Dynamic Range: Does Sensor Size Really Matter?

Hey fellow photogs!

I've been diving deep into the technical aspects of dynamic range lately, and I've come across some conflicting information regarding the impact of sensor size. Some argue that larger sensors inherently have better dynamic range, while others believe that advancements in technology are closing the gap. The recent BSI / partial sensor designs also play a role here.

What's your take on this? Any personal experiences or scientific insights you'd like to share?

--
You are talking to crazy. With too many cameras.

Shooters on My Squad said:

Hey fellow photogs!

I've been diving deep into the technical aspects of dynamic range lately, and I've come across some conflicting information regarding the impact of sensor size. Some argue that larger sensors inherently have better dynamic range, while others believe that advancements in technology are closing the gap. The recent BSI / partial sensor designs also play a role here.

What's your take on this? Any personal experiences or scientific insights you'd like to share?

Click to expand...

With the latest sensor designs, bigger sensors benefit too.

And, if you're a landscape photographer who shoots a lot of scenes with high dynamic range, then a large sensor DOES make a fairly big difference, especially if you try and recover a little shadow detail

That being said, photographers who actually take advantage of this are not plentiful. Personally, I take landscapes with both my full frame gear and micro four thirds gear, and like both.

JasonTheBirder said:

Shooters on My Squad said:

Hey fellow photogs!

I've been diving deep into the technical aspects of dynamic range lately, and I've come across some conflicting information regarding the impact of sensor size. Some argue that larger sensors inherently have better dynamic range, while others believe that advancements in technology are closing the gap. The recent BSI / partial sensor designs also play a role here.

What's your take on this? Any personal experiences or scientific insights you'd like to share?

Click to expand...

With the latest sensor designs, bigger sensors benefit too.

Click to expand...

But the latest sensor designs like BSI or that partial design on the recent mid-range Nikon deliver less dynamic range, in favor of more speed, so I wouldn’t say the last years gave us as many benefits, as the first two decades of digital photography.

Member said:

And, if you're a landscape photographer who shoots a lot of scenes with high dynamic range, then a large sensor DOES make a fairly big difference, especially if you try and recover a little shadow detail

Click to expand...

Yes, that’s true, especially if you print big.

Member said:

That being said, photographers who actually take advantage of this are not plentiful. Personally, I take landscapes with both my full frame gear and micro four thirds gear, and like both.

Click to expand...

Exactly, what kind of difference does the viewer see in the end result on a phone or tablet between MFT and MF?

Shooters on My Squad said:

Hey fellow photogs!

I've been diving deep into the technical aspects of dynamic range lately, and I've come across some conflicting information regarding the impact of sensor size. Some argue that larger sensors inherently have better dynamic range, while others believe that advancements in technology are closing the gap. The recent BSI / partial sensor designs also play a role here.

What's your take on this? Any personal experiences or scientific insights you'd like to share?

Click to expand...

Generally speaking, yes.

Shooters on My Squad said:

JasonTheBirder said:

Shooters on My Squad said:

Hey fellow photogs!

I've been diving deep into the technical aspects of dynamic range lately, and I've come across some conflicting information regarding the impact of sensor size. Some argue that larger sensors inherently have better dynamic range, while others believe that advancements in technology are closing the gap. The recent BSI / partial sensor designs also play a role here.

Click to expand...

Click to expand...

But the latest sensor designs like BSI or that partial design on the recent mid-range Nikon deliver less dynamic range, in favor of more speed, so I wouldn’t say the last years gave us as many benefits, as the first two decades of digital photography.

Shooters on My Squad said:

And, if you're a landscape photographer who shoots a lot of scenes with high dynamic range, then a large sensor DOES make a fairly big difference, especially if you try and recover a little shadow detail

Click to expand...

Yes, that’s true, especially if you print big.

Shooters on My Squad said:

That being said, photographers who actually take advantage of this are not plentiful. Personally, I take landscapes with both my full frame gear and micro four thirds gear, and like both.

Click to expand...

Exactly, what kind of difference does the viewer see in the end result on a phone or tablet between MFT and MF?

Click to expand...

What is at issue is the number of photons captured in a pixel (or photodiode) well. This -more pixel well depth -will reflect In highest dynamic range meaning less blown highlights and details In darkest areas.

BSI sensors close to doubles that amount of photon capture available per area unit of a sensor. The increasing MP for a given unit area of a sensor will however, while having more pixels lessen the possible dynamic range. Now, this is my understanding and having seen examples of this through the years of sensor development, I think is true.

