A pretty slick visual guide to format size implications by quezra

March Of The Tripods · Jan 26, 2015

What im saying is those DXO charts don't tell you what is extended ISO and what isn't. We shouldn't compare extended ISOs vs non extended as not everybody wants to use the former since there are tradeoffs. If you look at the GX7 on DXOmark, they also show the GX7 with an ISO down to 125, but I assure you that is an extended stop, 200 was the lowest native stop.

Im pretty sure all MFT cameras have a native base of 200 but I didn't know for fact so didn't want to say it like that. If the GH4 for example has a native ISO of 100 then by all means, disregard what I have said here, I just thought it was 200 like most of them.

J A C S · Jan 26, 2015

Martin.au said:
March Of The Tripods said:

Martin.au said:

sportyaccordy said:

Martin.au said:

Shame it's wrong. I'd usually try and get the numbers right before making them pretty.

M4/3s SnR/ISO numbers are wrong. (Lots of M4/3s cameras do ISO 100, eg: GH4, E-M1)

Click to expand...

ISO100 on MFT is not the same as ISO100 on FF, with regards to SNR etc. No MFT camera has the dynamic range or color depth of a current gen full frame.

Click to expand...

No, but ISO 100 on MFT is the same as ISO 400 on FF, not ISO 800 (as per equivalence). The GH4 has ISO 100 (and probably numerous other cameras).

Click to expand...

Goodness knows I wouldn't agree with the Honda man if I didn't have to, but I believe ISO 800 would be the more accurate comparison as MFT ISO 100 is an extended ISO. At least that's what my GX7 had, ISO 200 was the lowest native ISO, so two stops more would be 800.

--
"People who think they know everything are a great annoyance to those of us who do." - Isaac Asimov

Click to expand...

Why don't you just go and look.

This has to be compared to a few FF bodies. The measured ISO for them is around 75. The GH4 gets pretty close but the average of those three m43 cameras is 100.

--
Formerly known as Just Another Canon Shooter

Mike CH · Jan 26, 2015

quezra said:
Well I didn't want to put this chart up because I knew I'd have to end up spending the rest of the week fielding questions and/or flames

That's how good deeds are punished around here, in case you hadn't noticed

Seriously, though - what is the definition of shooting envelope? It doesn't seem to be 'systems offers', is it something like 'can reasonably use'? If yes, what did you define as reasonably?

Regards, Mike

MoreorLess · Jan 27, 2015

March Of The Tripods said:
Martin.au said:

sportyaccordy said:

Martin.au said:

Shame it's wrong. I'd usually try and get the numbers right before making them pretty.

M4/3s SnR/ISO numbers are wrong. (Lots of M4/3s cameras do ISO 100, eg: GH4, E-M1)

Click to expand...

ISO100 on MFT is not the same as ISO100 on FF, with regards to SNR etc. No MFT camera has the dynamic range or color depth of a current gen full frame.

Click to expand...

No, but ISO 100 on MFT is the same as ISO 400 on FF, not ISO 800 (as per equivalence). The GH4 has ISO 100 (and probably numerous other cameras).

Click to expand...

Goodness knows I wouldn't agree with the Honda man if I didn't have to, but I believe ISO 800 would be the more accurate comparison as MFT ISO 100 is an extended ISO. At least that's what my GX7 had, ISO 200 was the lowest native ISO, so two stops more would be 800.

--
"People who think they know everything are a great annoyance to those of us who do." - Isaac Asimov

ISO 800 though is three stops difference to ISO 100 and its been shown the actual noise advantage of FF over m43 is two stops. Whether m43 has access to a native ISO of 100 or not is not going to change that difference higher up, its just going to mean that you may not have the advantage of minimising noise by lowering ISO as far with m43.

quezra · Jan 27, 2015

Mike CH said:
quezra said:

Well I didn't want to put this chart up because I knew I'd have to end up spending the rest of the week fielding questions and/or flames

Click to expand...

That's how good deeds are punished around here, in case you hadn't noticed

Seriously, though - what is the definition of shooting envelope? It doesn't seem to be 'systems offers', is it something like 'can reasonably use'? If yes, what did you define as reasonably?

