Larger sensors collect more light? Not really

[abera]

a repeat of is usual overblown claims about the advantages of smaller formats.

Joe, we've been through this enough times that you ought to know better.

...

What, in your view, are the advantages of smaller sensors?

A deeper inherent DOF ...

As a practical mater, maximum attainable DoF is limited by diffraction, except at very short subject distances. For most shots, a larger sensor can get just as much DoF as a smaller sensor, just by stopping down. So you should only claim deeper achievable DoF at short subject distances, not a blanket deeper inherent DoF. Annd that deeper DOR, when you do get it comes with more inherent noise. ??

NO ONE COMPLAINS about the f/8 sharpness on 1/2.3" cameras, it is reasonably/acceptable sharp.

...

No one "complains" about f/16 on Sony RX10 (1"-type sensor).

You are wrong on both counts. We've had multiple posts on DPR asking why images are so soft when these settings were used.

YES ... of course you can detect softness on a resolution chart, but in real life both are "acceptably" sharp, (compared to unattainable on FF if you can't get f/45-64 at all).

You can't get the number but you can get as much DOF because the DOF at f/16 on an RXC10 or at f/8 on the 1/2.3" cameras is so bad that there is no actual acceptable sharpness gained beyond about f/22 equiv.

...

They allow FIXED-LENS "bridge" cameras, w/ SPEED & CONVENIENCE advantage -- w/ more options & features than found in FF/APS, (aka the FZ1000 had 4K-video and the largest O/F package almost 9-years ago --- the RX10-IV had "stacked" sensor & 600mm-EFL @ f/4, almost 6-years ago).

No, the RX10 IV had a 200mm lens @ f/4 that was equivalent to a FF 600mm lens @ f/11.

Funny, I look at the TOP OF the lens ... and it says 600mm (& f/4).

Why are you misrepresenting things, Joe? When you look on the top of a RX10 IV lens zoomed in all the way it says "35mm Equiv." Then it lists a whole bunch of numbers, without even saying "mm": 24, 100, 135, 200, 300, 400. It does not say f/4 anywhere in conjunction with these number The only places it mentions f/4 are at the front of the lens and on the top of the lens to the right of centre right next to the body. In both of those locations is says "2.4-4 / 8.8-220". Sony does not claim it is a 600mm f/4 lens. Only you do.

All I (usually) need to know.

Same FOV/AOV as 600mm on FF (but faster SS & lower ISO unless I have spent $12,000 for f/4).

You don't get to cherry-pick which attribute you give in equivalent terms and which youo give in actual terms.

And you arn't ???

No. I give its complete actual specification and its complete equivalent specification. Completeness is the opposite of cherry-picking. Citing the equivalrnt focal length but the actual f-number is misleading.

...

The f/number of a lens is described as its "SPEED", referring to the Shutter-Speed required, (for a given ISO).

If a camera produces the exact same output (same image quality, same DoF, same motion stopping) at f/8 that another produces at f/4, then they are the same speed.

The SS/ISO and (actual) f/stop are the same on either FF or 1/2.3".

(yes of course DOF and possible-noise is different)

Noise is almost entirely a function of how much light is collected:

• If the exposure settings are the same, then bigger format collects more light.
• If the depth of field is the same, then all formats collect the same amount of light (assuming the other exposure parameters are the same).

 

[jackwelch]

Actually, if you understand equivalence it is possible to produce FF-type results with smaller sensors by changing the way you photograph a subject. In the example below I was able to achieve smooth Bokeh with a 1" sensor by getting close to the subject and making sure the background was far enough away.

When people tell me they buy a big expensive camera because they want the bokeh look, I just show them this video:

 

[Mako2011]

I'm not deeply invested in your perceptions of right.

It was brought up...and he is correct. Nothing wrong with correcting misconceptions when they pop up. Helps keep folks on the same page...and keeps "Equivalence" at bay

Which is why I dropped it.

Not yet? It can be hard. I'm often one in the same sinking boat

I don't really care about the topic. I still view it as an acronym, albeit a non-traditional one,

That's the misconception that led to the correction. Common thing here

and he's nonetheless technically correct that it's not.

All that he was trying to point out. He was told he was wrong

That's fine with me.

True that. Doesn't affect the photography...though some who work at the International Organization for Standardization would take great offense...as would some here with a strong scientific background. Just nature of the beast. Always leads to a side discussion and has happened here many many times. I'm not surprised.

Enjoy the day...there's a new comet to be photographed...looking forward to the images we might see...at base ISO

 

[Mako2011]

Regardless, it's the internet, so I should have known better and engaged less.

Still a good thing. I guarantee it caused somebody here to look it up and gain a bit more knowledge. That's worth something...and why I think the forums are well worth the effort.

