Full Frame Image Quality, Myth or Reality?

[En Trance]

The story is that a very large image sensor with the Mystical, Magical size of 35mm film, has Image Quality that is Greatly Enhanced. The assumption is that pixels and voids are optimized for Image Quality.

Is this true? Or are some manufacturer's struggling to keep up with the sensor game and simply marketing their inferior, gigantic, sensor as a benefit, as they claim that Resolution (MP Rating) is not important for Digital Camera Design? (These aren't the Droids that you are looking for!)

Are crop sensors simply aimed at the lens sweet-spot and reaping the benefit of not using the more challenging periphery of the frame?

Please, no questions about the question. (What do you mean by Blue? What planet are you shooting on? When you say 35mm do you mean 35.00 or 35.00001? Because I need to know that before I give my script to the world.)

Interested in your thoughts..., Maybe!

 

[D Cox]

I suggest you look at lots of images, preferably as big as possible.

What I see is that the bigger sensors do give better tonal gradation, especially in low light, but there is a large overlap. And the highest resolutions are on the biggest sensors, but again there is an overlap.

I would guess that if you made large prints from a 24 Megapixel APS-C camera and a 24 Megapixel FF camera, in most cases it would be very hard or impossible to tell the difference. But the very best, especially in low light, would come from the FF sensor.

 

[brianj]

The story is that a very large image sensor with the Mystical, Magical size of 35mm film, has Image Quality that is Greatly Enhanced. The assumption is that pixels and voids are optimized for Image Quality.

Is this true? Or are some manufacturer's struggling to keep up with the sensor game and simply marketing their inferior, gigantic, sensor as a benefit, as they claim that Resolution (MP Rating) is not important for Digital Camera Design? (These aren't the Droids that you are looking for!)

Are crop sensors simply aimed at the lens sweet-spot and reaping the benefit of not using the more challenging periphery of the frame?

Please, no questions about the question. (What do you mean by Blue? What planet are you shooting on? When you say 35mm do you mean 35.00 or 35.00001? Because I need to know that before I give my script to the world.)

Interested in your thoughts..., Maybe!

If this is true then we must stop wasting our time on FF and ready ourselves for quad FF, the processor can stich four FF sensors together to produce the image. And why stop there, if this theory is true why not have 16 or 64 FF sensors in a matrix.

We shouldn't settle for a compromise.

Brian

 

[SkiHound]

All else being equal, a larger sensor gathers more light and light is signal. So a larger sensor has, at least theoretically, a better signal to noise ratio. All else is not always equal and sensor technology has gotten so good that, at least in my opinion, the potential advantages are often of little practical consequence. If you're doing huge art prints of landscapes then those advantages may become apparent. If you're shooting events in dim light and require very his isos those advantages may become apparent. There are also pragmatic differences such as depth of field, which can be an advantage or a disadvantage. That said, I see great pictures taken with all kinds of cameras and I see boring pictures taken with all kinds of cameras.

 

[Peter Jonas]

The story is that a very large image sensor with the Mystical, Magical size of 35mm film, has Image Quality that is Greatly Enhanced. The assumption is that pixels and voids are optimized for Image Quality.

Is this true? Or are some manufacturer's struggling to keep up with the sensor game and simply marketing their inferior, gigantic, sensor as a benefit, as they claim that Resolution (MP Rating) is not important for Digital Camera Design? (These aren't the Droids that you are looking for!)

All else being equal, a larger sensor will always have a better signal to noise ratio and less depth of field than a smaller sensor. These differences will be about proportional to the ratio of the total areas of the respective sensors. Or in practice about 1 stop between FF and APS-C sensors.

With the advancement of technology the difference will be less and less obvious in the majority of the cases, and only becomes obvious when the sensors are pushed to their limits. I.e.: low light photography.

Are crop sensors simply aimed at the lens sweet-spot and reaping the benefit of not using the more challenging periphery of the frame?

APS-C sensors can take advantage of not using the outer area of the image projected by lenses designed with image circles to cover the larger FF sensor.

Many lenses are designed specifically for smaller sensors where this advantage is not present.

--
Cheers,
Peter Jonas

 

[En Trance]

I suggest you look at lots of images, preferably as big as possible.

What I see is that the bigger sensors do give better tonal gradation, especially in low light, but there is a large overlap. And the highest resolutions are on the biggest sensors, but again there is an overlap.

I would guess that if you made large prints from a 24 Megapixel APS-C camera and a 24 Megapixel FF camera, in most cases it would be very hard or impossible to tell the difference. But the very best, especially in low light, would come from the FF sensor.