Yes, it's a bit of a judgement call, as witnessed by arguing over whether the one f/1.2 lens in Nikon 1 is enough to push the typical "shooting envelope" to include f/3.3, and whether ISO 100 is now the norm rather than exception with M4/3. I actually lean more to removing f/1.2 from the FF envelope (since it is only Canon lenses that AF at f/1.2) which would also push down the APS-C range. But frankly it's not a big deal to me. The point was that rather than to anchor discussions on subjective values (e.g. "ISO 800", which means completely different things on different sensors), to use the actual measured numbers like SNR DB, EVs of Dynamic Range, etc. (Unfortunately there are no easy ways to show depths of field with physical rather than relative measure, so I ended up using FF aperture as my standard). SNR DB and EVs of DR are solid absolute numbers measurable scientifically and show the difference really well. But not everyone needs the top end of the range, and there's no reason why you can't take good photos anywhere above those dotted lines.

So overall I am glad the nitpicking is only about where the lines should stop, but not the basic point that the larger sensors have wider latitude for composing, and in some cases quite far wider. Those who disagree with where I draw the lines are free to come up with their own chart.

Tim Tucker · Jan 27, 2015

sportyaccordy said:
I have been trying to articulate what this infographic lays out pretty cleanly for months. Thanks quezra for pulling this together from DxOMark data.

Lot of implications to be made but I will let you guys have fun with it first.

If your intent was to manipulate figures to prove what you want then obviously your chart is a success. But I have many problems with it.

The first one is the DR. No camera I know of has a usable range of 14 ev. This is a measurement of pure black to pure white, and as you all know usable DR is, and always has been, measured from the first discernible tones above and below said points. About 12ev.

Secondly your control of dof seems to favour having things out of focus. If your control of dof had being in focus as a criteria then surely the smaller formats should be on top?

Lastly, you have noted but not carried over, increasing iso decreases DR.

So if you go down to the woods today... Your smaller format camera is smaller, lighter, cheaper, and will get more in focus at faster shutter speeds at base iso than your FF will. In fact at base iso you can shoot at maximum quality with an APS-C in about 1/4 the amount of light you need to do the same with FF (don't forget you are using a shorter focal length lens).

It's quite simple and always has been. The smaller the format then the faster the shutter speed and smaller the aperture you use to gain the same shot. In short they are much better for hand held photography. It is the limitations and how you overcome them with the larger format of FF that makes them better suited for creative photography.

Horses for courses. BTW I shoot FF.

--

http://timtuckerphoto.smugmug.com/

March Of The Tripods · Jan 27, 2015

MoreorLess said:
March Of The Tripods said:

Martin.au said:

sportyaccordy said:

Martin.au said:

Shame it's wrong. I'd usually try and get the numbers right before making them pretty.

M4/3s SnR/ISO numbers are wrong. (Lots of M4/3s cameras do ISO 100, eg: GH4, E-M1)

Click to expand...

ISO100 on MFT is not the same as ISO100 on FF, with regards to SNR etc. No MFT camera has the dynamic range or color depth of a current gen full frame.

Click to expand...

No, but ISO 100 on MFT is the same as ISO 400 on FF, not ISO 800 (as per equivalence). The GH4 has ISO 100 (and probably numerous other cameras).

Click to expand...

Goodness knows I wouldn't agree with the Honda man if I didn't have to, but I believe ISO 800 would be the more accurate comparison as MFT ISO 100 is an extended ISO. At least that's what my GX7 had, ISO 200 was the lowest native ISO, so two stops more would be 800.

Click to expand...

ISO 800 though is three stops difference to ISO 100 and its been shown the actual noise advantage of FF over m43 is two stops. Whether m43 has access to a native ISO of 100 or not is not going to change that difference higher up, its just going to mean that you may not have the advantage of minimising noise by lowering ISO as far with m43.

The mixup is bc some FF don't have extended ISO while many smaller sensors do, so comparing those two instances isn't correct. Yes we can compare the GH4/EM1 at ISO 100 but you are losing a crap load of highlight DR, while the FF in the comparison at ISO 400 doesn't. If we are going to compare accurately, we must use native base ISOs (in otherwords, it's not fair to oversaturate well capacity of one sensor and not the other).

Incidentally this is one of the issues I have with DXO, they factor in the highest DR/color score into the overall RATING. Problem is many people refuse to use extended ISO since it kills highlight DR, thus giving cameras with extended ISO an unfair boost to their overall score. I don't personally put too much stock in to their numbers (I prefer to see photos and judge with my eyes), but others do and it can be misleading.

For example, if you were to compare a D7000 vs an A77II. The Sony actually scores an 82 vs the Nikon's 80, yet if we look at the graph lines, the Nikon is better at pretty much all SNR/DR/Tone stops, and only falls behind in color slightly at base ISO. Yet since the Sony has an extended ISO that gives it higher marks than it should, it is actually rated higher. In reality, the D7k has a moderately better sensor, which is odd considering it was a much older sensor than that in the new A77II.

