Reading mode: Light Dark

The Bigger sensor = more light myth.

Go to last post
jxh said:
sybersitizen said:
Frankie J said:
IF larger pixels actually captured more light,
Click to expand...
You're already off track. The benefit of larger sensors doesn't depend on larger pixels.
Click to expand...
Actually it does.
Click to expand...
No, it doesn't.
jxh said:
The EV depends on photons per unit area, which is why the same f stop exposure applies to all size sensors.
Click to expand...
And the sensor receives the same light per unit area regardless of pixel size. This is obvious.
jxh said:
Total photons per pixel (not per area) is higher in a larger sensor.
Click to expand...
Sometimes. Some large sensors have comparatively small pixels. If you meant to say total photons per pixel (not per area) is higher in a larger sensor if its pixels are larger, that would be correct ... but it still has no effect on the total photons per sensor area.
jxh said:
More photons provide a more statically stable reading.
Click to expand...
The photon count of the entire image is the same with any pixel size. Again, this is obvious.

The benefit of a larger sensor is its larger area.
 
Last edited:
That is far more something I like to see In depth conversations on as opposed to which sensor sizes gathers more light.

Then there is the Physics of using different sensor sizes with the same Modern Tech with the same processors so the advantages that smaller sensor sizes can bring.

Processing power with smaller sensor sized cameras, this is where smaller sensors are not taking full advantage of their full potential. Since, they lost the Light WAR, a long, long time ago.
 
gianstam said:
ThrillaMozilla said:
Well, my friend, I won't try to count your misconceptions, but consider this. A larger sensor gets a longer lens to cover the same angle of view. You know that, right?

A longer lens is typically bigger, right? Here's an example. Let's compare full frame and micro 4/3 (MFT) to keep it simple. The MFT sensor is roughly half the size, and 1/4 the area, so you use a lens with half the focal length. Still with me? If you aren't, then you won't understand. So, 50 mm f/2 lens, vs. 25 mm f/2. The 50 mm lens has an aperture that's 50 mm / 2 = 25 mm in diameter. Did you know that? That's what the f/ number means. That 25 mm is as wide as the lens can open. But the puny 25 mm lens has an aperture that's 25 mm / 2 = 12.5 mm in diameter. Half the size and 1/4 the area. OOOhhh.

The MFT lens collects about 1/4 the light from the subject. Oh. So if the FF camera with the 50 mm lens can make a picture with, say, 24 gazillion photons, for example, the puny little 25 mm lens can only take in 6 gazillion photons. And those gazillions of photons are like little dots that make the picture, and if you don't have enough dots the picture is lousy.

If you didn't understand any of that, read it again, very, very carefully.
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

OP wrote: IF larger pixels actually captured more light, then the exposure would be different.
Click to expand...
Click to expand...
Yes he did. But the title of the thread is "The Bigger sensor = more light myth."
gianstam said:
Following your great explanation I can add that (24gazz.ph.)number/(FF AREA)mm^2 gives exactly the same number of photons as the (6gazz.ph)number/(μFT AREA)mm^2.

And this defines the exposure (for the same f number) which is the same for the two (and everyone else) format.
Click to expand...
Yes, perfectly true. The same exposure is not equivalent to the same number of photons, whether per pixel or per sensor.
 
Last edited:
There is something here that is being systematically ignored.

It isn't the sensor that collects the light. It's the lens-sensor system. A large entrance pupil collects more light than a small entrance pupil, and the light is measured by the sensor.

The lens is being systematically ignored in these conversations. It is common for a large sensor to have no noise advantage whatsoever in some photographic applications.
 
Last edited:
jxh said:
sybersitizen said:
Frankie J said:
IF larger pixels actually captured more light,
Click to expand...
You're already off track. The benefit of larger sensors doesn't depend on larger pixels.
Click to expand...
Actually it does. The EV depends on photons per unit area, which is why the same f stop exposure applies to all size sensors.
Total photons per pixel (not per area) is higher in a larger sensor. More photons provide a more statically stable reading.
Click to expand...
Total photons per pixel depends on the pixel size, regardless the sensor size, when all other factors are the same.


