Sensors and Pixels...

[sdkid]

I am looking to replace my trusty 7D MKii...

OK... in the world of surveillance cameras, cramming more pixels onto the SAME SIZE SENSOR is a terrible idea, as it divides the light available and each pixel gets less light. That wonderful 8mp surveillance cam ends up really being worthless at night where a 2mp sensor of the same physical size and same lighting conditions will give awesome quality.

So that leads me to this:
The full-frame sensors in cameras are roughly 36x24 mm. Within that same approximate physical size, a Canon R5 has ~45mp, and a Sony A7R IVa has about 62mp. What are the implications of that? Do the lessons seen in surveillance camera sensors also apply to the sensors in these cameras?

 

[PhotoTeach2]

Having a usable f/stop range up to f/16-22 is an advantage of FF.

YMMV

(and also your definition of the world usable).

Personally the limit on the Leica M11 is f/5.6, and on the R5 it's f/8. Besides that I'm running confused in circles while wondering what happened to that mess of a photo.

Pixels eat all the fun out of FF, just like Pacman.

I have no idea what "usable f/stop range up to f/16-22" means. Why would an f/16 on FF be better than an f/8 on m43? Because "it goes to 16" ;-)?

I mean corresponding combinations of f/stop & SS ... 1/4000s @ f/2.8 or 1/60s @ f/22

Often I want/need 1/60s if someone is waking and I want to show foot movement to dynamic the walking, (or maybe bicycle-wheels or helicopter-rotors).

I also wonder about the limit for Leica M11 and Canon R5. I assume the limit is specified as the point of max resolution. That depends on the lens used.

 

[PhotoTeach2]

Having a usable f/stop range up to f/16-22 is an advantage of FF.

YMMV

(and also your definition of the world usable).

Personally the limit on the Leica M11 is f/5.6, and on the R5 it's f/8. Besides that I'm running confused in circles while wondering what happened to that mess of a photo.

Pixels eat all the fun out of FF, just like Pacman.

I also try to limit my f/stop to retain maximum sharpness ... but as I explained before, often the diffraction is not noticeably-objectionable.

So it is nice to have the fuller range for when DOF is the priority over ultimate sharpness.

The higher f/stop can allow a longer-SS for when you want/need some deliberate subject motion/movement, (if you don't have a ND handy).

 

[SrMi]

Having a usable f/stop range up to f/16-22 is an advantage of FF.

YMMV

(and also your definition of the world usable).

Personally the limit on the Leica M11 is f/5.6, and on the R5 it's f/8. Besides that I'm running confused in circles while wondering what happened to that mess of a photo.

Pixels eat all the fun out of FF, just like Pacman.

I also try to limit my f/stop to retain maximum sharpness ... but as I explained before, often the diffraction is not noticeably-objectionable.

So it is nice to have the fuller range for when DOF is the priority over ultimate sharpness.

The higher f/stop can allow a longer-SS for when you want/need some deliberate subject motion/movement, (if you don't have a ND handy).

I do not understand your point.

With m43 you get the same DOF with f/8 as you get with FF at f/16.

With FF you typically can get shallower DOF than with smaller sensors, but you cannot get more DOF.

 

[John Sheehy]

They can within a certain range of parameters, but their practical range is generally narrower than the practical range available to larger sensors.

Having a usable f/stop range up to f/16-22 is an advantage of FF.

How is that a real, practical advantage? F-ratios are not absolute photographic qualities. F/22 on FF looks just like f/4 on a 1/2.3" sensor.

The FF advantage is at the large-pupil end of the range for wide angles of view. If you have a 24/1.4 lens for FF, there is no 4.3/0.25 lens for 1/2.3".

EDIT: I see from another post that you are talking about a pseudo- neutral density effect to get slower shutter speeds in bright light. I don't think that most people would think of that from what you wrote here.

 

[Bill Ferris]

Having a usable f/stop range up to f/16-22 is an advantage of FF.

YMMV

(and also your definition of the world usable).

Personally the limit on the Leica M11 is f/5.6, and on the R5 it's f/8. Besides that I'm running confused in circles while wondering what happened to that mess of a photo.

Pixels eat all the fun out of FF, just like Pacman.

I have no idea what "usable f/stop range up to f/16-22" means. Why would an f/16 on FF be better than an f/8 on m43? Because "it goes to 16" ;-)?

I also wonder about the limit for Leica M11 and Canon R5. I assume the limit is specified as the point of max resolution. That depends on the lens used.

A smaller aperture (greater f-number) reduces the effect of the different aberrations of a lens, but at the same time increases the effect of diffraction.

The apertures are the same. The reason f/8 on M43 delivers the same depth of field as f/16 on full-frame is because both lenses use the same entrance pupil diameter. If the M43 camera is at 24mm, f/8 with a 3mm entrance pupil, the full-frame camera will be at 48mm, f/16 with the same composition, 3mm entrance pupil, and depth of field.

 

[John Sheehy]

I also wonder about the limit for Leica M11 and Canon R5. I assume the limit is specified as the point of max resolution. That depends on the lens used.

A smaller aperture (greater f-number) reduces the effect of the different aberrations of a lens, but at the same time increases the effect of diffraction. As far as i know, the effect of diffraction depends on the f-number, not the absolute opening.

That depends on the model you are using. If you are measuring the size of the diffraction blur on the sensor, in microns, then the f-ratio is what is relevant. If you are thinking about the size of the diffraction blur as an angle in the angle of view, then it is the pupil size that directly determines that angle.

 

[Bill Ferris]

Having a usable f/stop range up to f/16-22 is an advantage of FF.

YMMV

(and also your definition of the world usable).

Personally the limit on the Leica M11 is f/5.6, and on the R5 it's f/8. Besides that I'm running confused in circles while wondering what happened to that mess of a photo.

Pixels eat all the fun out of FF, just like Pacman.

I also try to limit my f/stop to retain maximum sharpness ... but as I explained before, often the diffraction is not noticeably-objectionable.

So it is nice to have the fuller range for when DOF is the priority over ultimate sharpness.

As mentioned in another post, f/8 on M43 is equivalent to f/16 on full-frame, assuming both cameras frame the same composition.

The option of achieving a deep depth of field isn't an advantage of a larger sensor body. It's easy for a crop sensor body to match a small entrance pupil size and get the same depth of field.

If shutter speed isn't a limitation and the larger sensor camera is able to be at base ISO at the lower exposure, it's photo will ve made with more total light, have less noise, and better detail.

The larger sensor's other advantage's are capturing a wider field of view in a single exposure or - based on very fast prime lens availability - a shallower depth of field in the same framing.

Panoramic stitching is able to overcome wide field of view limitations in a setting that allows a scene to be captured in multiple exposures. AI tools for creating a faux shallow depth of field are getting better...if you're into that. But in a single exposure and without manipulating the image in post, the larger sensor body has the advantage.

The higher f/stop can allow a longer-SS for when you want/need some deliberate subject motion/movement, (if you don't have a ND handy).

The crop sensor camera could be at a lower ISO or, as you reference, could use an ND filter to get to the same slow shutter speed.