Mike CH · Jan 27, 2015

Tim Tucker said:
sportyaccordy said:

I have been trying to articulate what this infographic lays out pretty cleanly for months. Thanks quezra for pulling this together from DxOMark data.

Lot of implications to be made but I will let you guys have fun with it first.

Click to expand...

If your intent was to manipulate figures to prove what you want then obviously your chart is a success. But I have many problems with it.

The first one is the DR. No camera I know of has a usable range of 14 ev. This is a measurement of pure black to pure white, and as you all know usable DR is, and always has been, measured from the first discernible tones above and below said points. About 12ev.

Secondly your control of dof seems to favour having things out of focus. If your control of dof had being in focus as a criteria then surely the smaller formats should be on top?

Are you sure you are reading the graphics as intended?

The way I read it is that on top is narrow DoF and on the bottom is deep DoF. So the conclusion is that the FF has a larger range, but not quite as deep as the smaller sensors, which on the other hand can't go quite as narrow as the FF.

Tim Tucker said:
Lastly, you have noted but not carried over, increasing iso decreases DR.

Top of the diagram would be DR at lowest ISO, bottom of the diagram high ISO - so where does he not consider that?

Also, he is using SNR in dB to express sensitivity, with the corresponding FF ISO equivalent as illustration, and not really actual ISO.

Tim Tucker said:
So if you go down to the woods today... Your smaller format camera is smaller, lighter, cheaper, and will get more in focus at faster shutter speeds at base iso than your FF will. In fact at base iso you can shoot at maximum quality with an APS-C in about 1/4 the amount of light you need to do the same with FF (don't forget you are using a shorter focal length lens).

It's quite simple and always has been. The smaller the format then the faster the shutter speed and smaller the aperture you use to gain the same shot.

Huh? That does not seem to follow. Faster shutter and smaller aperture together gives (even) less exposure, which needs to be compensated through higher ISO, leading to worse SNR, not leading to 'same shot'. Could you expand a bit on that, I think I'm missing something...

Regards, Mike

--
Wait and see...
I hardly ever speak for anybody but myself. In the cases where I do mean to speak generally the statements are likely to be marked as such.

March Of The Tripods · Jan 27, 2015

Tim Tucker said:
Tim Tucker said:

Click to expand...

So if you go down to the woods today... Your smaller format camera is smaller, lighter, cheaper, and will get more in focus at faster shutter speeds at base iso than your FF will. In fact at base iso you can shoot at maximum quality with an APS-C in about 1/4 the amount of light you need to do the same with FF (don't forget you are using a shorter focal length lens).

It's quite simple and always has been. The smaller the format then the faster the shutter speed and smaller the aperture you use to gain the same shot. In short they are much better for hand held photography. It is the limitations and how you overcome them with the larger format of FF that makes them better suited for creative photography.

In other words, FF is only of advantage if you are able to use a thinner DOF to gather more light, and in the process, are able to use a lower gain. If DOF is a limiting factor (IE you NEED a wider DOF), and if that limit is within the means of the smaller sensor, then there is no FF advantage to be had.

This is of course with one caveat, when SS is of no concern. In those cases (such as with landscapes or when using flash, or, when daylight is very bright), the FF can use a lower ISO, and ends up with better IQ regardless of DOF needs.

So as you put it Tim, horses for courses. If you are a person who may take advantage quite regularly of flash or just have no issue with SS, FF will prove an advantage. If you almost always find yourself shutter speed and DOF limited (at the same time), sensor size won't matter as much.

I personally would guess the number of people who are truly limited on both of those at the same time is lower than many claim, in reality they prefer smaller cameras and just don't want to admit to inferior IQ. And this is coming from an apsc user :-D

Tim Tucker · Jan 27, 2015

Mike CH said:
Mike CH said:

If your intent was to manipulate figures to prove what you want then obviously your chart is a success. But I have many problems with it.

The first one is the DR. No camera I know of has a usable range of 14 ev. This is a measurement of pure black to pure white, and as you all know usable DR is, and always has been, measured from the first discernible tones above and below said points. About 12ev.

Secondly your control of dof seems to favour having things out of focus. If your control of dof had being in focus as a criteria then surely the smaller formats should be on top?

Click to expand...

Are you sure you are reading the graphics as intended?

The way I read it is that on top is narrow DoF and on the bottom is deep DoF. So the conclusion is that the FF has a larger range, but not quite as deep as the smaller sensors, which on the other hand can't go quite as narrow as the FF.

