Why exactly do large sensors have more dynamic range

Started 3 months ago | Discussions
Greg7579
Greg7579 Forum Pro • Posts: 13,578
Re: Why exactly do large sensors have more dynamic range

There are probably (maybe) 3 or 4 guys who ever post on this whole DPR MF Board that could understand even some of this thread.

But I just want you guys to know I'm reading it and I get maybe 10% of it.

If you guys can't figure this out, how in the Hell are you going to figure out this whole DOF and MFL thing all these new GFX shooters are seeing?

Look, we need to get some of those new GFX buyers who post on Miranda and Facebook to come here to DPR.

I'm thinking of putting out another user-name call like I did when the GFX 100 came out and we had 145 guys pop on....

Keep up the good work.  You guys are pretty amazing.

-- hide signature --
 Greg7579's gear list:Greg7579's gear list
Leica Q2 Fujifilm GFX 50R Fujifilm GFX 100 Fujifilm GF 32-64mm F4 Fujifilm 120mm F4 Macro +8 more
JimKasson
MOD JimKasson Forum Pro • Posts: 33,971
DOF
1

Greg7579 wrote:

If you guys can't figure this out, how in the Hell are you going to figure out this whole DOF and MFL thing all these new GFX shooters are seeing?

It's really pretty simple. At the pixel level, you'll have the same DOF with the GFX 100 or GFX 100S as with an equivalent focal length lens on a Sony a7RIV, which has the same pixel pitch. At the picture level, with 3:4 aspect ratio, you'll need to stop down about one more stop with the GFX than you do with the a7RIV to get the same DOF.

Do the test, Greg.

Jim

-- hide signature --
 JimKasson's gear list:JimKasson's gear list
Nikon Z7 Fujifilm GFX 100 Sony a7R IV Sony a9 II +1 more
Greg7579
Greg7579 Forum Pro • Posts: 13,578
Re: DOF

JimKasson wrote:

...you'll need to stop down about one more stop with the GFX than you do with the a7RIV to get the same DOF.

Do the test, Greg.

Jim

Ummmmmm. grumble grumble. Jim .... Ughhhh....

In my opinion, not true vs my Leica Q2, which is high-res FF. To my eye it is way more than 1 stop. The differences in DOF at my shooting apertures and in the wild is pretty hard-hitting on my eyeballs and although uncalibrated, my eyeballs have convinced me that it is more than 1 stop.

But I'm actually starting to like my GFX lack of DOF in a way. I don't crave it like Chris and Manzur, but there is no DPR rule that says I have to try to get every pixel in my frame in sharp focus just because I spent a lot of money on those pixels. šŸ˜

Let it be Written ... Let it be Said.

To the Great Unwashed Masses: Oh that my eyeballs were calibrated electronic testing mechanisms so I could donate them to science when I go.... That way we would discover the scientific explanation of why it is more than one stop difference.

But hopefully, by the time I kick the bucket, the scientists will have figured it out and my unproven theorems will have been proven.  The Posthumous Nobel goes to....

I hope that's a long time from now.

What would you guys do without me?

-- hide signature --
 Greg7579's gear list:Greg7579's gear list
Leica Q2 Fujifilm GFX 50R Fujifilm GFX 100 Fujifilm GF 32-64mm F4 Fujifilm 120mm F4 Macro +8 more
JimKasson
MOD JimKasson Forum Pro • Posts: 33,971
Re: DOF
3

Greg7579 wrote:

JimKasson wrote:

...you'll need to stop down about one more stop with the GFX than you do with the a7RIV to get the same DOF.

Do the test, Greg.

Jim

Ummmmmm. grumble grumble. Jim .... Ughhhh....

In my opinion, not true vs my Leica Q2, which is high-res FF.

If you're looking at 100%, the Q2 pitch is 4.3 um. The a7RIV pitch is 3.76 um, which is the same as the GFX 100 and GFX 100S.

To my eye it is way more than 1 stop.

Do the test.

The differences in DOF at my shooting apertures and in the wild is pretty hard-hitting on my eyeballs and although uncalibrated, my eyeballs have convinced me that it is more than 1 stop.

Do the test.

But I'm actually starting to like my GFX lack of DOF in a way. I don't crave it like Chris and Manzur, but there is no DPR rule that says I have to try to get every pixel in my frame in sharp focus just because I spent a lot of money on those pixels. šŸ˜

Let it be Written ... Let it be Said.

To the Great Unwashed Masses: Oh that my eyeballs were calibrated electronic testing mechanisms so I could donate them to science when I go.... That way we would discover the scientific explanation of why it is more than one stop difference.

