Light gathering in M43 vs FF

eques wrote:

2. FF has 4 times the sensor area compared to mFT. So the amount of light per mm² is exactly the same (if you neglect different lens constructions, glass, ...). And this is, what counts!
Counts for what?
3. Direct consequence is that at the same ISO, aperture and time you get the same exposure.
Same scene, at the same 'aperture' (actually f-number) and 'time' you get the same exposure. ISO has nothing to do with it. Strictly, at the same aperture you do not get the same exposure if the lenses have different focal lengths - but I know that the colloquial mis-use of the term 'aperture' is common.
 
bobn2 wrote:
s_grins wrote: For folks like you and bustard, who think that exposure is irrelevant and ISO is outdated, I'd (I would because I can't) offer the camera without Exposure compensation and without ISO. Capture as much light as you wish, and do your photo in PP. You both deserve it.
That is broadly the way that I work. It is better. The only difference is that I do the work in 'P', not 'PP' and it takes but an instant, a press of a button. Though my camera has both an ISO control and exposure compensation using those to try and tweak exposure to a desired output using pre-selected processing is much more laborious than concentrating at capture time on the optimal exposure for the capture and doing the tweaking in processing, where there are much more sophisticated, powerful and easier to use tools available.
 
s_grins wrote:
bobn2 wrote:
s_grins wrote: For folks like you and bustard, who think that exposure is irrelevant and ISO is outdated, I'd (I would because I can't) offer the camera without Exposure compensation and without ISO. Capture as much light as you wish, and do your photo in PP. You both deserve it.
That is broadly the way that I work. It is better. The only difference is that I do the work in 'P', not 'PP' and it takes but an instant, a press of a button. Though my camera has both an ISO control and exposure compensation using those to try and tweak exposure to a desired output using pre-selected processing is much more laborious than concentrating at capture time on the optimal exposure for the capture and doing the tweaking in processing, where there are much more sophisticated, powerful and easier to use tools available.

--
Bob
Nice admission. So, you use ISO and exposure.
Wrong. I don't use 'ISO' and exposure is just what is. But what you said was 'Exposure compensation'. I don't use that. Never have.
Now, how do you use your equivalent formulas when you take the shot?
Why would I use my 'equivalent formulas' to take a shot? Equivalence only comes into effect when you try to compare the picture taking abilities of two systems. So, I'd need to use equivalence to work out how to set the f-number for the DOF I wanted when using different formats. Other than that, if you are setting the f-number directly for the DOF you want, and the shutter speed for the motion blur you want, equivalence hardly comes into it, unless I wanted to ask myself 'if I was doing this on another format, to get the seam result, which f-number and ISO would I need to set', except of course, as above, I don't use ISO.
How do you plug your theory into real photography?
What I aim to do is determine the f-number and shutter speed for the pictorial effect (DOF motion blur) that I want. That determines the exposure and I don't set it any lower (except to ensure that the sensor isn't saturating).


And show me the picture.
OK.

This







and this


















both taken from about 10 meters apart using the same ISO setting (100) and same f-number (2.8). Shutter speed different to avoid saturating the sensor.




--
Bob
 
Ulric wrote:
exdeejjjaaaa wrote:
DxOMark measured ISO shall be equal
DxO "measured ISO" is not ISO at all.
it is one of the ways to measure the gain and it is the better one to use in comparisons for people who are interested in raw files, unlike the one based on how firmware creates in camera JPGs.
 
LJSmak wrote:
Peng Bian wrote:

So there's a lot of discussions regarding FOV of M43 vs FF, and I think I have a good grasp on that aspect.

Thought one thing that bugs me is light gathering. Let me ask the question with a simple example:

Suppose I have two camera setups:
  • 25mm f1.4 lens on a M43
  • 50mm f1.4 lens on a FF
Same scene, same placement, shot wide open at say ISO 200. Assume that processing between the cameras is exactly the same, I set the exposure to 1/100, will I get the same image in terms of amount of light gathered?
The FF will "gather" (I think it's a very silly term) more light, and it will also spread out the light more across a larger image (which decreases the lights intensity quadratically) to the exact same amount.
it is the same "image" (same eq. FOV, etc = same scene framed, except DOF of course) projected on your sensor... so you have 4 times more "information" collected about the same scene (because apertures are the same the amount of light per unit of surface will be the same and FF has 4 times larger surface)...
 