 

[AcquiredTaste]

I'm not deeply invested in your perceptions of right.

It was brought up...and he is correct. Nothing wrong with correcting misconceptions when they pop up. Helps keep folks on the same page...and keeps "Equivalence" at bay

Which is why I dropped it.

Not yet? It can be hard. I'm often one in the same sinking boat

Well, I tried.

I don't really care about the topic. I still view it as an acronym, albeit a non-traditional one,

That's the misconception that led to the correction. Common thing here

No. It's not a misconception that I view it that way. That's a fact!

 

[Mako2011]

No. It's not a misconception that I view it that way. That's a fact!

I love that!!! Hope I can remember it long enough to get a T-Shirt made. Thanks for making me smile

 

[SrMi]

Ok I did the math, you need a 18mm f/3.1 on aps-c (27mm eq) to match the f1.8 lens in the OG RX100 (wide, 28mm eq, no zoom) if the same shutter speed is used on both cameras.

NO ... SAME (actual) f/stop (on any sensor size) requires same Shutter-Speed and same ISO.

Assuming the goal is to make the same photo with different format cameras, the shutter speeds will be the same. However, the f-stops and ISOs will be different.

Two photos are equivalent if they're made from the same perspective, have the same angle of view & framing, the same depth of field, same rendering of movement, same noise visibility and same lightness. The sensors need to collect there same amount of light and the only way for different format sensors to capture the same total light is to work with different exposures.

So you are saying when i go buy a Sekonic/Gossen light meter .... i have to specify what format it is for ???

(learn something new every day)

Nobody is disputing that two different format cameras used in the same light and using the same f-stop, shutter speed and ISO to photograph the same scene will use the same exposure and make photos having the same lightness.

However there are significant ways in which those photos will or may be different. Due to the fact that the larger sensor has a larger surface area, it will collect more total light than a smaller sensor when both work with the same exposure. As a result, the image made with the smaller format camera will have greater noise visibility.

This alone means the photos made with the two cameras will not be the same. They won't be equivalent. The question of whether or not the increased noise visibility is objectionable, is subjective. It's up to the photographer to decide if that difference is acceptable or objectionable.

If different format cameras are used with the same exposure settings and ISO but different focal lengths to capture the same angles of view then, by definition, the smaller format camera will make a photo having greater depth of field. If two different focal length lenses are used at the same f-stop, the shorter focal length will have a smaller entrance pupil diameter. It will deliver an image having greater depth of field. This would also make the two photos not equivalent.

If we're using equivalence to demonstrate how it's possible for cameras of different formats to be used to make the same photo then, by definition, the cameras will work with different exposures to make those equivalent photos. It's not exposure that determines the amount of noise in a photo; it's the total light used that does so.

If we're using different format cameras to illustrate that the same exposure and ISO settings can be used to make photos having the same lightness regardless of format then, by definition, the photos will have different noise visibility. It's also possible they'll differ in other ways. Since different combinations of f-stop and shutter speed can deliver the same exposure to a sensor, it's possible that different format cameras working with the same exposure will make photos having the same lightness but different depths of field and rendering of movement in the frame.

Working with the same exposure not only guarantees that different format cameras will make different photos, it's possible the photos will be different in a multiple visually obvious ways.

But why the emphasis on "equivalent" images ???

Why not use the format w/ advantages for specific situations ???

I use FF for portraits or lower-light or largest prints.

To clarify: the lenses are giving FF an advantage at lower light, not the sensor size.

I use "bridge" for speed & convenience, (and more options & features), and deeper DOF. Its "leaf" shutter and FA-LCD allows images not possible w/ my FF.

 

[abera]

Your comments suggest that you don't understand equivalence.

We don't need "equivalence" ...

There are BOTH advantages & disadvantages to BOTH larger & smaller sensors !!!

Does equivalence not make it easier to see what advantages and disadvantages those are?

What, in your view, are the advantages of smaller sensors?

A deeper inherent DOF ...

There is no such thing as inherent DoF. If the aperture diameter is the same, then the DoF will be the same.

Longer inherent (effective) focal-length ...

There is no such thing either. "Reach" is a function of pixel pitch, not sensor size.

Inherently smaller/lighter/CHEAPER ... with "SUFFICIENT" IQ for many/most applications.

Smaller and cheaper for most functions, not all, thus not "inherently" - with smaller formats one may require a very small f-number lenses for given jobs and they tend to be more complex, more expensive and bigger than the more modest f-numbered larger format equivalents.

But certainly I do agree regarding IQ.

They allow FIXED-LENS "bridge" cameras, w/ SPEED & CONVENIENCE advantage -- w/ more options & features than found in FF/APS, (aka the FZ1000 had 4K-video and the largest O/F package almost 9-years ago --- the RX10-IV had "stacked" sensor & 600mm-EFL @ f/4, almost 6-years ago).