Yes but; FF can have less DOF than a smaller sensor, but where does your chart say it has more, or even the same as a crop sensor. Isn't the range the same, just shifted? Besides this does not allow for the differences in focal length, especially at the longer end where the the crop sensor would score by having a larger aperture for the equivalent focal length?

Also your arbitrary limit of diffraction is fairly meaningless in real photography, lens design and enlargement factors play a big role here.

There may be a bigger blue patch on your graph, I don't think that FF has a bigger range because It can't match the maximum Dof of the smaller sensors.

Mike CH said:
Mike CH said:

Lastly, you have noted but not carried over, increasing iso decreases DR.

Click to expand...

Top of the diagram would be DR at lowest ISO, bottom of the diagram high ISO - so where does he not consider that?

Also, he is using SNR in dB to express sensitivity, with the corresponding FF ISO equivalent as illustration, and not really actual ISO.

Yes, but isn't the higher iso you need for FF to match the faster shutter speed and/or greater Dof of the smaller formats kinda missing?

Mike CH said:
Mike CH said:

So if you go down to the woods today... Your smaller format camera is smaller, lighter, cheaper, and will get more in focus at faster shutter speeds at base iso than your FF will. In fact at base iso you can shoot at maximum quality with an APS-C in about 1/4 the amount of light you need to do the same with FF (don't forget you are using a shorter focal length lens).

It's quite simple and always has been. The smaller the format then the faster the shutter speed and smaller the aperture you use to gain the same shot.

Click to expand...

Huh? That does not seem to follow. Faster shutter and smaller aperture together gives (even) less exposure, which needs to be compensated through higher ISO, leading to worse SNR, not leading to 'same shot'. Could you expand a bit on that, I think I'm missing something...

Yes, With shorter focal lengths comes more Dof at the same aperture. So for the same Dof you can use a faster shutter speed, or even a combination of greater dof with a faster shutter speed? No compensation of higher iso with the smaller formats, it is the FF that needs higher iso to match the shutter speed and/or Dof capabilities of the smaller formats, with the resultant loss in DR.

The other point is that you don't have to shoot the same shot. With APS-C you have around a 2 stops advantage with shutter speed and Dof, use it as you wish.

This is the main point that these arguments seem to miss, that each format has advantages and compromises. It is undoubtedly true that a larger sensor will generally produce a better quality image, but a APS-C sensor is better suited to action and available light because of it's advantages of being able to be hand held in 1/4 of the available light you really need for FF (at base iso).

IQ is not the be all and end all of photography, certainly not in the smaller formats, just as FF is not the be all and end all of photography. The smaller formats (35mm film) have been historically driven by content as they have always been a compromise in quality. With digital that has been addressed somewhat, but it is still a compromise

Mike CH said:
Regards, Mike

MoreorLess · Jan 27, 2015

March Of The Tripods said:
MoreorLess said:

March Of The Tripods said:

Martin.au said:

sportyaccordy said:

Martin.au said:

Shame it's wrong. I'd usually try and get the numbers right before making them pretty.

M4/3s SnR/ISO numbers are wrong. (Lots of M4/3s cameras do ISO 100, eg: GH4, E-M1)

Click to expand...

ISO100 on MFT is not the same as ISO100 on FF, with regards to SNR etc. No MFT camera has the dynamic range or color depth of a current gen full frame.

Click to expand...

No, but ISO 100 on MFT is the same as ISO 400 on FF, not ISO 800 (as per equivalence). The GH4 has ISO 100 (and probably numerous other cameras).

Click to expand...

Goodness knows I wouldn't agree with the Honda man if I didn't have to, but I believe ISO 800 would be the more accurate comparison as MFT ISO 100 is an extended ISO. At least that's what my GX7 had, ISO 200 was the lowest native ISO, so two stops more would be 800.

Click to expand...

ISO 800 though is three stops difference to ISO 100 and its been shown the actual noise advantage of FF over m43 is two stops. Whether m43 has access to a native ISO of 100 or not is not going to change that difference higher up, its just going to mean that you may not have the advantage of minimising noise by lowering ISO as far with m43.

Click to expand...

The mixup is bc some FF don't have extended ISO while many smaller sensors do, so comparing those two instances isn't correct. Yes we can compare the GH4/EM1 at ISO 100 but you are losing a crap load of highlight DR, while the FF in the comparison at ISO 400 doesn't. If we are going to compare accurately, we must use native base ISOs (in otherwords, it's not fair to oversaturate well capacity of one sensor and not the other).

