The myth of the large sensor "high ISO advantage"

[quezra]

This is why the A6000 was close to the FF camera and why when you look at all the measurements (take an average to be fair) the E-M1 performs better than expected compared to the A6000.

For the avoidance of doubt, when you say "better than expected compare to" you mean "worse than, but not as bad as expected compared to", right?

No, for example, at ISO 120 and 200 the E-M1 would have more DR, or when using the same DOF it would not be "worse" at even more ISOs. It simply depends. This is the topic. When considering DoF, smaller sensors often perform a bit better than larger ones. Not always, but pretty often.

Let's stick to the same brand here so no one can get us off topic and turn it in to bashing as then tend to do.

So take the A6000 and see how it performs favorably against the new A7ii. Both have the latest sensors. If you account for DoF, the A6000 beats the A7ii at almost every ISO. If you prefer more DOF, the A6000 is the better option.

So everyone should shoot with RX100 which is even more efficient, right?

 

[J A C S]

Finally, while it is possible to reduce the DoF with software, it is near impossible to increase it (except via multi-exposures). I can take any image and make it look like it was shot with a 1 stop wider aperture pretty easily and it would be near impossible to tell (above that it gets more difficult and things such as fine hair become problematic). I can't go the other way though.

Could you post some before/after examples of how easy it is to change the DoF in post please?

There are many on the Internet already.

Scroll down to see some.

http://www.alienskin.com/exposure/exposure-examples/

LOL! You are excused, you do not know what you are talking about...

 

[Lab D]

This is why the A6000 was close to the FF camera and why when you look at all the measurements (take an average to be fair) the E-M1 performs better than expected compared to the A6000.

For the avoidance of doubt, when you say "better than expected compare to" you mean "worse than, but not as bad as expected compared to", right?

No, for example, at ISO 120 and 200 the E-M1 would have more DR, or when using the same DOF it would not be "worse" at even more ISOs. It simply depends. This is the topic. When considering DoF, smaller sensors often perform a bit better than larger ones. Not always, but pretty often.

Let's stick to the same brand here so no one can get us off topic and turn it in to bashing as then tend to do.

So take the A6000 and see how it performs favorably against the new A7ii. Both have the latest sensors. If you account for DoF, the A6000 beats the A7ii at almost every ISO. If you prefer more DOF, the A6000 is the better option.

So everyone should shoot with RX100 which is even more efficient, right?

um, that was already addressed in this thread. If you think one size fits all, then you need to start another thread.

 

[quezra]

Finally, while it is possible to reduce the DoF with software, it is near impossible to increase it (except via multi-exposures). I can take any image and make it look like it was shot with a 1 stop wider aperture pretty easily and it would be near impossible to tell (above that it gets more difficult and things such as fine hair become problematic). I can't go the other way though.

Could you post some before/after examples of how easy it is to change the DoF in post please?

There are many on the Internet already.

Scroll down to see some.

http://www.alienskin.com/exposure/exposure-examples/

I don't really care what marketing brochures have to say about how they do it. I want live examples from a real user - you yourself claim you can do it "pretty easily and it would be near impossible to tell" so could we see some from you... I assume it's not more than a 5 minute job and you probably have dozens in your folders already?

I try not post images any more after Henry started taking people's pictures and using them for things against forum rules.

Do a search and you will get the idea.

Weak excuse. Test photos with no sensitive content can be taken any time. Do you really think every single photo you take is some kind of award winning photograph that needs to be protected?

 

[quezra]

This is why the A6000 was close to the FF camera and why when you look at all the measurements (take an average to be fair) the E-M1 performs better than expected compared to the A6000.

For the avoidance of doubt, when you say "better than expected compare to" you mean "worse than, but not as bad as expected compared to", right?

No, for example, at ISO 120 and 200 the E-M1 would have more DR, or when using the same DOF it would not be "worse" at even more ISOs. It simply depends. This is the topic. When considering DoF, smaller sensors often perform a bit better than larger ones. Not always, but pretty often.

Let's stick to the same brand here so no one can get us off topic and turn it in to bashing as then tend to do.

So take the A6000 and see how it performs favorably against the new A7ii. Both have the latest sensors. If you account for DoF, the A6000 beats the A7ii at almost every ISO. If you prefer more DOF, the A6000 is the better option.

So everyone should shoot with RX100 which is even more efficient, right?

um, that was already addressed in this thread. If you think one size fits all, then you need to start another thread.

You introduced "more DoF" as some kind of arbitrary limitation for photos (no idea why this would be the only consideration, but ok...), I am asking where your reductio ends.

 

[Lab D]

I used a pic from here an in 10 seconds got this. As I said, you don't want to add more than 1 or 2 stops, because then it is noticeable.