Last edited:
exdeejjjaaaa wrote:
Ulric wrote:
exdeejjjaaaa wrote:
DxOMark measured ISO shall be equal
DxO "measured ISO" is not ISO at all.
it is one of the ways to measure the gain
It is not measuring the gain. What it measures is the saturation exposure or 'light capacity' at that ISO setting. What it really is is the minimum ISO you could use at that ISO setting, with only the highlight headroom built into the ISO Exposure Index definitions. Most manufacturers (notably excluding Panasonic) allow something aver and above this in their metering calibration, which is why DxO 'ISO' measurements look lower, in general than the nominal ISO, the E-M5 giving pretty much a stop on top of the ISO headroom. If the meter is properly calibrated and the processing a correct match, and you set 100 ISO, 100 ISO is what you'll get in the photo, regardless of the sensor's saturation exposure at that setting.
 
bobn2 wrote:
What I aim to do is determine the f-number and shutter speed for the pictorial effect (DOF motion blur) that I want. That determines the exposure and I don't set it any lower (except to ensure that the sensor isn't saturating).
How do you determine if the sensor would saturate?

How do you make sure enough light is reaching the sensor so that, e.g., the picture won't be too noisy?
 
Sensitivity and ISO Indication of an Imaging System

The sensitivity of a photo detector is usually represented as the ratio of an output signal level to a received illuminance level. In other words, it is a proportionality constant of the linear curve of the output signal level to the input illuminance.

When the detector is the charge integrating (accumulating) type, the term “illuminance” in the above sentence should be replaced by “exposure,” which is a product of illuminance and the charge integration time.

The above-mentioned “sensitivity” can be defined and measured for both DSCs and image sensors since they both can be considered types of photo detectors. However, it is not a practical “sensitivity” for DSC users because it never identifies which exposure is adequate for taking a picture.

The most important parameter for users is the level of exposure needed to generate an adequate output level to produce a good picture. The ISO indicator of sensitivity in a photographic system represents this “adequate exposure,” which is represented in the equation below:

ISO indication value S = K / Hm [equation B.1]

where K is a constant and Hm is the exposure in lux-seconds.

According to the standard ISO 2240 (ISO speed for color reversal films) and ISO 2721 (automatic controls of exposure), a numeric 10 is to be used for K in electronic imaging systems.Thus, the equation can be written as:

S = 10 / Hm [equation B.2]

For example, ISO 100 means that the adequate average exposure Hm (equal to 10 / S) of the imaging system is 10/100 = 0.1 (lux-s).

ISO SATURATION SPEED is the S value when the exposure level generates a picture with image highlights that are just below the maximum possible (saturation) camera signal value. The adequate average exposure Hm is regarded as 1/7.8 of the exposure level at the saturation point (saturation exposure), where 7.8 is the ratio of a theoretical 141% reflectance (which is assumed to give the saturation exposure with 41% additional headroom, which corresponds to 1/2 “stop” of the headroom equal to an 18% reflectance (the standard reflectance of photographic subjects).

Thus, Equation B.2 can be changed into Ssat = 78/H where Hsat is the saturation exposure in lux-s. The saturation speed only shows the saturation exposure as a result.

Suppose there are DSCs that have the same sensitivity at low-to-medium exposure levels, meaning that their tone curves at those levels are identical. If a tone curve of one of them has a deeper knee characteristic near the saturation exposure, the saturation speed of that DSC becomes lower. Thus, it is preferable to use the saturation speed to indicate the camera’s overexposure latitude.