Would you say that the low light difference is due to the tendency to increase ISO?

 

[En Trance]

The story is that a very large image sensor with the Mystical, Magical size of 35mm film, has Image Quality that is Greatly Enhanced. The assumption is that pixels and voids are optimized for Image Quality.

Is this true? Or are some manufacturer's struggling to keep up with the sensor game and simply marketing their inferior, gigantic, sensor as a benefit, as they claim that Resolution (MP Rating) is not important for Digital Camera Design? (These aren't the Droids that you are looking for!)

Are crop sensors simply aimed at the lens sweet-spot and reaping the benefit of not using the more challenging periphery of the frame?

Please, no questions about the question. (What do you mean by Blue? What planet are you shooting on? When you say 35mm do you mean 35.00 or 35.00001? Because I need to know that before I give my script to the world.)

Interested in your thoughts..., Maybe!

If this is true then we must stop wasting our time on FF and ready ourselves for quad FF, the processor can stich four FF sensors together to produce the image. And why stop there, if this theory is true why not have 16 or 64 FF sensors in a matrix.

We shouldn't settle for a compromise.

Brian

I see the 24.7MP Sony half sensor and ask Sony, "Why not stitch 2 together and give me 50MP"? I would welcome that Change.

 

[En Trance]

All else being equal, a larger sensor gathers more light and light is signal. So a larger sensor has, at least theoretically, a better signal to noise ratio. All else is not always equal and sensor technology has gotten so good that, at least in my opinion, the potential advantages are often of little practical consequence. If you're doing huge art prints of landscapes then those advantages may become apparent. If you're shooting events in dim light and require very his isos those advantages may become apparent. There are also pragmatic differences such as depth of field, which can be an advantage or a disadvantage. That said, I see great pictures taken with all kinds of cameras and I see boring pictures taken with all kinds of cameras.

 

[En Trance]

The story is that a very large image sensor with the Mystical, Magical size of 35mm film, has Image Quality that is Greatly Enhanced. The assumption is that pixels and voids are optimized for Image Quality.

Is this true? Or are some manufacturer's struggling to keep up with the sensor game and simply marketing their inferior, gigantic, sensor as a benefit, as they claim that Resolution (MP Rating) is not important for Digital Camera Design? (These aren't the Droids that you are looking for!)

All else being equal, a larger sensor will always have a better signal to noise ratio and less depth of field than a smaller sensor. These differences will be about proportional to the ratio of the total areas of the respective sensors. Or in practice about 1 stop between FF and APS-C sensors.

"All else being equal", That is the $5 question. What about the 24x36 mm size provides superior signal to noise ratio? Is this just another marketing example. Will 24MP always have more noise than 18MP? I can tell you for sure that the signals are not equal.

 

[Spotted Cow]

There are many more qualified people on here that can explain the science and the technicality of the subject at hand but for me, I can't necessarily tell photos apart that has been taken with FF sensor or crop sensor in many real world shooting situations. However, once the noise level has to be pushed, that's definitely a situation where FF sensor shines and the difference can be quite noticeable.

 

[Peter Jonas]

The story is that a very large image sensor with the Mystical, Magical size of 35mm film, has Image Quality that is Greatly Enhanced. The assumption is that pixels and voids are optimized for Image Quality.

Is this true? Or are some manufacturer's struggling to keep up with the sensor game and simply marketing their inferior, gigantic, sensor as a benefit, as they claim that Resolution (MP Rating) is not important for Digital Camera Design? (These aren't the Droids that you are looking for!)

All else being equal, a larger sensor will always have a better signal to noise ratio and less depth of field than a smaller sensor. These differences will be about proportional to the ratio of the total areas of the respective sensors. Or in practice about 1 stop between FF and APS-C sensors.

"All else being equal", That is the $5 question. What about the 24x36 mm size provides superior signal to noise ratio? Is this just another marketing example.

All else being equal in this context means the technology used to make the sensors. So that the only thing different is the size, and as a consequence (as pixel pitch is also the same) resolution. A larger sensor will be better. I'ts a fact of life, and has absolutely nothing to do with marketing.

However, the "better" will not always be apparent to the eye, and often the smaller sensor will be good enough for a particular user.

For example I use a Fuji camera with an APS-C sensor. Most of the time I get excellent results that are no different to those taken with an FF camera. But when I look at images out of say an FF Nikon D750 taken at ISO 6400 and above (and even at ISO3200), it's clear the FF sensor is in a different universe.

Will 24MP always have more noise than 18MP? I can tell you for sure that the signals are not equal.

