Reading mode: Light Dark

If you use FF lens with the adaptor, does the image seem less noisy than using CX lens?

Go to last post
M

mostlyboringphotog

Forum Pro
Messages
10,475
Reaction score
4,003
This is a follow up thinking I had after reading "What is noise?" article. The conventional wisdom is that a larger sensor outputs cleaner image because it collects more photons.

However, my thought is that it's the larger image of FF lens that projects cleaner image (more photons). So with a FF lens projecting larger and cleaner image, even if one captures only the crop with a smaller sensor, the resulting image should be cleaner. i.e. the rest of the light was not "wasted". That is rather counter intuitive even to me, hence asking for your observations.

So if one could shoot with FF and CX lens at same EV (f-stop/SS), would you kindly note if there is noticeable difference in noise? Does different ISO setting make more/less difference, if there is any?

Thanks in advance,

BTW, this is not to start FF vs. crop debate. My feeling is noise is not why my photos looks mostly boring :-(
 
mostlyboringphotog said:
This is a follow up thinking I had after reading "What is noise?" article. The conventional wisdom is that a larger sensor outputs cleaner image because it collects more photons.

However, my thought is that it's the larger image of FF lens that projects cleaner image (more photons). So with a FF lens projecting larger and cleaner image, even if one captures only the crop with a smaller sensor, the resulting image should be cleaner. i.e. the rest of the light was not "wasted". That is rather counter intuitive even to me, hence asking for your observations.

So if one could shoot with FF and CX lens at same EV (f-stop/SS), would you kindly note if there is noticeable difference in noise? Does different ISO setting make more/less difference, if there is any?

Thanks in advance,

BTW, this is not to start FF vs. crop debate. My feeling is noise is not why my photos looks mostly boring :-(
Click to expand...
but the sensor can only collect so many because of it's physical size
 
It collects and projects more light - unfortunately not all concentrated on the CX sensor as it was designed to project over a much larger area.
 
Thanks to both and I do understand what you are saying but look at it from the image that is projected on the sensor from a FX lens and CX lens. The FX image is cleaner everywhere in the image, so capturing even the part of that image should be cleaner than capturing the full CX image because the projected CX image is noisier (shot noise).

Again, this is rather counter intuitive so asking for some experimental info or point out the faulty reasoning.

This goes back to if you crop a FF print, does it become noisier and if not why would a crop sensor of a FF lens should be any noisier?
 
mostlyboringphotog said:
Thanks to both and I do understand what you are saying but look at it from the image that is projected on the sensor from a FX lens and CX lens. The FX image is cleaner everywhere in the image, so capturing even the part of that image should be cleaner than capturing the full CX image because the projected CX image is noisier (shot noise).

Again, this is rather counter intuitive so asking for some experimental info or point out the faulty reasoning.

This goes back to if you crop a FF print, does it become noisier and if not why would a crop sensor of a FF lens should be any noisier?
Click to expand...
Shot noise is a property of the incoming light, not of the sensor. It doesn't know whether you cropped the image and shot noise on a FF sensor to CX dimensions, or only captured the image and shot noise with a CX sensor.

When you enlarge the cropped image to be the same size as the CX image (e.g. viewing on your computer monitor), the shot noise then becomes apparent to the same extent.
 
DaveR43 said:
mostlyboringphotog said:
Thanks to both and I do understand what you are saying but look at it from the image that is projected on the sensor from a FX lens and CX lens. The FX image is cleaner everywhere in the image, so capturing even the part of that image should be cleaner than capturing the full CX image because the projected CX image is noisier (shot noise).

Again, this is rather counter intuitive so asking for some experimental info or point out the faulty reasoning.

This goes back to if you crop a FF print, does it become noisier and if not why would a crop sensor of a FF lens should be any noisier?
Click to expand...
Shot noise is a property of the incoming light, not of the sensor. It doesn't know whether you cropped the image and shot noise on a FF sensor to CX dimensions, or only captured the image and shot noise with a CX sensor.

When you enlarge the cropped image to be the same size as the CX image (e.g. viewing on your computer monitor), the shot noise then becomes apparent to the same extent.
Click to expand...
So imagine a MF lens that is projecting even bigger image with higher SNR and capture part of that image with FF and CX sensor. Now crop the FF image to a CX size and compare to the CX sensor image. I cannot think that SNR is changing among the images as SNR was the same throughout the MF image.

Another thought experiment is, take an FF lens image with multiple CX sensors spread out so that all the FF image is captured. Would this be worse than if one FF sensor was used? Remember each CX sensor is capturing different part of the FF image. This can be done even with a smaller (more noisy) but more sensors.

DaveR43 said:
--
DaveR
Click to expand...
 