But hopefully, by the time I kick the bucket, the scientists will have figured it out and my unproven theorems will have been proven. The Posthumous Nobel goes to....

I hope that's a long time from now.

What would you guys do without me?

Higher SNR.

-- hide signature --
 JimKasson's gear list:JimKasson's gear list
Nikon Z7 Fujifilm GFX 100 Sony a7R IV Sony a9 II +1 more
MOD Doppler9000 Regular Member • Posts: 407
Re: DOF
2

JimKasson wrote:

Greg7579 wrote:

What would you guys do without me?

Higher SNR.

Oh snap!

Greg7579
Greg7579 Forum Pro • Posts: 13,578
Re: DOF

Doppler9000 wrote:

JimKasson wrote:

Greg7579 wrote:

What would you guys do without me?

Higher SNR.

Oh snap!

Rejoicing in the hallways of DPR....

Jim and Erik in dark suits half a world apart for two weeks as they mourn the loss....

Teresa flooding the market with GFX gear at half-off....

Macro and Rich with no one to argue with....

-- hide signature --
 Greg7579's gear list:Greg7579's gear list
Leica Q2 Fujifilm GFX 50R Fujifilm GFX 100 Fujifilm GF 32-64mm F4 Fujifilm 120mm F4 Macro +8 more
DMillier Forum Pro • Posts: 22,601
Re: DOF

JimKasson wrote:

Greg7579 wrote:

JimKasson wrote:

...you'll need to stop down about one more stop with the GFX than you do with the a7RIV to get the same DOF.

Do the test, Greg.

Jim

Ummmmmm. grumble grumble. Jim .... Ughhhh....

In my opinion, not true vs my Leica Q2, which is high-res FF.

If you're looking at 100%, the Q2 pitch is 4.3 um. The a7RIV pitch is 3.76 um, which is the same as the GFX 100 and GFX 100S.

To my eye it is way more than 1 stop.

Do the test.

The differences in DOF at my shooting apertures and in the wild is pretty hard-hitting on my eyeballs and although uncalibrated, my eyeballs have convinced me that it is more than 1 stop.

Do the test.

But I'm actually starting to like my GFX lack of DOF in a way. I don't crave it like Chris and Manzur, but there is no DPR rule that says I have to try to get every pixel in my frame in sharp focus just because I spent a lot of money on those pixels. šŸ˜

Let it be Written ... Let it be Said.

To the Great Unwashed Masses: Oh that my eyeballs were calibrated electronic testing mechanisms so I could donate them to science when I go.... That way we would discover the scientific explanation of why it is more than one stop difference.

But hopefully, by the time I kick the bucket, the scientists will have figured it out and my unproven theorems will have been proven. The Posthumous Nobel goes to....

I hope that's a long time from now.

What would you guys do without me?

Higher SNR.

Priceless or at least worth a fox Talbot stash.

Reminds me a bit of a colleague a few years ago who was asked at work to sum up our work as intranet content editors in one sentence. He replied pithily :

ctrl-c, ctrl-v.

-- hide signature --
MOD Doppler9000 Regular Member • Posts: 407
Re: DOF
1

DMillier wrote:

Reminds me a bit of a colleague a few years ago who was asked at work to sum up our work as intranet content editors in one sentence. He replied pithily :

ctrl-c, ctrl-v.

Better, I suppose, than ctrl-z.

Greg7579
Greg7579 Forum Pro • Posts: 13,578
Re: DOF

Doppler9000 wrote:

DMillier wrote:

Reminds me a bit of a colleague a few years ago who was asked at work to sum up our work as intranet content editors in one sentence. He replied pithily :

ctrl-c, ctrl-v.

Better, I suppose, than ctrl-z.

I used to know all the MS DOS commands. The things we had to type to do simple things:

copy [/d] [/v] [/n] [/y | /-y] [/z] [/l] [/a | /b] source [/a | /b] [+ source [/a | /b] [+ ...]] [destination [/a | /b]] [/?]

-- hide signature --
 Greg7579's gear list:Greg7579's gear list
Leica Q2 Fujifilm GFX 50R Fujifilm GFX 100 Fujifilm GF 32-64mm F4 Fujifilm 120mm F4 Macro +8 more
OP HDRI Forum Member • Posts: 78
Re: Why exactly do large sensors have more dynamic range

JimKasson wrote:

HDRI wrote:

Many resources(websites) attribute the large sensors having more DR due to they having bigger pixels. But in current days , GFX100 has 3.75 µm pixel pitch and Sony A7Siii has 8.4 µm pixel pitch. And yet GFX100 has higher PDR than Sony by around 1.5 stops.

So what exactly makes larger sensors have more DR.

