70s had the same relationship). However, you got more if you spent more (more controls, better build, faster frame rate) and those were things some people wanted, so both the 350D and 30D sold pretty well to their respective audiences.
The same is still true. Cameras, on the whole, aren't getting much more expensive. The D7200 doesn't offer much in terms of image quality over the D3300, yet costs a lot more.
The a6300 is a more sophisticated, better built camera than the a6000, that's why it costs more (the a6000 had some cost-cutting measures, relative to the NEX-6, the a6300 is much more of an NEX-6 replacement). However, $1150 isn't *pro money*, which is why you don't get pro performance. It's D7200 equiv, not D500.
webber15: The constant comparisons to full frame is "continuing" to p!$$ me off...It's something that's happened in the recent past as full frame became cheaper...I have fuji gear and for the price I paid I could've bought a full frame body and a 200-300mm zoom for nature togging...and yet...I didn't,,there are reasons I didn't and I'm happy with the gear I have...
I have zero interest in full frame and the constant comparisons by forum members and DPR staff alike is tiresome...
Stating two things on a common basis isn't supposed to imply that one is better than the other, it's just a way of understanding the differences.
The only reasons we (the DPR writers) ever talk about equivalence is to make clear what those differences are. Rather than being woolly and saying 'FF gives better IQ but APS-C is smaller and cheaper,' it's a useful way of understanding what you gain and lose with *whichever* decision you make.
What we want people to be able to do is make decisions like the one you've made and be happy and informed about those decisions. As you say, there are a number of reasons to choose a system or format. Personally I really like the idea of being able to get FF-equivalent 85mm F1.8 portraits using the Fujifilm 56mm F1.2 when I want shallow depth of field but only have to carry around an APS-C body the rest of the time.
The trolling only works if you *falsely* believe equivalence suggests primacy of any one format.
The question is: which price? Prices change over time an between territories. The D3300 was launched for $649 with the 18-55mm lens. Do we compare it at that price (in which case your characterisation of the price is a little off), or at an end-of-life, heavily discounted (where you live) price?
We do take price into account, but it's the easiest thing in the world to say 'you can get the same IQ from the entry-level model.' That's absolutely true. You can get very similar IQ from the a5100 and a6000, too, but that doesn't mean people should ignore the a6300 and buy those instead.
The a5100 is a touchscreen point-and-shoot, the D3300 is a single dial, inexpensively-built DSLR with a tiny viewfinder. They're great at what they do, but they're a pitiful substitute for those 'specialists' shopping for a sealed, enthusiast-level camera with some of the best autofocus we've seen in a sub $2000 camera and some of the best video, full stop.
StewartJameson: What does the "expeed 4" engine mean ?
When it first announced the 'Expeed' branding, Nikon said the following:
"[Unlike image-processing engines or systems, EXPEED does not deal with specific parts or features. Rather, it refers to Nikon's original comprehensive concept of digital image processing.](http://www.nikon.com/news/2007/0823_06.htm)"
So let's hope that made things clearer.
tobicy68: The micro focus adjustment on the Nikon is so simple to use why can't Canon make it simpler without the use of charts and stuff and having to do it over and over to get it right. Good job Nikon!
It's odd, because I'm pretty sure Canon patented a system that compared CDAF and PDAF results to calculate fine-tune values, but nothing has yet appeared on their cameras.
sunjester: Got to say I am really liking the number of reviews lately. Well done!
Still mulling over the move from d7200 to d500 it seems perfect for fixing the minor issues with small bird photography with the d7200.
Try renting one for a weekend - I think you'll find it an easy decision once you've tried it.
jimboyvr: Why the crop 2.2x in vid3o?
You get a 2.25x crops, which is smaller than a Four Thirds sensor. The difference being that the Micro Four Thirds system has a range of lenses designed to offer a wide field of view on such a small crop, whereas the F mount doesn't.