Short answer "No".

Not in the many thousands of images I have taken with cx lenses and FX primes. Acuity is better though in the top primes.

--
Cheers, Brandon
FlickR site
http://www.flickr.com/photos/brandon_birder/
Flickr D810 & D800 gallery
http://www.flickr.com/photos/brandon_birder/sets/72157629726734905/
Flickr D7200 & D7100 gallery
http://www.flickr.com/photos/brandon_birder/sets/72157633409947519/
Flickr AFS- 80-400VR gallery
http://www.flickr.com/photos/brandon_birder/sets/72157633211093293/
FlickR Nikon1 V1 & V3 gallery
http://www.flickr.com/photos/brandon_birder/sets/72157628774050455/
 
Last edited:
Brandon birder said:
Short answer "No".

Not in the many thousands of images I have taken with cx lenses and FX primes. Acuity is better though in the top primes.
Click to expand...
Thanks for the info - really appreciate it.

Brandon birder said:
--
Cheers, Brandon
FlickR site
http://www.flickr.com/photos/brandon_birder/
Flickr D810 & D800 gallery
http://www.flickr.com/photos/brandon_birder/sets/72157629726734905/
Flickr D7200 & D7100 gallery
http://www.flickr.com/photos/brandon_birder/sets/72157633409947519/
Flickr AFS- 80-400VR gallery
http://www.flickr.com/photos/brandon_birder/sets/72157633211093293/
FlickR Nikon1 V1 & V3 gallery
http://www.flickr.com/photos/brandon_birder/sets/72157628774050455/
Click to expand...
 
It makes no difference if you use a bigger lens because you still capture the same amount of data. To try and put this in into a similar example to the DPReview article, imagine the CX sensor is a small glass (say a shot glass) and THE FX sensor a larger glass (e.g. A pint glass). The lens is the bucket of water, with a CX lens being a smaller bucket than an FX lens. If you tip the FX lens bucket of water on both the pint and shot glass it doesn't change how much water the shot glass collects. The extra water (i.e. Light exposure) is simply wasted by missing the glass or overflowing.

To to your other question, yes a crop from an FX camera is noisier than using the full frame if the output is the same size. Cropping does not increase noise, cropping and then magnifying to the same size shows up the noise more. If I take a photo at 300mm using the full FX sensor, then take another from further back with a DX crop but same angle of view and then inspect at the same size, the crop will have more noise.
 
TSWD said:
It makes no difference if you use a bigger lens because you still capture the same amount of data. To try and put this in into a similar example to the DPReview article, imagine the CX sensor is a small glass (say a shot glass) and THE FX sensor a larger glass (e.g. A pint glass). The lens is the bucket of water, with a CX lens being a smaller bucket than an FX lens. If you tip the FX lens bucket of water on both the pint and shot glass it doesn't change how much water the shot glass collects. The extra water (i.e. Light exposure) is simply wasted by missing the glass or overflowing.

To to your other question, yes a crop from an FX camera is noisier than using the full frame if the output is the same size. Cropping does not increase noise, cropping and then magnifying to the same size shows up the noise more. If I take a photo at 300mm using the full FX sensor, then take another from further back with a DX crop but same angle of view and then inspect at the same size, the crop will have more noise.
Click to expand...
Thanks for your input - I'm think more you took a shot with FX at 300mm and at 300mm from the same spot and enlarge each output by the same amount. FX image will be larger. Now crop the FX image to the crop image FoV and then compare. My expectation is that the cropped FX image is still cleaner than the DX image. May be I got this part wrong?
 
mostlyboringphotog said:
TSWD said:
It makes no difference if you use a bigger lens because you still capture the same amount of data. To try and put this in into a similar example to the DPReview article, imagine the CX sensor is a small glass (say a shot glass) and THE FX sensor a larger glass (e.g. A pint glass). The lens is the bucket of water, with a CX lens being a smaller bucket than an FX lens. If you tip the FX lens bucket of water on both the pint and shot glass it doesn't change how much water the shot glass collects. The extra water (i.e. Light exposure) is simply wasted by missing the glass or overflowing.

To to your other question, yes a crop from an FX camera is noisier than using the full frame if the output is the same size. Cropping does not increase noise, cropping and then magnifying to the same size shows up the noise more. If I take a photo at 300mm using the full FX sensor, then take another from further back with a DX crop but same angle of view and then inspect at the same size, the crop will have more noise.
Click to expand...
Thanks for your input - I'm think more you took a shot with FX at 300mm and at 300mm from the same spot and enlarge each output by the same amount. FX image will be larger. Now crop the FX image to the crop image FoV and then compare. My expectation is that the cropped FX image is still cleaner than the DX image. May be I got this part wrong?
Click to expand...
Yes...
 