If the sensors you mention are of the same size, then at pixel level the higer MP image will be noisier, but at image level they will be the same.

--
Cheers,
Peter Jonas

 

[En Trance]

There are many more qualified people on here that can explain the science and the technicality of the subject at hand but for me, I can't necessarily tell photos apart that has been taken with FF sensor or crop sensor in many real world shooting situations. However, once the noise level has to be pushed, that's definitely a situation where FF sensor shines and the difference can be quite noticeable.

My thought on this is that distance is the culprit. With the FF, I am closer to the subject and therefor the light entering the lens is more intense. To frame the same shot with a HF, I must move further away from the subject. (Those experts laugh me to shame for that theory, but they have not a clue, lol.)

 

[Peter Jonas]

There are many more qualified people on here that can explain the science and the technicality of the subject at hand but for me, I can't necessarily tell photos apart that has been taken with FF sensor or crop sensor in many real world shooting situations. However, once the noise level has to be pushed, that's definitely a situation where FF sensor shines and the difference can be quite noticeable.

My thought on this is that distance is the culprit. With the FF, I am closer to the subject and therefor the light entering the lens is more intense. To frame the same shot with a HF, I must move further away from the subject. (Those experts laugh me to shame for that theory, but they have not a clue, lol.)

That thought is not quite correct.

The FF sensor gathers more light than the APS-C type does simply because it's physically larger.

It has nothing to do with subject distance or how you frame your shot.

--
Cheers,
Peter Jonas

 

[En Trance]

The story is that a very large image sensor with the Mystical, Magical size of 35mm film, has Image Quality that is Greatly Enhanced. The assumption is that pixels and voids are optimized for Image Quality.

Is this true? Or are some manufacturer's struggling to keep up with the sensor game and simply marketing their inferior, gigantic, sensor as a benefit, as they claim that Resolution (MP Rating) is not important for Digital Camera Design? (These aren't the Droids that you are looking for!)

All else being equal, a larger sensor will always have a better signal to noise ratio and less depth of field than a smaller sensor. These differences will be about proportional to the ratio of the total areas of the respective sensors. Or in practice about 1 stop between FF and APS-C sensors.

"All else being equal", That is the $5 question. What about the 24x36 mm size provides superior signal to noise ratio? Is this just another marketing example.

All else being equal in this context means the technology used to make the sensors. So that the only thing different is the size, and as a consequence (as pixel pitch is also the same) resolution. A larger sensor will be better. I'ts a fact of life, and has absolutely nothing to do with marketing.

"A larger sensor will be better" Again, Why is 24x36 better? Looking at your words it is hard to imagine why a manufacturer would produce two sensors with the same pitch, s/n, etc, etc, and offer them in two sizes. One with good s/n and the other, half sized, with poor s/n.

But if the current state of my sensor technology limits me to 22 MP FF, then I might throw stones at another manufacturer that can do a 25 MP HF. It is a fact that 2 of those half sensors would be the magical 24x36 FF dimension, but would have the same s/n as each of the half sensors.

I am thinking that we are not comparing apples to apples. We are looking at the noise produced by 24MP and comparing it to the noise produced by 18 or 22MP. Additionally, we erroneously use the word "signal" to connote the same thing and the 18 or 22MP signal is not equal to the 24MP signal either. We also fail to recognize that the FF sensor is physically closer to the subject than the HF sensor.

I am still not clear on why better FF Picture Quality is a "Fact of Life".

Thanks.

 

[D Cox]

The story is that a very large image sensor with the Mystical, Magical size of 35mm film, has Image Quality that is Greatly Enhanced. The assumption is that pixels and voids are optimized for Image Quality.

Is this true? Or are some manufacturer's struggling to keep up with the sensor game and simply marketing their inferior, gigantic, sensor as a benefit, as they claim that Resolution (MP Rating) is not important for Digital Camera Design? (These aren't the Droids that you are looking for!)

Are crop sensors simply aimed at the lens sweet-spot and reaping the benefit of not using the more challenging periphery of the frame?

Please, no questions about the question. (What do you mean by Blue? What planet are you shooting on? When you say 35mm do you mean 35.00 or 35.00001? Because I need to know that before I give my script to the world.)

Interested in your thoughts..., Maybe!

If this is true then we must stop wasting our time on FF and ready ourselves for quad FF, the processor can stich four FF sensors together to produce the image. And why stop there, if this theory is true why not have 16 or 64 FF sensors in a matrix.

You can see what this quality is like from images made by stitching several shots from a FF camera.