Incidentally this is one of the issues I have with DXO, they factor in the highest DR/color score into the overall RATING. Problem is many people refuse to use extended ISO since it kills highlight DR, thus giving cameras with extended ISO an unfair boost to their overall score. I don't personally put too much stock in to their numbers (I prefer to see photos and judge with my eyes), but others do and it can be misleading.

For example, if you were to compare a D7000 vs an A77II. The Sony actually scores an 82 vs the Nikon's 80, yet if we look at the graph lines, the Nikon is better at pretty much all SNR/DR/Tone stops, and only falls behind in color slightly at base ISO. Yet since the Sony has an extended ISO that gives it higher marks than it should, it is actually rated higher. In reality, the D7k has a moderately better sensor, which is odd considering it was a much older sensor than that in the new A77II.

--
"People who think they know everything are a great annoyance to those of us who do." - Isaac Asimov

I'm no expert but if no m43 sensor have a native ISO 100 that's definitely a disadvantage in certain circumstances as like you say you really wouldn't want to use a pull ISO for something like landscape shooting unless you were desperate for a longer exposure.

The lack of a native ISO 100 doesn't change the difference in performance at higher ISO's though which some seem to be confusing in this chart.

Martin.au · Jan 27, 2015

MoreorLess said:
March Of The Tripods said:

MoreorLess said:

March Of The Tripods said:

Martin.au said:

sportyaccordy said:

Martin.au said:

Shame it's wrong. I'd usually try and get the numbers right before making them pretty.

M4/3s SnR/ISO numbers are wrong. (Lots of M4/3s cameras do ISO 100, eg: GH4, E-M1)

Click to expand...

ISO100 on MFT is not the same as ISO100 on FF, with regards to SNR etc. No MFT camera has the dynamic range or color depth of a current gen full frame.

Click to expand...

No, but ISO 100 on MFT is the same as ISO 400 on FF, not ISO 800 (as per equivalence). The GH4 has ISO 100 (and probably numerous other cameras).

Click to expand...

Goodness knows I wouldn't agree with the Honda man if I didn't have to, but I believe ISO 800 would be the more accurate comparison as MFT ISO 100 is an extended ISO. At least that's what my GX7 had, ISO 200 was the lowest native ISO, so two stops more would be 800.

Click to expand...

ISO 800 though is three stops difference to ISO 100 and its been shown the actual noise advantage of FF over m43 is two stops. Whether m43 has access to a native ISO of 100 or not is not going to change that difference higher up, its just going to mean that you may not have the advantage of minimising noise by lowering ISO as far with m43.

Click to expand...

The mixup is bc some FF don't have extended ISO while many smaller sensors do, so comparing those two instances isn't correct. Yes we can compare the GH4/EM1 at ISO 100 but you are losing a crap load of highlight DR, while the FF in the comparison at ISO 400 doesn't. If we are going to compare accurately, we must use native base ISOs (in otherwords, it's not fair to oversaturate well capacity of one sensor and not the other).

Incidentally this is one of the issues I have with DXO, they factor in the highest DR/color score into the overall RATING. Problem is many people refuse to use extended ISO since it kills highlight DR, thus giving cameras with extended ISO an unfair boost to their overall score. I don't personally put too much stock in to their numbers (I prefer to see photos and judge with my eyes), but others do and it can be misleading.

For example, if you were to compare a D7000 vs an A77II. The Sony actually scores an 82 vs the Nikon's 80, yet if we look at the graph lines, the Nikon is better at pretty much all SNR/DR/Tone stops, and only falls behind in color slightly at base ISO. Yet since the Sony has an extended ISO that gives it higher marks than it should, it is actually rated higher. In reality, the D7k has a moderately better sensor, which is odd considering it was a much older sensor than that in the new A77II.

Click to expand...

Tim Tucker · Jan 27, 2015

March Of The Tripods said:
So as you put it Tim, horses for courses. If you are a person who may take advantage quite regularly of flash or just have no issue with SS, FF will prove an advantage. If you almost always find yourself shutter speed and DOF limited (at the same time), sensor size won't matter as much.

I personally would guess the number of people who are truly limited on both of those at the same time is lower than many claim, in reality they prefer smaller cameras and just don't want to admit to inferior IQ. And this is coming from an apsc user :-D

Mike CH · Jan 27, 2015

Tim Tucker said:
Mike CH said:

Tim Tucker said:

If your intent was to manipulate figures to prove what you want then obviously your chart is a success. But I have many problems with it.

The first one is the DR. No camera I know of has a usable range of 14 ev. This is a measurement of pure black to pure white, and as you all know usable DR is, and always has been, measured from the first discernible tones above and below said points. About 12ev.