SOS is the S value when the exposure generates a picture of “medium” output level corresponding to 0.461 times the maximum output level (digital value of 118 in an 8-bit system). Hm in Equation B.1 corresponds to the exposure that produces 0.461 times the maximum output level. The numeric 0.461 corresponds to the relative output level on the s-RGB gamma curve for the 18% standard reflectance of photographic subjects.

SOS gives an acceptable exposure because the average output level of the picture becomes “medium.” Thus, it is convenient for a camera set. However, there is no guarantee that the exposure indicated by SOS is the best. Also, it is not suitable for an image sensor, whose output characteristic is linear.

REI is the S value when the exposure generates a picture with an “adequate” output level that a camera vendor recommends arbitrarily. Accordng to this definition, it is apparent that REI can apply only to a camera set and that the exposure indicated by REI would be adequate only if the vendor’s recommendation is appropriate.

Source: Appendix B, Sensitivity and ISO Indication of an Imaging System, Hideaki Yoshida, Pages 319-321, Image Sensors and Signal Processing for Digital Still Cameras, 2006, Taylor and Francis Group, LLC. http://www.scribd.com/doc/91224062/Image-Sensors-and-Signal-Proces
 
Last edited:
Dr_Jon wrote:

Okay, didn't edit my quickie post in the 15 mins allowed, here's the version I was hoping to replace it with, where some typos and unclear bits were fixed...

It counts for exposure, but that's because ISO is not a constant but a variable between cameras. On m43 cameras (or any digital camera for that matter) the ISO settings are made so the exposures work out correctly allowing for the sensor performance.
This is true, but also applies to different mFT sensors: the E-M5 and GH2 give different exposure data at the same ISO setting. There are many variables to consider. We should assume identical sensors (except for size), identical processors, same lens parameters and construction, ... .


And ISO 50 on FF is not ISO 200 on mFT, if everything else is constant/identical.
The way to look at it is you get 1/4 the light on a m43 sensor over FF so they just turn up the gain at any ISO setting so the exposure is correct for that ISO.
The full-frame sensor in the example will have the same field of view but capture 4x the light.
The field of view doesn't have anything to do with the light level. The FF sensor has the same light level per mm² as the mFT sensor. See my post above.
The amplification in the camera will adjust it so ISO 200 needs the same exposure but you will have a lot more light, so all things being equal a lot less noise in dark shots.
This is due to another fact, but now I see what you want to say:
If you have an FF sensor and a mFT sensor with 16 MP each, obvously the pixels on the FF sensor are about 4 times as large as the pixels of the mFT sensor.
In consequence the noise level of an ISO 50 mFT photo is comparable to a ISO 200 FF photo, if everything else is constant/identical.
If you took a m43 sized crop from the FF sensor it would look similar to a m43 pic taken with the same focal length lens at the same exposure.
However that's not what happens, what happens is you take your photo and show it at a certain size, say on a 24" monitor. The FF shot captures 4x the light in that photo. Basically you can think of it as taking 4x the light and crushing it down to m43 size squeezing out the noise.
Sorry, this is quite obscure reasoning ...

Peter.
 
maoyama wrote:
Great Bustard wrote:

Exactly right! So many people use the word "exposure" without having any concept of what it is. All it takes to trip them up, apparently, is to ask:

What is the difference in exposure, if any, between f/2.8 1/100 ISO 200 and f/2.8 1/100 ISO 800 for a given scene?
In that example, one would either be overexposed or underexposed, correct?

Earlier, you also wrote, "What does f/2.8 1/200 ISO 100 on mFT do for you that f/5.6 1/200 ISO 400 on FF does not?"

As I understand it, exposure-wise, they should be the same. I've also read somewhere that in that type of example, the ISO100 of mFT should be the same as ISO400 of FF camera. But when I'm looking at an example from EM-5 RAW at ISO6400 and 5D Mark II RAW at ISO25600 in the dpr comparison tool, the EM-5 just seems to look better to me. I'm fairly new to photography, so can you explain this in a very simple manner?
The Canon looks roughly the same at ISO 12800 as the Olympus at 6400. So the difference is only about 1 f-stop.


