R6 image quality compared to R7

thunder storm wrote:

John Sheehy wrote:

thunder storm wrote:

John Sheehy wrote:

Pixel size is pretty meaningless for noise per unit of sensor area, with the same generation of sensor technology, except that for some reason, FF sensors (but not the smaller sensors) suffer a little bit from higher pixel counts (such as the R5 being a little nosier than the R6).

Interesting. In my experience the M6II had more noise than the R, but that was with the same exposure settings (aperture and shutter speed). It seams to me though that you're comparing in a different way, right?

Well, I don't accept

Of course you're free to not accept whatever comparison you want, but if I mount my 40mm f/1.4 Art on my R and compare it to the same lens being mounted on my M6II the only cause the M6II will show more noise is simply the very nature of a an aps-c sensor, as it's being smaller is the cause some light is spilled beyond it's borders, whereas the bigger full frame sensor will collect this light by it's very nature of being bigger.

That's irrelevant, because they wouldn't be taking the same photo.  Even if you adjusted distance, for the same FOV in the subject plane, you have changed distance/perspective.  Which distance/perspective is the one you really want?  Which DOF?  What is the other camera doing, then, other than taking a DIFFERENT photo?

The fact that you can not avoid confronting is that you will never have the same exposure, taking the same photo, with two different sensor sizes.  Impossible, without putting a neutral density filter over the larger sensor, or using one with much lower QE (39% the QE of the crop).

In other words, the difference isn't in the way of comparing, the difference is in the essence of the difference between the sensors: the size, and nothing but the size, thát is making the crop sensor wasting light and creating more noise in it's images.

???? I've spent too much time already trying to figure out what you're trying to say here.

comparing different sensor sizes at the same ISO and exposure as being representative of real world use.

In real world use there are so far only two RF lenses which can be used with the R7 without it's smaller sensor wasting light.

No; those lenses waste the same light as a FF lens with the same focal length and open f-ratios.  The difference is that the light is absorbed in the lens' baffles, instead of blackened areas inside a crop body where the outer part of a FF sensor would be.

One might use the same ISO - base ISO - if light was generous, but when it is not, and both cameras are using elevated ISOs, then the lens becomes much bigger factor,

Would it be a fair comparison to mount one of two available crop lenses on a full frame RF camera to compare it to the R7? I agree with you the lens will become a big factor with this kind of reasoning, however, it sounds really ridiculous to me.

It's ridiculous, perhaps, but I never said that myself; you are merely implying that I would if I brought "crop lenses" into the discussion.

and there is no reason to suspect that the ISO would be the same for real practical reasons; it may just be the photographer's ideology in action.

I think it's a strange ideology not allowing a full frame camera user to shoot wide open to equal the collected photons when comparing it's sensor to a crop sensor, but that might just be me not accepting a way to compare.

No; that is you implying that I said things that I never said.  What I have said is that when the DOF and AOV are the same, larger sensors have no benefit due to their size.  What you are implying is that I have said that FF sensors should be tied down by limiting them to only DOF available on APS-C sensors, which is pure nonsense, as I have never said or implied anything remotely like that, and I often state that there are situations in which FF sensors can't be equaled by smaller sensors (without a speedbooster, of course).

Now back to the main point of my post that you responded to.  What I said is that comparing different size sensors at the same ISO is not a normal or useful basis of comparison.  Let me flip that so it works in YOUR favor.  If you have a choice between 50/1.2 on FF and 35/2 on a 1.6x crop sensor, will you shoot them at the same ISO, or will you open them both all the way, where the FF gets a lower ISO?  Your real-world results depend on sensor combined with lens; not the sensors at the same ISO, which is only the same occasionally, across the total lens+sensor global experience.