Shooters on My Squad said:

Exactly, what kind of difference does the viewer see in the end result on a phone or tablet between MFT and MF?

Click to expand...

Fair question, but I don't take phone or tablet users into consideration personally.

Shooters on My Squad said:

Hey fellow photogs!

I've been diving deep into the technical aspects of dynamic range lately, and I've come across some conflicting information regarding the impact of sensor size. Some argue that larger sensors inherently have better dynamic range, while others believe that advancements in technology are closing the gap. The recent BSI / partial sensor designs also play a role here.

What's your take on this? Any personal experiences or scientific insights you'd like to share?

Click to expand...

If advances in technology are applied equally then a larger sensor will have more DR. There does come a point where it matters only in extreme lighting conditions.

Shooters on My Squad said:

JasonTheBirder said:

Shooters on My Squad said:

Hey fellow photogs!

I've been diving deep into the technical aspects of dynamic range lately, and I've come across some conflicting information regarding the impact of sensor size. Some argue that larger sensors inherently have better dynamic range, while others believe that advancements in technology are closing the gap. The recent BSI / partial sensor designs also play a role here.

What's your take on this? Any personal experiences or scientific insights you'd like to share?

Click to expand...

With the latest sensor designs, bigger sensors benefit too.

Click to expand...

But the latest sensor designs like BSI or that partial design on the recent mid-range Nikon deliver less dynamic range, in favor of more speed, so I wouldn’t say the last years gave us as many benefits, as the first two decades of digital photography.

Click to expand...

Do you really mean BSI - Back Side Illumination? That has been around for about 15 years. Perhaps you were thinking of stacked sensors? The Nikon Z6iii has a partially stacked sensor.

Shooters on My Squad said:

Hey fellow photogs!

I've been diving deep into the technical aspects of dynamic range lately, and I've come across some conflicting information regarding the impact of sensor size. Some argue that larger sensors inherently have better dynamic range, while others believe that advancements in technology are closing the gap. The recent BSI / partial sensor designs also play a role here.

What's your take on this? Any personal experiences or scientific insights you'd like to share?

Click to expand...

DR is not some one clear thing that can be measured like the length of a dowel. It is abstract, and has multiple definitions, but the basic idea is "how much can you expose below highlight clipping and still have an image that isn't too noisy in those poorly exposed areas?".

That is pretty much determined by noise. Noise can come from the total light itself, and can be added by electronics used to digitize the exposure.

If there were no added electronic noise, then the total amount of photons, or exposure times area, would determine the DR, and with the same quantum efficiency, the larger sensor would have the greater DR. Real world cameras have electronic noise, though, and part of that electronic noise has nothing to do directly with sensor area, so it is possible for a larger sensor to have so much electronic noise that it has less DR than a smaller sensor with less electronic noise.

Shooters on My Squad said:

But the latest sensor designs like BSI

Click to expand...

BSI has no direct effect on DR. BSI just increases quantum efficiency a tad, especially with very low f-ratios, but does not change the number of stops between clipping and minimum acceptable signal.

Of course, it is always possible that a manufacturer shifts numbers around for standardization purposes, and BSI could indirectly alter DR.

Philip Eihuyar said:

Shooters on My Squad said:

JasonTheBirder said:

Shooters on My Squad said:

Hey fellow photogs!

I've been diving deep into the technical aspects of dynamic range lately, and I've come across some conflicting information regarding the impact of sensor size. Some argue that larger sensors inherently have better dynamic range, while others believe that advancements in technology are closing the gap. The recent BSI / partial sensor designs also play a role here.

Click to expand...

Click to expand...

But the latest sensor designs like BSI or that partial design on the recent mid-range Nikon deliver less dynamic range, in favor of more speed, so I wouldn’t say the last years gave us as many benefits, as the first two decades of digital photography.

Philip Eihuyar said:

And, if you're a landscape photographer who shoots a lot of scenes with high dynamic range, then a large sensor DOES make a fairly big difference, especially if you try and recover a little shadow detail

Click to expand...

Yes, that’s true, especially if you print big.

Philip Eihuyar said:

That being said, photographers who actually take advantage of this are not plentiful. Personally, I take landscapes with both my full frame gear and micro four thirds gear, and like both.

Click to expand...

Exactly, what kind of difference does the viewer see in the end result on a phone or tablet between MFT and MF?

Click to expand...

What is at issue is the number of photons captured in a pixel (or photodiode) well.