1. You should compare sensors with the same pixel number. If both sensors had e.g. 16 MP, the FF sensor should have pixels of about 4 times the size of the mFT sensor. In this case the FF pixels are about 24% smaller than in a 16 MP FF sensor.
So the Canon pixels gather only about 3,5 times the photons instead of 4 times they would in a 16 MP FF sensor.


2. Sensor quality has improved since 2009. Pixels react better to the few photons they gather.


Peter.
 
bobn2 wrote:
s_grins wrote:
bobn2 wrote:
s_grins wrote: For folks like you and bustard, who think that exposure is irrelevant and ISO is outdated, I'd (I would because I can't) offer the camera without Exposure compensation and without ISO. Capture as much light as you wish, and do your photo in PP. You both deserve it.
That is broadly the way that I work. It is better. The only difference is that I do the work in 'P', not 'PP' and it takes but an instant, a press of a button. Though my camera has both an ISO control and exposure compensation using those to try and tweak exposure to a desired output using pre-selected processing is much more laborious than concentrating at capture time on the optimal exposure for the capture and doing the tweaking in processing, where there are much more sophisticated, powerful and easier to use tools available.

--
Bob
Nice admission. So, you use ISO and exposure.
Wrong. I don't use 'ISO' and exposure is just what is. But what you said was 'Exposure compensation'. I don't use that. Never have.
Now, how do you use your equivalent formulas when you take the shot?
Why would I use my 'equivalent formulas' to take a shot? Equivalence only comes into effect when you try to compare the picture taking abilities of two systems. So, I'd need to use equivalence to work out how to set the f-number for the DOF I wanted when using different formats. Other than that, if you are setting the f-number directly for the DOF you want, and the shutter speed for the motion blur you want, equivalence hardly comes into it, unless I wanted to ask myself 'if I was doing this on another format, to get the seam result, which f-number and ISO would I need to set', except of course, as above, I don't use ISO.
How do you plug your theory into real photography?
What I aim to do is determine the f-number and shutter speed for the pictorial effect (DOF motion blur) that I want. That determines the exposure and I don't set it any lower (except to ensure that the sensor isn't saturating).
And show me the picture.
OK.

This





and this





both taken from about 10 meters apart using the same ISO setting (100) and same f-number (2.8). Shutter speed different to avoid saturating the sensor.

--
Bob
Holly crap!

for both shots like these you do not need "DOF motion blur"

In plain language, you approach is not different that others, your photos do not show any superiority, your theory does not contribute to your practical photography. Your whole attitude is a big hollow .

I wish I had a camera for you that has electrons count instead of ISO and exposure.

And BTW I compare photos using my eyes. I do not need your formulas.

For each his own

Chao

--
I’m surprised how much Wikipedia contributes to the forum.
 
exdeejjjaaaa wrote:
it is the same "image" (same eq. FOV, etc = same scene framed, except DOF of course) projected on your sensor... so you have 4 times more "information" collected about the same scene (because apertures are the same the amount of light per unit of surface will be the same and FF has 4 times larger surface)...
Just let's be honest: you're talking about noise, aren't you?

But you want to explain it differently, non-traditionally. Am I right?
 
richarddd wrote:
bobn2 wrote:

What I aim to do is determine the f-number and shutter speed for the pictorial effect (DOF motion blur) that I want. That determines the exposure and I don't set it any lower (except to ensure that the sensor isn't saturating).
How do you determine if the sensor would saturate?
Using an exposure meter. Unfortunately, few do the peak spot reading one would like to have available for the purpose.
How do you make sure enough light is reaching the sensor so that, e.g., the picture won't be too noisy?
That is not often a question one needs to ask, because if you have set the shallowest DOF you can bear (or have opened the lens fully) and the longest shutter speed, you have the largest exposure and the least noise you are ver going to have without compromising. And I usually prefer to make the compromise on noise rather than camera shake, because noise is easier to fix. So, knowing you have the largest exposure that you will ever have for that shot, you press the shutter and see how it comes out.
 