Cheers,
Doug
 
jxh said:
sybersitizen said:
Frankie J said:
IF larger pixels actually captured more light,
Click to expand...
You're already off track. The benefit of larger sensors doesn't depend on larger pixels.
Click to expand...
Actually it does. The EV depends on photons per unit area, which is why the same f stop exposure applies to all size sensors.
Total photons per pixel (not per area) is higher in a larger sensor. More photons provide a more statically stable reading.
Click to expand...
No. Pixel size determines sensor megapixel resolution while sensor area is what determines signal-to-noise ratio all things equal.
 
tbcass said:
jxh said:
sybersitizen said:
Frankie J said:
IF larger pixels actually captured more light,
Click to expand...
You're already off track. The benefit of larger sensors doesn't depend on larger pixels.
Click to expand...
Actually it does. The EV depends on photons per unit area, which is why the same f stop exposure applies to all size sensors.
Total photons per pixel (not per area) is higher in a larger sensor. More photons provide a more statically stable reading.
Click to expand...
No. Pixel size determines sensor megapixel resolution while sensor area is what determines signal-to-noise ratio all things equal.
Click to expand...
Correction: Sensor area and entrance pupil diameter.

For the same angle of view, increasing the sensor size won't collect a single additional photon unless the entrance pupil size is also increased. In other words, just changing cameras won't improve the noise performance (neglecting read noise). You also need to change the lens!

That's important to remember before you part with your money.
 
Last edited:
tbcass said:
jxh said:
Richard Butler said:
How are you defining 'exposure?'

Because if it's 'light per unit area,' (as the standard exposure model does), then larger pixels can quite happily capture more light without changing 'exposure.'

Higher SNR is not more light, because cause and effect work in the other direction. But more light (along with lower noise) is one of the ways to achieve a higher SNR.

Bigger sensors receive more light-per-whole-image than smaller ones, that's the logical outcome of 'exposure' being an measure of light per unit area. And, because noise levels of modern sensors are very, very low, it's also something that can be really consistently demonstrated.

So less of a 'myth' and more of a 'repeatably provable consequence of physics.'
Click to expand...
Appreciate the explanation. Many of us can be confused by what appears to be contradictory statements.. --more light total=same light per unit area --really two different measurements.
Click to expand...
Take 2 pans, one 12" square, and the other 24" square. Fill both with 1" of water. Which contains more water?
Click to expand...
Fill both with one cup of water, which has more water?
 
ThrillaMozilla said:
Well, my friend, I won't try to count your misconceptions, but consider this. A larger sensor gets a longer lens to cover the same angle of view. You know that, right?

A longer lens is typically bigger, right? Here's an example. Let's compare full frame and micro 4/3 (MFT) to keep it simple. The MFT sensor is roughly half the size, and 1/4 the area, so you use a lens with half the focal length. Still with me? If you aren't, then you won't understand. So, 50 mm f/2 lens, vs. 25 mm f/2. The 50 mm lens has an aperture that's 50 mm / 2 = 25 mm in diameter. Did you know that? That's what the f/ number means. That 25 mm is as wide as the lens can open. But the puny 25 mm lens has an aperture that's 25 mm / 2 = 12.5 mm in diameter. Half the size and 1/4 the area. OOOhhh.

The MFT lens collects about 1/4 the light from the subject. Oh. So if the FF camera with the 50 mm lens can make a picture with, say, 24 gazillion photons, for example, the puny little 25 mm lens can only take in 6 gazillion photons. And those gazillions of photons are like little dots that make the picture, and if you don't have enough dots the picture is lousy.

If you didn't understand any of that, read it again, very, very carefully.
Click to expand...
How does this help me produce photos that have a strong emotional connection to the viewer?

I've been shooting for over 45 years now. I know all the details that are being given in response to my original post which was made to spur conversation, not to clarify anything for myself. I suppose that I just got bored as there was a big lull in fresh posts.
I too get buried in minutiae, but arm-chair, fantasy football style obsessing over specs and tech details needs to be balanced with real photography, for myself anyway.
 
Last edited:
"The Bigger sensor = more light"

Is this actually a myth? I can't remember having heard it.

What I did hear (and which is not a myth but a fact) is:

1. The bigger the sensor, the higher the resolution, the lower the noise.

2. The bigger the lens, the more light will be captured.

Are you sure you didn't mix those 2?
 
Last edited:
Frankie J said:
tbcass said:
jxh said:
Richard Butler said:
How are you defining 'exposure?'