DaveR43 said:
mostlyboringphotog said:
TSWD said:
It makes no difference if you use a bigger lens because you still capture the same amount of data. To try and put this in into a similar example to the DPReview article, imagine the CX sensor is a small glass (say a shot glass) and THE FX sensor a larger glass (e.g. A pint glass). The lens is the bucket of water, with a CX lens being a smaller bucket than an FX lens. If you tip the FX lens bucket of water on both the pint and shot glass it doesn't change how much water the shot glass collects. The extra water (i.e. Light exposure) is simply wasted by missing the glass or overflowing.

To to your other question, yes a crop from an FX camera is noisier than using the full frame if the output is the same size. Cropping does not increase noise, cropping and then magnifying to the same size shows up the noise more. If I take a photo at 300mm using the full FX sensor, then take another from further back with a DX crop but same angle of view and then inspect at the same size, the crop will have more noise.
Click to expand...
Thanks for your input - I'm think more you took a shot with FX at 300mm and at 300mm from the same spot and enlarge each output by the same amount. FX image will be larger. Now crop the FX image to the crop image FoV and then compare. My expectation is that the cropped FX image is still cleaner than the DX image. May be I got this part wrong?
Click to expand...
Yes...
Click to expand...
Are you saying the CX image is as clean as the part of the FX image? Or some part of the FX image is noisier than other part?

DaveR43 said:
--
DaveR
Click to expand...
 
mostlyboringphotog said:
DaveR43 said:
mostlyboringphotog said:
TSWD said:
It makes no difference if you use a bigger lens because you still capture the same amount of data. To try and put this in into a similar example to the DPReview article, imagine the CX sensor is a small glass (say a shot glass) and THE FX sensor a larger glass (e.g. A pint glass). The lens is the bucket of water, with a CX lens being a smaller bucket than an FX lens. If you tip the FX lens bucket of water on both the pint and shot glass it doesn't change how much water the shot glass collects. The extra water (i.e. Light exposure) is simply wasted by missing the glass or overflowing.

To to your other question, yes a crop from an FX camera is noisier than using the full frame if the output is the same size. Cropping does not increase noise, cropping and then magnifying to the same size shows up the noise more. If I take a photo at 300mm using the full FX sensor, then take another from further back with a DX crop but same angle of view and then inspect at the same size, the crop will have more noise.
Click to expand...
Thanks for your input - I'm think more you took a shot with FX at 300mm and at 300mm from the same spot and enlarge each output by the same amount. FX image will be larger. Now crop the FX image to the crop image FoV and then compare. My expectation is that the cropped FX image is still cleaner than the DX image. May be I got this part wrong?
Click to expand...
Yes...
Click to expand...
Are you saying the CX image is as clean as the part of the FX image? Or some part of the FX image is noisier than other part?
Click to expand...
 
mostlyboringphotog said:
This is a follow up thinking I had after reading "What is noise?" article. The conventional wisdom is that a larger sensor outputs cleaner image because it collects more photons.

However, my thought is that it's the larger image of FF lens that projects cleaner image (more photons). So with a FF lens projecting larger and cleaner image, even if one captures only the crop with a smaller sensor, the resulting image should be cleaner. i.e. the rest of the light was not "wasted". That is rather counter intuitive even to me, hence asking for your observations.

So if one could shoot with FF and CX lens at same EV (f-stop/SS), would you kindly note if there is noticeable difference in noise? Does different ISO setting make more/less difference, if there is any?

Thanks in advance,

BTW, this is not to start FF vs. crop debate. My feeling is noise is not why my photos looks mostly boring :-(
Click to expand...
You must be thinking of a focal reducer.

Loading…

www.dpreview.com

But that doesn't crop the projected light.
 
Brandon birder said:
mostlyboringphotog said:
DaveR43 said:
mostlyboringphotog said:
TSWD said:
It makes no difference if you use a bigger lens because you still capture the same amount of data. To try and put this in into a similar example to the DPReview article, imagine the CX sensor is a small glass (say a shot glass) and THE FX sensor a larger glass (e.g. A pint glass). The lens is the bucket of water, with a CX lens being a smaller bucket than an FX lens. If you tip the FX lens bucket of water on both the pint and shot glass it doesn't change how much water the shot glass collects. The extra water (i.e. Light exposure) is simply wasted by missing the glass or overflowing.