Click to expand...

You are talking about pixel DR, then; not image DR, which is proportional to the pixel DR times the square root of the pixel count.

Philip Eihuyar said:

This -more pixel well depth -will reflect In highest dynamic range meaning less blown highlights and details In darkest areas.

BSI sensors close to doubles that amount of photon capture available per area unit of a sensor.

Click to expand...

Maybe for an f/1.0 lens, but for most real-world f-numbers, it is much less. FSI has the problem of light hitting the outer edges of microlenses getting lost and never making it into the photosites, rapidly below some low f-number, higher for smaller pixels. Most (if not all) FSI cameras deal with this by boosting the raw numbers to compensate for the loss, to make images as bright as if the loss did not exist. In doing so, raw numbers are multiplied and part of the original range is lost to clipping, so BSI does seem to increase DR with very low f-numbers, but only due to an illusion, because the camera is not clipping away highlights anymore, something it only did with FSI to "standardize" the raw files' numbers.

Philip Eihuyar said:

The increasing MP for a given unit area of a sensor will however, while having more pixels lessen the possible dynamic range.

Click to expand...

Yes and no. For the sake of rolling shutter speed, denser sensors of the same large size tend to measure a little noisier at the image level, due to slightly higher read noise, but this is due to the number of pixels; not their size. Small sensors do not have this problem, in general, and the same pixel density in a FF and a small sensor will usually result in less pixel-level read noise in the smaller sensor, especially visible read noise, which includes any spatial correlation missed in the monolithic noise measurement.

Philip Eihuyar said:

Now, this is my understanding and having seen examples of this through the years of sensor development, I think is true.

Click to expand...

dmanthree said:

Shooters on My Squad said:

Hey fellow photogs!

I've been diving deep into the technical aspects of dynamic range lately, and I've come across some conflicting information regarding the impact of sensor size. Some argue that larger sensors inherently have better dynamic range, while others believe that advancements in technology are closing the gap. The recent BSI / partial sensor designs also play a role here.

What's your take on this? Any personal experiences or scientific insights you'd like to share?

Click to expand...

Generally speaking, yes.

https://www.photonstophotos.net/Charts/PDR.htm#Canon EOS R5,Phase One IQ4 150MP,Sony ILCE-6700

Click to expand...

PDR is heavily weighted by photon noise, and photon noise does not have any spatial correlation other than that imposed by pure chance, while readout noise has both chance and spatially-correlated geometrical patterns, whose visibilty is not reflected in the standard deviations used for PDR.

So, it is still possible for a FF sensor to show a stop more PDR than an m43 sensor, but the m43 is cleaner way down in the shadows where read noise becomes even more of a challenge than the already challenging photon noise.

Also, keep in mind that comparing PDR at the same ISO for different sensors is meaningless at medium and high ISOs; what ISO value a manufacturer calls the raw digitization is highly variable. Imagine if Canon's HTP was measured for PDR, in addition to the normal ISOs. At ISO 25600, the PDR is 3.54EV for normal ISO, and 4.24 for HTP. In the same way, different cameras have different amounts of headroom assigned above middle grey, vs the "footroom" below it.

I’ve researched Nikon DSLR full frame and APS-C cameras of the same vintage, that also share the same processor. The FF definitely had more DR.

Chris R-UK said:

Shooters on My Squad said:

But the latest sensor designs like BSI or that partial design on the recent mid-range Nikon deliver less dynamic range, in favor of more speed, so I wouldn’t say the last years gave us as many benefits, as the first two decades of digital photography.

Click to expand...

Do you really mean BSI - Back Side Illumination? That has been around for about 15 years. Perhaps you were thinking of stacked sensors? The Nikon Z6iii has a partially stacked sensor.

Click to expand...

Yes, you are right!

John Sheehy said:

Shooters on My Squad said:

Hey fellow photogs!

I've been diving deep into the technical aspects of dynamic range lately, and I've come across some conflicting information regarding the impact of sensor size. Some argue that larger sensors inherently have better dynamic range, while others believe that advancements in technology are closing the gap. The recent BSI / partial sensor designs also play a role here.

What's your take on this? Any personal experiences or scientific insights you'd like to share?

Click to expand...

DR is not some one clear thing that can be measured like the length of a dowel. It is abstract, and has multiple definitions, but the basic idea is "how much can you expose below highlight clipping and still have an image that isn't too noisy in those poorly exposed areas?".

That is pretty much determined by noise. Noise can come from the total light itself, and can be added by electronics used to digitize the exposure.