Secondly your control of dof seems to favour having things out of focus. If your control of dof had being in focus as a criteria then surely the smaller formats should be on top?

Click to expand...

Are you sure you are reading the graphics as intended?

The way I read it is that on top is narrow DoF and on the bottom is deep DoF. So the conclusion is that the FF has a larger range, but not quite as deep as the smaller sensors, which on the other hand can't go quite as narrow as the FF.

Click to expand...

Yes but; FF can have less DOF than a smaller sensor, but where does your chart say it has more, or even the same as a crop sensor.

First, it's not my chart; it's quezras. I am just trying to figure out what he is trying to say.

Second, the chart - as I read it (please add that rider to everything else I say, I wont be repeating it) - explicitly says that the smaller sensors have deeper DoF than the larger sensors, but at the cost of crossing the diffraction limit.

Tim Tucker said:
Isn't the range the same, just shifted? Besides this does not allow for the differences in focal length, especially at the longer end where the the crop sensor would score by having a larger aperture for the equivalent focal length?

Also your arbitrary limit of diffraction is fairly meaningless in real photography, lens design and enlargement factors play a big role here.

Again, not mine; quezras.

Tim Tucker said:
There may be a bigger blue patch on your graph, I don't think that FF has a bigger range because It can't match the maximum Dof of the smaller sensors.

The chart says that the FF has a bigger range. The range extension is at the narrow end, though. At the deeper end the smaller sensors extend further.

Tim Tucker said:
Tim Tucker said:

Tim Tucker said:

Lastly, you have noted but not carried over, increasing iso decreases DR.

Click to expand...

Top of the diagram would be DR at lowest ISO, bottom of the diagram high ISO - so where does he not consider that?

Also, he is using SNR in dB to express sensitivity, with the corresponding FF ISO equivalent as illustration, and not really actual ISO.

Click to expand...

Yes, but isn't the higher iso you need for FF to match the faster shutter speed and/or greater Dof of the smaller formats kinda missing?

No, because it's not really the exact ISO number which matters, but the SNR at the required ISO for either system - I presume that is why he uses SNR and not ISO. ISO 400 on the FF has a better SNR than ISO 400 on a smaller sensor.

Tim Tucker said:
Tim Tucker said:

Tim Tucker said:

So if you go down to the woods today... Your smaller format camera is smaller, lighter, cheaper, and will get more in focus at faster shutter speeds at base iso than your FF will. In fact at base iso you can shoot at maximum quality with an APS-C in about 1/4 the amount of light you need to do the same with FF (don't forget you are using a shorter focal length lens).

It's quite simple and always has been. The smaller the format then the faster the shutter speed and smaller the aperture you use to gain the same shot.

Click to expand...

Huh? That does not seem to follow. Faster shutter and smaller aperture together gives (even) less exposure, which needs to be compensated through higher ISO, leading to worse SNR, not leading to 'same shot'. Could you expand a bit on that, I think I'm missing something...

Click to expand...

Yes, With shorter focal lengths comes more Dof at the same aperture. So for the same Dof you can use a faster shutter speed, or even a combination of greater dof with a faster shutter speed? No compensation of higher iso with the smaller formats, it is the FF that needs higher iso to match the shutter speed and/or Dof capabilities of the smaller formats, with the resultant loss in DR.

Again, the basis is the SNR, not the actual ISO numbers to achieve the same brightness.

Tim Tucker said:
The other point is that you don't have to shoot the same shot. With APS-C you have around a 2 stops advantage with shutter speed and Dof, use it as you wish.

This is the main point that these arguments seem to miss, that each format has advantages and compromises. It is undoubtedly true that a larger sensor will generally produce a better quality image, but a APS-C sensor is better suited to action and available light because of it's advantages of being able to be hand held in 1/4 of the available light you really need for FF (at base iso).

That is exactly what he is trying to say with the diagrams. Advantages and disadvantages, knowing which for which system helps you exploit the system better.

Tim Tucker said:
Every design is a compromise that has both strengths and weaknesses. You should be exploiting and amplifying these, not negating them and wasting time trying to prove they don't exist.

Again, the way I see it is, that quezra is trying to show those strengths and weaknesses. He is not trying to argue them away, and he is not trying to prove that one system is better than another. He is trying to show where they differ.

I have the feeling that you are arguing against something that the diagrams are not trying to do...

Regards, Mike

March Of The Tripods · Jan 27, 2015

Martin.au said:
GH4 and GM5 have native ISO 100. Probably others too.

On DXO, ISO goes to 100, DR doesn't plateau and is higher at 100 than 200. Maybe I'm missing something?

http://www.dpreview.com/forums/post/53041656

More info.