 

[D Cox]

I suggest you look at lots of images, preferably as big as possible.

What I see is that the bigger sensors do give better tonal gradation, especially in low light, but there is a large overlap. And the highest resolutions are on the biggest sensors, but again there is an overlap.

I would guess that if you made large prints from a 24 Megapixel APS-C camera and a 24 Megapixel FF camera, in most cases it would be very hard or impossible to tell the difference. But the very best, especially in low light, would come from the FF sensor.

Would you say that the low light difference is due to the tendency to increase ISO?

I would say it is due to a better signal-to-noise ratio on the larger sensor, which allows you to use higher ISO settings.

(Note that Sony's A7s has some special electronics that kicks in at very high ISO settings.)

 

[D Cox]

The story is that a very large image sensor with the Mystical, Magical size of 35mm film, has Image Quality that is Greatly Enhanced. The assumption is that pixels and voids are optimized for Image Quality.

Is this true? Or are some manufacturer's struggling to keep up with the sensor game and simply marketing their inferior, gigantic, sensor as a benefit, as they claim that Resolution (MP Rating) is not important for Digital Camera Design? (These aren't the Droids that you are looking for!)

Are crop sensors simply aimed at the lens sweet-spot and reaping the benefit of not using the more challenging periphery of the frame?

Please, no questions about the question. (What do you mean by Blue? What planet are you shooting on? When you say 35mm do you mean 35.00 or 35.00001? Because I need to know that before I give my script to the world.)

Interested in your thoughts..., Maybe!

If this is true then we must stop wasting our time on FF and ready ourselves for quad FF, the processor can stich four FF sensors together to produce the image. And why stop there, if this theory is true why not have 16 or 64 FF sensors in a matrix.

We shouldn't settle for a compromise.

Brian

I see the 24.7MP Sony half sensor and ask Sony, "Why not stitch 2 together and give me 50MP"? I would welcome that Change.

Coming soon.

The problem is not the sensor but the amount of data processing required. This can give you a slower camera, until the chips get faster. The heavier processing load can also produce more heat, and hot sensors get noisy.

 

[En Trance]

There are many more qualified people on here that can explain the science and the technicality of the subject at hand but for me, I can't necessarily tell photos apart that has been taken with FF sensor or crop sensor in many real world shooting situations. However, once the noise level has to be pushed, that's definitely a situation where FF sensor shines and the difference can be quite noticeable.

My thought on this is that distance is the culprit. With the FF, I am closer to the subject and therefor the light entering the lens is more intense. To frame the same shot with a HF, I must move further away from the subject. (Those experts laugh me to shame for that theory, but they have not a clue, lol.)

That thought is not quite correct.

The FF sensor gathers more light than the APS-C type does simply because it's physically larger.

It has nothing to do with subject distance or how you frame your shot.

 

[D Cox]

There are many more qualified people on here that can explain the science and the technicality of the subject at hand but for me, I can't necessarily tell photos apart that has been taken with FF sensor or crop sensor in many real world shooting situations. However, once the noise level has to be pushed, that's definitely a situation where FF sensor shines and the difference can be quite noticeable.

My thought on this is that distance is the culprit. With the FF, I am closer to the subject and therefor the light entering the lens is more intense.

A closer object is bigger in the image, and this exactly cancels out the inverse square law of the light. The light is spread over a bigger area.

When you look around at the real world, you do not see the distance as dark.

To frame the same shot with a HF, I must move further away from the subject. (Those experts laugh me to shame for that theory, but they have not a clue, lol.)

 

[D Cox]

"A larger sensor will be better" Again, Why is 24x36 better? Looking at your words it is hard to imagine why a manufacturer would produce two sensors with the same pitch, s/n, etc, etc, and offer them in two sizes. One with good s/n and the other, half sized, with poor s/n.

They produce cameras with smaller sensors because small sensors are cheaper to make. Also lenses to cover smaller sensors can be smaller and cheaper.

But if the current state of my sensor technology limits me to 22 MP FF, then I might throw stones at another manufacturer that can do a 25 MP HF. It is a fact that 2 of those half sensors would be the magical 24x36 FF dimension, but would have the same s/n as each of the half sensors.

I am thinking that we are not comparing apples to apples. We are looking at the noise produced by 24MP and comparing it to the noise produced by 18 or 22MP. Additionally, we erroneously use the word "signal" to connote the same thing and the 18 or 22MP signal is not equal to the 24MP signal either. We also fail to recognize that the FF sensor is physically closer to the subject than the HF sensor.

I am still not clear on why better FF Picture Quality is a "Fact of Life".

Thanks.