s_grins wrote:
bobn2 wrote:
s_grins wrote:
bobn2 wrote:
s_grins wrote: For folks like you and bustard, who think that exposure is irrelevant and ISO is outdated, I'd (I would because I can't) offer the camera without Exposure compensation and without ISO. Capture as much light as you wish, and do your photo in PP. You both deserve it.
That is broadly the way that I work. It is better. The only difference is that I do the work in 'P', not 'PP' and it takes but an instant, a press of a button. Though my camera has both an ISO control and exposure compensation using those to try and tweak exposure to a desired output using pre-selected processing is much more laborious than concentrating at capture time on the optimal exposure for the capture and doing the tweaking in processing, where there are much more sophisticated, powerful and easier to use tools available.

--
Bob
Nice admission. So, you use ISO and exposure.
Wrong. I don't use 'ISO' and exposure is just what is. But what you said was 'Exposure compensation'. I don't use that. Never have.
Now, how do you use your equivalent formulas when you take the shot?
Why would I use my 'equivalent formulas' to take a shot? Equivalence only comes into effect when you try to compare the picture taking abilities of two systems. So, I'd need to use equivalence to work out how to set the f-number for the DOF I wanted when using different formats. Other than that, if you are setting the f-number directly for the DOF you want, and the shutter speed for the motion blur you want, equivalence hardly comes into it, unless I wanted to ask myself 'if I was doing this on another format, to get the seam result, which f-number and ISO would I need to set', except of course, as above, I don't use ISO.
How do you plug your theory into real photography?
What I aim to do is determine the f-number and shutter speed for the pictorial effect (DOF motion blur) that I want. That determines the exposure and I don't set it any lower (except to ensure that the sensor isn't saturating).
And show me the picture.
OK.

This





and this





both taken from about 10 meters apart using the same ISO setting (100) and same f-number (2.8). Shutter speed different to avoid saturating the sensor.

--
Bob
Holly crap!

for both shots like these you do not need "DOF motion blur"
Who said anything about 'DOF motion blur'? For any shot like this you need to understand your requirements for DOF and motion blur. Both shots were made fully cognisant of what I was trying to do with respect to DOF. Motion blur in either turned out to be a non issue, because the exposure in both was set by the saturation limit of the sensor. Essentially, there is no motion blur because the shutter speed is very high.
In plain language, you approach is not different that others,
Not some others, because I know quite a few that work like me, but certainly different to yours, who cannot conceive of how one would take a photo without 'ISO' or 'Exposure Compensation'
your photos do not show any superiority,
I said it is a better way to work, not that the photos would show superiority. It is better simply because it is much more direct and controllable. However, I would think the chances of you getting the second shot with your 'ISO - exposure compensation' technique would be slim, unless you had a thorough understanding of the way your camera performed. I'm not sure you quite appreciate the technical challenge that photo poses.
your theory does not contribute to your practical photography.
Actually, it has.
Your whole attitude is a big hollow .
You are entitled to think so, but I have not fount that to be the case.
I wish I had a camera for you that has electrons count instead of ISO and exposure.
That would be superb.
And BTW I compare photos using my eyes. I do not need your formulas.
Entirely up to you. We all have our own ways of working. I haven't slagged off yours. The reverse doesn't appear to be the case. As to whether you 'need them', it depends on what you are trying to achieve. For instance in this, from your DPR gallery:

6EC355EF9680467691C663A878ECEA99.jpg


The highlights are blown, the shadows are plugged. Now if that is the effect that you were trying to achieve, then just fine. But were you not, these 'formulas' would have enabled you to work out the capture and its processing so as not to get that effect. But, as I say, if that is what you were looking for, just fine.
For each his own
exactly.