I don't think Anders is correct when he says Panasonic's extended ISO is different than others'. In case anybody doesn't know, here is what extended ISO is. The camera shoots at it's base native ISO but overexposes the shot (ie forces the well capacity beyond what it normally would have), then after the shot is exposed, the camera pulls the exposure back down by the same amount (similarly to how we can do in PP with the EV slider).

The end result is a shot that forced more photons into the file by using longer SS (or larger aperture I suppose), but the risk is blowing highlights since you are purposely overexposing the shot. One can do the same thing manually, just shoot (for example) a D7100 at ISO 100 but set it at +1EV (in A mode, this will simply adjust the SS by a stop). Then in post, just use PS/LR to pull the exposure down a stop.

Voila, the result is a stop less noise, but perhaps clipped highlights. In both cases you may not have clipped highlights, but the highlight DR will still be a stop lower, while the shadow DR is increased by that stop. This is why tests like DXO don't actually show less DR, bc it doesn't have less, it just shifts the DR to have more shadow and less HL.

As for whether Panasonic uses "real" ISOs, one piece of evidence that supports my claim: I used to own a GX7 which had a base ISO of 200 (my claim), and an extended of 125. Fact: You can't use ISO 125 for video, which makes sense if you agree with my POV. The camera would have to record every video frame and constantly pull each one down by 3/4 of a stop before it writes to the card.

So, im not familiar with the GH4 video setup, but if you can't record video on any camera with the extended ISO, it's a safe bet to assume it's bc it isn't a real ISO stop. It is getting there the same way we could do it manually, by oversaturating well capacity at the expense of HL DR. Whether ISO 100 can be used on the GH4 is a question for somebody who owns it.

--
"People who think they know everything are a great annoyance to those of us who do." - Isaac Asimov

Tim Tucker · Jan 27, 2015

Mike CH said:
Again, the way I see it is, that quezra is trying to show those strengths and weaknesses. He is not trying to argue them away, and he is not trying to prove that one system is better than another. He is trying to show where they differ.

I have the feeling that you are arguing against something that the diagrams are not trying to do...

Regards, Mike

--
Wait and see...
I hardly ever speak for anybody but myself. In the cases where I do mean to speak generally the statements are likely to be marked as such.

There is always the chance that I have mis-read the charts. ;-)

But the arbitrary limits imposed on the lower ends seem to me to suggest that FF has the bigger range.

9.5EV is poor DR?? Even if it equates to 7EV usable it is still the same as slide film. It also takes no account of less well lit scenes having an inherently lower DR, so if you are in low light you will only need around 7EV anyway. Low light hand held - surely an advantage of smaller sensors if that red line had not been imposed as a limit?

Also there is no column giving acceptable sharpness against speed of subject movement. Surely another important consideration? Even on the same format, the shorter the focal length used = the less shutter speed you need to freeze movement effectively.

--
http://timtuckerphoto.smugmug.com/

Mike CH · Jan 27, 2015

Tim Tucker said:
Mike CH said:

Again, the way I see it is, that quezra is trying to show those strengths and weaknesses. He is not trying to argue them away, and he is not trying to prove that one system is better than another. He is trying to show where they differ.

I have the feeling that you are arguing against something that the diagrams are not trying to do...

Regards, Mike

--
Wait and see...
I hardly ever speak for anybody but myself. In the cases where I do mean to speak generally the statements are likely to be marked as such.

Click to expand...

There is always the chance that I have mis-read the charts. ;-)

A danger we are all exposed to

Tim Tucker said:
But the arbitrary limits imposed on the lower ends seem to me to suggest that FF has the bigger range.

Well, it has the bigger range. One clou is, though, that the smaller sensors are not contained within that ~~smaller~~ larger (I meant larger!) range, but reach out of it at the bottom end...

Tim Tucker said:
(9.5EV is poor DR?? Even if it equates to 7EV usable it is still the same as slide film.

Poor is perhaps not the best word... but the level is still about 5 EV less than what is possible.

Tim Tucker said:
It also takes no account of less well lit scenes having an inherently lower DR, so if you are in low light you will only need around 7EV anyway. Low light hand held - surely an advantage of smaller sensors if that red line had not been imposed as a limit?)

And the diagram shows you that, doesn't it? They'll handle it while not being overly large.

Tim Tucker said:
Also there is no column giving acceptable sharpness against speed of subject movement. Surely another important consideration? Even on the same format, the shorter the focal length used = the less shutter speed you need to freeze movement effectively.