Or if a company wishes they can actually have FF sensor like A7Siii have more/same DR as GFX 100 but they don't so for some other marketing reasons ?

You're talking per-image DR, not per-pixel DR, right? Useful base-ISO DR these days is pretty much controlled by shot noise, not read noise. Signal to noise ratio of shot noise goes as the square root of the number of electrons counted. Full well capacity per unit area has maxxed out at around 3000 electrons per square micrometer (3000 e-/um^2).

The only useful way at present to get more FWC across the entire sensor is to make the sensor bigger.

On a related note. I wonder if Fuji should use a sensor like IMX521 which has on sensor HDR ( though Sony will need to manufacture it for them ) to improve the DR further ?

https://www.dpreview.com/news/4477765388/sony-shows-off-specs-of-six-full-frame-sensors-including-a-quad-bayer-sensor

(let me start a new thread for this, as that would be better)

 HDRI's gear list:HDRI's gear list
Canon EOS 350D Fujifilm X-T100 Canon EF 100mm f/2.0 USM Canon 70-300 F4-5.6 IS II Fujifilm 15-45mm F3.5-5.6 OIS PZ
OP HDRI Forum Member • Posts: 78
Re: Why exactly do large sensors have more dynamic range

JimKasson wrote:

HDRI wrote:

Many resources(websites) attribute the large sensors having more DR due to they having bigger pixels. But in current days , GFX100 has 3.75 µm pixel pitch and Sony A7Siii has 8.4 µm pixel pitch. And yet GFX100 has higher PDR than Sony by around 1.5 stops.

So what exactly makes larger sensors have more DR.

Or if a company wishes they can actually have FF sensor like A7Siii have more/same DR as GFX 100 but they don't so for some other marketing reasons ?

You're talking per-image DR, not per-pixel DR, right? Useful base-ISO DR these days is pretty much controlled by shot noise, not read noise. Signal to noise ratio of shot noise goes as the square root of the number of electrons counted. Full well capacity per unit area has maxxed out at around 3000 electrons per square micrometer (3000 e-/um^2).

The only useful way at present to get more FWC across the entire sensor is to make the sensor bigger.

One further question which I have on this is : since a scene can have bright areas and dark areas , does per image DR would actually be DR at pixel group level instead of single pixel , so that such multiple groups capture the luminance they are exposed to correctly ? And with current tech more pixels per area is gonna help more than single large pixel ?

 HDRI's gear list:HDRI's gear list
Canon EOS 350D Fujifilm X-T100 Canon EF 100mm f/2.0 USM Canon 70-300 F4-5.6 IS II Fujifilm 15-45mm F3.5-5.6 OIS PZ
Erik Kaffehr
Erik Kaffehr Veteran Member • Posts: 5,852
Re: Why exactly do large sensors have more dynamic range

HDRI wrote:

JimKasson wrote:

HDRI wrote:

Many resources(websites) attribute the large sensors having more DR due to they having bigger pixels. But in current days , GFX100 has 3.75 µm pixel pitch and Sony A7Siii has 8.4 µm pixel pitch. And yet GFX100 has higher PDR than Sony by around 1.5 stops.

So what exactly makes larger sensors have more DR.

Or if a company wishes they can actually have FF sensor like A7Siii have more/same DR as GFX 100 but they don't so for some other marketing reasons ?

You're talking per-image DR, not per-pixel DR, right? Useful base-ISO DR these days is pretty much controlled by shot noise, not read noise. Signal to noise ratio of shot noise goes as the square root of the number of electrons counted. Full well capacity per unit area has maxxed out at around 3000 electrons per square micrometer (3000 e-/um^2).

The only useful way at present to get more FWC across the entire sensor is to make the sensor bigger.

One further question which I have on this is : since a scene can have bright areas and dark areas , does per image DR would actually be DR at pixel group level instead of single pixel , so that such multiple groups capture the luminance they are exposed to correctly ? And with current tech more pixels per area is gonna help more than single large pixel ?

Hi,

Larger pixels have a tiny advantage in DR comapred with smaller pixels over the same area.

Phase One used to have Sensor+ that bins four pixels in hardware at some ISO. Here you can see that binning four pixels at ISO 800 yields a gain in DR. But the much smaller pixels of a modern camera have a huge improvement in DR. The plots here are normalized to the same print size.

Source: DxO mark

Best regards

Erik

-- hide signature --

Erik Kaffehr
Website: http://echophoto.dnsalias.net
Magic uses to disappear in controlled experiments…
Gallery: http://echophoto.smugmug.com
Articles: http://echophoto.dnsalias.net/ekr/index.php/photoarticles

Keyboard shortcuts:
FForum MMy threads