--
Bob
 
jcharding wrote:

Its not gobbledygook at all. I simply don't care about the quantity of light hitting the sensor.
So you don't care about noise in your images.
Nor do I care about the density of light hitting the sensor.
So you don't care about exposure either.
I also don't care about minimizing depth of field. Usually I am trying to maximize it. So when people like me make a post about focal length or whatever, we don't care about equivalence or physics. We care about the images produced.
So which is it? Above you said you don't care about noise or exposure, but now you are saying you do care about the images. Make up your mind! Do you care about the images, or don't you?
 
bobn2 wrote:
eques wrote:

2. FF has 4 times the sensor area compared to mFT. So the amount of light per mm² is exactly the same (if you neglect different lens constructions, glass, ...). And this is, what counts!
Counts for what?
3. Direct consequence is that at the same ISO, aperture and time you get the same exposure.
Same scene, at the same 'aperture' (actually f-number) and 'time' you get the same exposure. ISO has nothing to do with it. Strictly, at the same aperture you do not get the same exposure if the lenses have different focal lengths - but I know that the colloquial mis-use of the term 'aperture' is common.
 
BSweeney wrote:

I have never read so much idiotic crap on the Internet as on this forum.
Then why did you contribute to it by saying this?

"If you want to use the sensor to generate electricity, as a very expensive solar cell, the Full-Frame sensor will generate more electricity. Easier to buy a solar cell at Radio Shack for that purpose, and use the camera for photography. For that purpose: the size of the sensor is irrelevant."


It isn't irrelevant, unless you think the image quality differences in these images is irrelevant.

Constant%20exposure%20example.jpg





--
Lee Jay
(see profile for equipment)
 
So there's a lot of discussions regarding FOV of M43 vs FF, and I think I have a good grasp on that aspect.

Thought one thing that bugs me is light gathering. Let me ask the question with a simple example:

Suppose I have two camera setups:
  • 25mm f1.4 lens on a M43
  • 50mm f1.4 lens on a FF
Same scene, same placement, shot wide open at say ISO 200. Assume that processing between the cameras is exactly the same, I set the exposure to 1/100, will I get the same image in terms of amount of light gathered?
Light density (and therefore exposure parameters) will be identical because they remain the same regardless of focal length or sensor size. An exposure at f1.4, ISO200 at 1/100sec will come out the same brightness on any camera, whether it's a 1/2.3" compact or a medium format camera.


The total amount of light will be larger on FF because it's the same density spread over a larger area, but that doesn't really prove anything as individual sensor performance has a big impact on image quality.

If you want to judge the difference between different sensors just use the camera studio test comparison widget :)
 
Andy Crowe wrote:
So there's a lot of discussions regarding FOV of M43 vs FF, and I think I have a good grasp on that aspect.

Thought one thing that bugs me is light gathering. Let me ask the question with a simple example:

Suppose I have two camera setups:
  • 25mm f1.4 lens on a M43
  • 50mm f1.4 lens on a FF
Same scene, same placement, shot wide open at say ISO 200. Assume that processing between the cameras is exactly the same, I set the exposure to 1/100, will I get the same image in terms of amount of light gathered?
Light density (and therefore exposure parameters) will be identical because they remain the same regardless of focal length or sensor size. An exposure at f1.4, ISO200 at 1/100sec will come out the same brightness on any camera, whether it's a 1/2.3" compact or a medium format camera.
Same exposure, yes. Brightness is another thing all together.



The total amount of light will be larger on FF because it's the same density spread over a larger area, but that doesn't really prove anything as individual sensor performance has a big impact on image quality.
It does "prove anything" because the noise in the photo is determined in large part (mostly) by the total amount of light collected by the sensor. Individual sensor performance does, of course, have a significant impact, of course, but generally secondary to the total amount of light falling on the sensor for sensors of the same generation.

For a partial list of sensors and their efficiencies:



If you want to judge the difference between different sensors just use the camera studio test comparison widget :)
That presumes, of course, that the processing applied to the photo matches, or is at least close to, your processing.

For example, if one shoots jpg, then best to compare jpgs. If one shoots RAW, best to compare RAWs converted with the same converter.
 

Keyboard shortcuts

Back
Top