Because if it's 'light per unit area,' (as the standard exposure model does), then larger pixels can quite happily capture more light without changing 'exposure.'

Higher SNR is not more light, because cause and effect work in the other direction. But more light (along with lower noise) is one of the ways to achieve a higher SNR.

Bigger sensors receive more light-per-whole-image than smaller ones, that's the logical outcome of 'exposure' being an measure of light per unit area. And, because noise levels of modern sensors are very, very low, it's also something that can be really consistently demonstrated.

So less of a 'myth' and more of a 'repeatably provable consequence of physics.'
Click to expand...
Appreciate the explanation. Many of us can be confused by what appears to be contradictory statements.. --more light total=same light per unit area --really two different measurements.
Click to expand...
Take 2 pans, one 12" square, and the other 24" square. Fill both with 1" of water. Which contains more water?
Click to expand...
Fill both with one cup of water, which has more water?
Click to expand...
Unlike tbcass's example, that would represent different exposures, so isn't relevant to your original point.

Ah, and now I've seen your post where you make clear that you're just posting nonsense for a laugh.

Richard - DPReview.
 
Last edited:
Richard Butler said:
Frankie J said:
tbcass said:
jxh said:
Richard Butler said:
How are you defining 'exposure?'

Because if it's 'light per unit area,' (as the standard exposure model does), then larger pixels can quite happily capture more light without changing 'exposure.'

Higher SNR is not more light, because cause and effect work in the other direction. But more light (along with lower noise) is one of the ways to achieve a higher SNR.

Bigger sensors receive more light-per-whole-image than smaller ones, that's the logical outcome of 'exposure' being an measure of light per unit area. And, because noise levels of modern sensors are very, very low, it's also something that can be really consistently demonstrated.

So less of a 'myth' and more of a 'repeatably provable consequence of physics.'
Click to expand...
Appreciate the explanation. Many of us can be confused by what appears to be contradictory statements.. --more light total=same light per unit area --really two different measurements.
Click to expand...
Take 2 pans, one 12" square, and the other 24" square. Fill both with 1" of water. Which contains more water?
Click to expand...
Fill both with one cup of water, which has more water?
Click to expand...
Unlike tbcass's example, that would represent different exposures, so isn't relevant to your original point.

Ah, and now I've seen your post where you make clear that you're just posting nonsense for a laugh.

Richard - DPReview.
Click to expand...
Correction, to spur conversation.
 
Frankie J said:
How does this help me produce photos that have a strong emotional connection to the viewer?
Click to expand...
It doesn’t, but it helps you avoid being an ignorant fool.

It also helps you to be a well-rounded photographer.
Frankie J said:
I've been shooting for over 45 years now. I know all the details that are being given in response to my original post which was made to spur conversation, not to clarify anything for myself. I suppose that I just got bored as there was a big lull in fresh posts.
I too get buried in minutiae, but arm-chair, fantasy football style obsessing over specs and tech details needs to be balanced with real photography, for myself anyway.
Click to expand...
I’ve heard that the founders of the Flat Earth Society were specifically doing the same thing as you: certainly they did not actually believe that the earth is flat, but rather they wanted to encourage people to think for themselves and not simply take things on authority. So how well did that work out? You actually help people by helping them understand things, plainly and clearly, not by playing an emotional game.
 
ThrillaMozilla said:
The lens is being systematically ignored in these conversations. It is common for a large sensor to have no noise advantage whatsoever in some photographic applications.
Click to expand...
People always forget about tripods in these debates. They aren’t forced to always produce equivalent photos.
 
BackToNature1 said:
Processing power with smaller sensor sized cameras, this is where smaller sensors are not taking full advantage of their full potential. Since, they lost the Light WAR, a long, long time ago.
Click to expand...
Except for smartphones.
 
Mark S Abeln said:
ThrillaMozilla said:
The lens is being systematically ignored in these conversations. It is common for a large sensor to have no noise advantage whatsoever in some photographic applications.
Click to expand...
People always forget about tripods in these debates. They aren’t forced to always produce equivalent photos.
Click to expand...
Equivalence just tells you when things are and aren't comparable, it doesn't imply that taking equivalent photos is desirable or necessary. No one is forced to do anything.

Richard - DPReview.com
 
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