If there were no added electronic noise, then the total amount of photons, or exposure times area, would determine the DR, and with the same quantum efficiency, the larger sensor would have the greater DR. Real world cameras have electronic noise, though, and part of that electronic noise has nothing to do directly with sensor area, so it is possible for a larger sensor to have so much electronic noise that it has less DR than a smaller sensor with less electronic noise.

Click to expand...

This is a great perspective, thanks for sharing!

If I correctly think this through this also means that bigger sensors with a smaller pixel pitch from about the same generation of sensor design have lower dynamic range than smaller sensors with a bigger pixel pitch?

Shooters on My Squad said:

John Sheehy said:

Shooters on My Squad said:

Hey fellow photogs!

I've been diving deep into the technical aspects of dynamic range lately, and I've come across some conflicting information regarding the impact of sensor size. Some argue that larger sensors inherently have better dynamic range,

Click to expand...

Click to expand...

Click to expand...

For a given sensor technology, it is generally true.

Shooters on My Squad said:

Shooters on My Squad said:

Shooters on My Squad said:

while others believe that advancements in technology are closing the gap.

Click to expand...

Click to expand...

Click to expand...

The only gap that closes is the gap between the new small sensors and the old large sensors. Large sensors with the new tech have the same amount of advantage as before.

Shooters on My Squad said:

Shooters on My Squad said:

Shooters on My Squad said:

The recent BSI / partial sensor designs also play a role here.

What's your take on this? Any personal experiences or scientific insights you'd like to share?

Click to expand...

DR is not some one clear thing that can be measured like the length of a dowel. It is abstract, and has multiple definitions, but the basic idea is "how much can you expose below highlight clipping and still have an image that isn't too noisy in those poorly exposed areas?".

That is pretty much determined by noise. Noise can come from the total light itself, and can be added by electronics used to digitize the exposure.

If there were no added electronic noise, then the total amount of photons, or exposure times area, would determine the DR, and with the same quantum efficiency, the larger sensor would have the greater DR. Real world cameras have electronic noise, though, and part of that electronic noise has nothing to do directly with sensor area, so it is possible for a larger sensor to have so much electronic noise that it has less DR than a smaller sensor with less electronic noise.

Click to expand...

This is a great perspective, thanks for sharing!

If I correctly think this through this also means that bigger sensors with a smaller pixel pitch from about the same generation of sensor design have lower dynamic range than smaller sensors with a bigger pixel pitch?

Click to expand...

How did you reach that conclusion? A FF sensor with a given level of tech captures the same number of photons, regardless of whether the sensor is divided into 20MP or 50MP.

Shooters on My Squad said:

Some argue that larger sensors inherently have better dynamic range, while others believe that advancements in technology are closing the gap. The recent BSI / partial sensor designs also play a role here.

Click to expand...

I believe there might be some truth in both.

We have seen improvements in sensor designs over the years so a sensor of a certain size and resolution today might have improvement in range over a sensor of similar size and range designed in a previous generation. I think the supporting electronics and firmware in the camera also has something to do with it.

Some people think it has to do with the individual photosites, the size of each pixel. This makes sense to me but I've been told by other people that it was incorrect. My theory is that a 46MP full frame sensor has approximately the same pixel density as a 24MP APS-C sensor and therefore should have similar performance in noise and dynamic range. To me it is as if you manufactured a 46MP full frame sensor then cut off parts of it to leave the smaller APS-C sensor. It is real hard to do accurate comparisons because of all of these different variables.

bjn70 said:

My theory is that a 46MP full frame sensor has approximately the same pixel density as a 24MP APS-C sensor and therefore should have similar performance in noise and dynamic range. To me it is as if you manufactured a 46MP full frame sensor then cut off parts of it to leave the smaller APS-C sensor. It is real hard to do accurate comparisons because of all of these different variables.

Click to expand...

Not quite. the central aps-c section of the FF would have similar performance as an aps-c.

But when you enlarge the sensor size and change the output size everything changes.

Shooters on My Squad said:

Some argue that larger sensors inherently have better dynamic range, while others believe that advancements in technology are closing the gap.

Click to expand...

The first part is true. The second part could be true if recent advancements in technology are confined to smaller sensors.

Here is an example of a scene with a wide dynamic range that I just shot with a Panasonic LX100. Exposed for the sky using AE lock and PP in Adobe Lightroom Classic. No dodging and burning was done in this example.




Original file




After PP




How 400% looks in Navigator