To to your other question, yes a crop from an FX camera is noisier than using the full frame if the output is the same size. Cropping does not increase noise, cropping and then magnifying to the same size shows up the noise more. If I take a photo at 300mm using the full FX sensor, then take another from further back with a DX crop but same angle of view and then inspect at the same size, the crop will have more noise.
Click to expand...
Thanks for your input - I'm think more you took a shot with FX at 300mm and at 300mm from the same spot and enlarge each output by the same amount. FX image will be larger. Now crop the FX image to the crop image FoV and then compare. My expectation is that the cropped FX image is still cleaner than the DX image. May be I got this part wrong?
Click to expand...
Yes...
Click to expand...
Are you saying the CX image is as clean as the part of the FX image? Or some part of the FX image is noisier than other part?
Brandon birder said:
--
DaveR
Click to expand...
Click to expand...
If the CX sensor was of the same generation and type of sensor as the FX sensor then a crop done in post from the FX sensor image that was the same fov of the cx sensor would look identical to an image taken with the cx sensor as long as the same lens, aperture and shutter speed was used.
Click to expand...
The logical paradox that I'm having trouble is then, when the FX image is cropped, it's as noisy as an image from the crop sensor yet that cropped image was a part of FX image that is considered cleaner.

Brandon birder said:
--
Cheers, Brandon
FlickR site
http://www.flickr.com/photos/brandon_birder/
Flickr D810 & D800 gallery
http://www.flickr.com/photos/brandon_birder/sets/72157629726734905/
Flickr D7200 & D7100 gallery
http://www.flickr.com/photos/brandon_birder/sets/72157633409947519/
Flickr AFS- 80-400VR gallery
http://www.flickr.com/photos/brandon_birder/sets/72157633211093293/
FlickR Nikon1 V1 & V3 gallery
http://www.flickr.com/photos/brandon_birder/sets/72157628774050455/
Click to expand...
 
Jose Wayne said:
mostlyboringphotog said:
This is a follow up thinking I had after reading "What is noise?" article. The conventional wisdom is that a larger sensor outputs cleaner image because it collects more photons.

However, my thought is that it's the larger image of FF lens that projects cleaner image (more photons). So with a FF lens projecting larger and cleaner image, even if one captures only the crop with a smaller sensor, the resulting image should be cleaner. i.e. the rest of the light was not "wasted". That is rather counter intuitive even to me, hence asking for your observations.

So if one could shoot with FF and CX lens at same EV (f-stop/SS), would you kindly note if there is noticeable difference in noise? Does different ISO setting make more/less difference, if there is any?

Thanks in advance,

BTW, this is not to start FF vs. crop debate. My feeling is noise is not why my photos looks mostly boring :-(
Click to expand...
You must be thinking of a focal reducer.
Click to expand...
Afraid not; I'm trying to understand why we would say a larger sensor is less noisy when what both a larger and smaller sensor does is convert the photons to the electrical signal. So people say, larger sensor collects more light but to my thinking that is because a FF lens illuminates more photons on a larger sensor (i.e. cleaner image). So logically then, the FF lens is less noisy than the crop lens. And if this is correct, the counter intuitive conclusion that a FF lens on a crop sensor will result in a less noisy image than a crop lens on a crop sensor.

Thus looking for inputs from CX users with FX lens.

Jose Wayne said:
http://www.dpreview.com/articles/2667195592/first-impressions-metabones-speed-booster

But that doesn't crop the projected light.
Click to expand...
 
A larger sensor with the same number of pixels as a smaller sensor, each pixel of the larger sensor covers a larger area and collects more photons increasing the S/N ratio.
 
Jerry R said:
A larger sensor with the same number of pixels as a smaller sensor, each pixel of the larger sensor covers a larger area and collects more photons increasing the S/N ratio.
Click to expand...
What you are saying is the conventional wisdom. But the larger sensor does not increase the SNR. It's the FF lens with larger image (thus more photons) delivers higher SNR image to the sensor, regardless of the sensor size. What occurred to me is that a large or small sensors, same pixel pitch or large pixel, whatever the sensor size is, it can collect only as many photons as the lens will transmit. A FF lens by design will transmit more photons than a crop lens.

So I'm thinking that the image projected by a FF lens is cleaner than the image projected by a crop lens.
Jerry R said:
--
Sony R1, NEX C3 & 5R + Zeiss 24mm, 16-70, & FE 70-200 Lenses, Nikon V1 + 10-30 & 30-110 lenses.
Click to expand...
 
You must log in or register to reply here.

Keyboard shortcuts

f
Forum
m
My threads
Mobile site
About
Editorial content
Cameras & Lenses
Community
All content, design, and layout are Copyright © 1998–2025 Digital Photography Review All Rights Reserved.
Reproduction in whole or part in any form or medium without specific written permission is prohibited.
When you use DPReview links to buy products, the site may earn a commission.
©GPS Media - Guides, Products, Services.
Back
Top