If you use equivalent focal length, then it would be best to use equivalent f-number as well.

 

[Dem Bell]

Ok I did the math, you need a 18mm f/3.1 on aps-c (27mm eq) to match the f1.8 lens in the OG RX100 (wide, 28mm eq, no zoom) if the same shutter speed is used on both cameras.

You got it right, Supisiche!

NO ... SAME (actual) f/stop (on any sensor size) requires same Shutter-Speed and same ISO.

Once you realise that different formats have to be shot at different ISOs to get equivalent photos, the rest will fall in places.

Why not use the format most applicable to the specific situation ???

Indeed. But first we need to establish WHICH format it is.

It is often impossible to get "equivalent" photos.

Exactly. That's why we are trying to define the photographic envelope where the format doesn't matter and everything outside of it will be "the format does matter".

Equivalent f/stop only applies to DOF, (and potentially noise), considerations.

As well as image lightness and diffraction blur.

No to image lightness.

Yes to image lightness. Your further post suggests that you might be confusing SOOC JPEG image lightness with luminous exposure.

 

[Dem Bell]

Actually, if you understand equivalence it is possible to produce FF-type results with smaller sensors by changing the way you photograph a subject. In the example below I was able to achieve smooth Bokeh with a 1" sensor by getting close to the subject and making sure the background was far enough away.

This is not an example of "the FF type results". This is an example of a close up shot for which the sensor size doesn't matter.

Take a full frame portrait shot at f/2 and try recreating it using a 1" sensor.

 

[bobn2]

Why is that a limitation when I can get an (equivalent) 600mm @ f/4 camera & lens (both) for $1700 ???

A FF 600mm f/4 can be $12,000.

It's an interesting thought. Why do all those press photographers (or their employers) spend that outrageous amount of money on those lenses if the $1700 camera and lens would do the same job? Either they are mugs or maybe the $1700 camera doesn't actually do the same job. Wouldn't it be nice if there was some simple way of working out in which way the job the two is different, and therefore whether it's worth paying the $12000 or the $1700?

My personal opinion is simply the myth/bias that FF is simply better (for everything) and if anyone shows up at a "pro" event w/ RX10-IV, they would be laughed out.

That indicates a very low opinion of those photographers and their employers. By and large people in business do not spend ten times the money for something that doesn't give them the return on investment.

My own thought, having done a little of that kind of photography and in the process having shared a shooting location with a real professional, who was happy to have an interesting conversation and give me some tips, is somewhat different from yours. I was using my $1200 200-500 (actual) f/5.6 (actual) zoom, he was using a $12000 400mm (actual) f/2.8 (actual). The first difference between our approach was the care he took to choose his shooting angle. I asked him about that and he explained that he was choosing his position so that the background would be mainly people in the crowd, not advertising hoardings. He showed me on the LCD of his camera, and he was right, it produced a much better shot, so I copied that. We were shooting motor bike racing, and the best place to catch the bikes was as they came round the corner, still heeled over. Leave it later than that and the shots weren't that interesting. The problem was that the difference in distance between the bikes and the crowd wasn't that much comparatively. With my f/5.6 lens I wasn't getting a lot of background blur, and the background was quite distracting. With his f/2.8 he had much more subject isolation, much more 'pop' to his shots, and they were better than mine - due mainly to the lens he was using. Then there is the quality aspect. The light wasn't great and you need about 1/125 second to keep the keeper rate up (unless you have absolutely fantastic panning technique). I was working at about 800 ISO. With two stops more from the lens he was working at 200. If he'd been using an RX 10 IV he'd have had f/4 and had to work at 400. Let's see what the relative results might look like:

Clearly he's getting better quality than I was, and I'm getting better quality than a RX-10 IV would. Since sensor size apparently doesn't matter, I included the P1000. That's not a fair comparison because it would have had to be working at ISO 25600 to get that 1/125, but it only goes up to 6400.

As for the point about people being laughed at because of their kit, I've never seen that amongst professional photographers. It might be something amateurs do, but even then, I haven't personally witnessed it.

But considering its frame rate and (faster) shutter/AF-lag, I think I would try it ... the only reason I don't have one is because its lacking a Fully-Articulating LCD.

However of course we now have stacked sensors in the A9/A1/Z9/R3/OM-1 so I suggest any of those could do equally well, (albeit still more expensive).

The OM-1 has available f/4.5 at 400mm, which is going to give the same results as an f/9 on the FF camera. It'll be a little better than the RX-10 IV, but not a lot.

--
Is it always wrong
for one to have the hots for
Comrade Kim Yo Jong?