Exchange Sony A7R IV with GFX 50S?

Started 2 months ago | Questions thread
JimKasson
JimKasson Forum Pro • Posts: 27,366
Re: Double standards

Erik Kaffehr wrote:

JimKasson wrote:

Erik Kaffehr wrote:

JimKasson wrote:

Erik Kaffehr wrote:

JimKasson wrote:

Manzur Fahim wrote:

Greg7579 wrote:

matteroner wrote:

Yeah just 1.68x. What a load.

It's like getting hit by a 200lb linebacker vs a 336 linebacker.

The difference is significant no matter how you want to downplay it....

The fact is that a larger sensor gives you more room to Express your vision than the smaller sensors.

Cell phone cameras do great, but if you try to push any part of the image they fall apart pretty quick. Even in RAW.

It is the most commonly used and misleading MF vs FF talking point, and the number 1.68x is always combined with the word "just" or "only" by the FF fans.

I have seen this phrase posted hundreds of times on 6 different DPR forums.

Again, I was not picking on Erik at all. He is a MF forum member and a friend here. He could have said it innocently. I'm just making a general point here about that phrase that has nothing to do with Erik. I agree with most of his musings about MF....

Yes definitely not picking on Erik, I respect him and always like his posts and comments. He is a friend of ours. But I think from m4/3 the image quality is good, better on APS-C, then better on FF, and then better again on MF, but at this point it actually improved to a level that it makes a difference to us, but technically it is only 1.68x larger so it doesn't sound so different on paper.

I think it's best to think of the 33x44 mm sensor as 37.5% higher than a FF sensor. Considering the area gives a misleading impression.

https://blog.kasson.com/the-last-word/the-dimensions-of-resolution/

Jim

Hi Jim,

Two small points to make.

1) If you consider noise, sensor area matters. If you have twice the area on the sensor, you can use twice the ISO, aotbe.

But doubling the area doesn’t halve the SNR. You need four time the area but that. That’s why Bill Claff scales his PDR SNRs by picture height.

Correct! But I say that we can use twice the ISO and have the same SNR and that is correct, too, I think.

This matters a bit if light is a limiting factor.

If DoF matters, a sensor having twice the area needs to be stopped down one stop, but we can reduce exposure one stop and keep the SNR.

Best regards

Erik

2) Doing my normal printing, I would use a passepartout to connect my print to frame. So I can choose my aspect ratio. But, using affordable industrial printing it may be different. The largest print I made from a single exposure was 80x120 cm, AFAIK.

Doing large size prints externally is quite expensive, especially with mounting and framing.

Best regards

Erik

Sure. So you’d say a 100 mm lens is 16 times the magnification of a 25 mm lens?

No, I was talking aboout photon captures. What I essentially say that a 68% larger sensor, by area, captures the same number of photons with 2/3 EV less exposure.

Gotcha. So there are different scaling metrics depending on what you're thinking about.

Jim

-- hide signature --
 JimKasson's gear list:JimKasson's gear list
Nikon D5 Sony a7 III Nikon Z7 Fujifilm GFX 100 Sony a7R IV +2 more
Post (hide subjects) Posted by
Keyboard shortcuts:
FForum PPrevious NNext WNext unread UUpvote SSubscribe RReply QQuote BBookmark MMy threads
Color scheme? Blue / Yellow