Are you using the assumption that ISO 100 on one sensor is the same as ISO 100 on another sensor? If yes, then there are definitely two sides to that coin. In the sense of exposure and brightness they are the same. 1/100, f/8, ISO 100 gives same exposure and brightness (more or less) on all sensors. What they will not necessarily give is the same SNR. The smaller sensor has a worse SNR at the same ISO.

Meaning that, when you go to f/4 and 1/400 at ISO 100 on the smaller sensor to profit from the shorter focal length to get the shorter shutter time while maintaining DoF, the larger sensor goes to ISO 400, 1/400 and stays at f/8, and still has the same SNR as the smaller sensor. So the larger sensor compensates in another way.

Regards, Mike

--
Wait and see...
I hardly ever speak for anybody but myself. In the cases where I do mean to speak generally the statements are likely to be marked as such.

sportyaccordy · Jan 27, 2015

Tim Tucker said:
sportyaccordy said:

I have been trying to articulate what this infographic lays out pretty cleanly for months. Thanks quezra for pulling this together from DxOMark data.

Lot of implications to be made but I will let you guys have fun with it first.

Click to expand...

If your intent was to manipulate figures to prove what you want then obviously your chart is a success. But I have many problems with it.

The first one is the DR. No camera I know of has a usable range of 14 ev. This is a measurement of pure black to pure white, and as you all know usable DR is, and always has been, measured from the first discernible tones above and below said points. About 12ev.

Secondly your control of dof seems to favour having things out of focus. If your control of dof had being in focus as a criteria then surely the smaller formats should be on top?

Lastly, you have noted but not carried over, increasing iso decreases DR.

In your rush to bash you don't seem to realize I didn't actually make this chart. Actually the maker is right in the title. Even still though, you are wrong.

DR point is irrelevant. Cameras can capture a measured 14 EV. Whether that means anything for actual photography is another story, but IMO it can for saving highlights or pulling shadows. DOF point is irrelevant. Every lens can stop down to tiny apertures; difference lies in how big of an aperture diameter a system can feasibly enable and how much of an operating envelope you have below the diffraction threshold. I.e. A big format can stop down just as much as a small format, but you can't go the other way around, and smaller formats bump diffraction pretty quickly. And I'm not sure how not stating an obvious fact makes a chart wrong.

Tim Tucker said:
So if you go down to the woods today... Your smaller format camera is smaller, lighter, cheaper, and will get more in focus at faster shutter speeds at base iso than your FF will. In fact at base iso you can shoot at maximum quality with an APS-C in about 1/4 the amount of light you need to do the same with FF (don't forget you are using a shorter focal length lens).

But the base ISO on that APS-C sensor will have about a stop less available max DR, a stop less color depth, a stop less highlight capability and depending on resolution either higher diffraction limits or more outright resolution than the FF sensor. Similarly priced lenses on the FF will have a stop more DoF control and light gathering ability than those on APS-C (i.e. 18-200 vs 28-300, 35 1.8 vs 50 1.8 etc), and any lens that covers the full image circle will net more resolution and light gathering ability on the FF sensor than the APS-C.

Tim Tucker said:
It's quite simple and always has been. The smaller the format then the faster the shutter speed and smaller the aperture you use to gain the same shot. In short they are much better for hand held photography. It is the limitations and how you overcome them with the larger format of FF that makes them better suited for creative photography.

Horses for courses. BTW I shoot FF.

--
http://timtuckerphoto.smugmug.com/

Your point is only valid if folks are restricted to shooting at base ISO only. Base ISO for smaller sensors is a higher ISO for bigger ones.... normalize for these differences and differences across formats is minimal. Larger sensors add more flexibility all around, period. If they didn't you probably wouldn't be shooting FF (invalidating your whole rant).

This infographic (nor my posting of it) wasn't meant to put one system against another or show the superiority... as you said, horses for courses, this just helps folks choose the right horse.

AndreaV · Jan 27, 2015

Always fun to read these equivalency-peepers threads!

Mike CH · Jan 27, 2015

AndreaV said:
Always fun to read these equivalency-peepers threads!

Or, if so inclined, you can pay the fee in kind - by participating

Because those virtual peanuts are just so tasteless

Regards, Mike

A pretty slick visual guide to format size implications by quezra

Leading Member

Forum Pro

Veteran Member

Veteran Member

Veteran Member

Senior Member

Leading Member

Veteran Member

Leading Member

Senior Member

Veteran Member

Forum Pro

Senior Member

Veteran Member

Leading Member

Senior Member

Veteran Member

Forum Pro

Forum Enthusiast

Veteran Member

Similar threads

Keyboard shortcuts