 

[Lab D]

Finally, while it is possible to reduce the DoF with software, it is near impossible to increase it (except via multi-exposures). I can take any image and make it look like it was shot with a 1 stop wider aperture pretty easily and it would be near impossible to tell (above that it gets more difficult and things such as fine hair become problematic). I can't go the other way though.

Could you post some before/after examples of how easy it is to change the DoF in post please?

There are many on the Internet already.

Scroll down to see some.

http://www.alienskin.com/exposure/exposure-examples/

I don't really care what marketing brochures have to say about how they do it. I want live examples from a real user - you yourself claim you can do it "pretty easily and it would be near impossible to tell" so could we see some from you... I assume it's not more than a 5 minute job and you probably have dozens in your folders already?

I try not post images any more after Henry started taking people's pictures and using them for things against forum rules.

Do a search and you will get the idea.

Weak excuse.

I already posted an example.

 

[MediaArchivist]

So it is not supposed to be obvious?

 

[Lab D]

This is why the A6000 was close to the FF camera and why when you look at all the measurements (take an average to be fair) the E-M1 performs better than expected compared to the A6000.

For the avoidance of doubt, when you say "better than expected compare to" you mean "worse than, but not as bad as expected compared to", right?

No, for example, at ISO 120 and 200 the E-M1 would have more DR, or when using the same DOF it would not be "worse" at even more ISOs. It simply depends. This is the topic. When considering DoF, smaller sensors often perform a bit better than larger ones. Not always, but pretty often.

Let's stick to the same brand here so no one can get us off topic and turn it in to bashing as then tend to do.

So take the A6000 and see how it performs favorably against the new A7ii. Both have the latest sensors. If you account for DoF, the A6000 beats the A7ii at almost every ISO. If you prefer more DOF, the A6000 is the better option.

So everyone should shoot with RX100 which is even more efficient, right?

um, that was already addressed in this thread. If you think one size fits all, then you need to start another thread.

You introduced "more DoF" as some kind of arbitrary limitation for photos (no idea why this would be the only consideration, but ok...), I am asking where your reductio ends.

Are you asking if there are situations where wider DoF is preferred? If so please start another thread.

If you want to learn more, go to this thread (I get bored repeating things)....

http://www.dpreview.com/forums/post/52452668

btw, it is kind of funny how you thumbs you every post of yours the second after you post. Obviously that means a lot to you.

 

[Lab D]

So it is not supposed to be obvious?

--
Want a roXplosion!?

I've been through this before. People will think they see things because you have preconceived idea in advance. But I've post images along time ago that no one realized had been edited, and once when I mentioned it several people though an unedited pic was changed.

 

[JP Scherrer]

I used a pic from here an in 10 seconds got this. As I said, you don't want to add more than 1 or 2 stops, because then it is noticeable.

What are these supposed to prove ?

:-/

Photo Galleries at http://www.pbase.com/scherrer
Spherical Panoramas at http://www.360cities.net/profile/jps or http://www.viewat.org/?sec=pn&id_aut=2489

 

[Lab D]

I used a pic from here an in 10 seconds got this. As I said, you don't want to add more than 1 or 2 stops, because then it is noticeable.

What are these supposed to prove ?

:-/

Photo Galleries at http://www.pbase.com/scherrer
Spherical Panoramas at http://www.360cities.net/profile/jps or http://www.viewat.org/?sec=pn&id_aut=2489

Good question. Someone was asking for them.

 

[JP Scherrer]

I used a pic from here an in 10 seconds got this. As I said, you don't want to add more than 1 or 2 stops, because then it is noticeable.

What are these supposed to prove ?

:-/

Photo Galleries at http://www.pbase.com/scherrer
Spherical Panoramas at http://www.360cities.net/profile/jps or http://www.viewat.org/?sec=pn&id_aut=2489

Good question. Someone was asking for them.

Apparently you were answering JACS post above, and I don't think he asked anything ! He just made a -correct IMO- assertion !




Photo Galleries at http://www.pbase.com/scherrer
Spherical Panoramas at http://www.360cities.net/profile/jps or http://www.viewat.org/?sec=pn&id_aut=2489

 

[Lab D]

Apparently you were answering JACS post above, and I don't think he asked anything ! He just made a -correct IMO- assertion !

There are many people on this forum who will tell you JACS rarely makes a "correct" assertion.

Ask him about Canon sensors.

 

[J A C S]

I used a pic from here an in 10 seconds got this. As I said, you don't want to add more than 1 or 2 stops, because then it is noticeable.

LOL! I am going to through away my fast lenses now!

--
Formerly known as Just Another Canon Shooter

 

[mostlyboringphotog]

It occurs to me one can go for a faster lens or a larger sensor size for a low light photography to maintain image quality. So on a crop sensor, when the lens cannot be made any faster, one needs to go to a bigger sensor. I think I finally got this, yes?

 

[ultimitsu]

ultimitsu wrote:
no, he is right and you are wrong.
" if you have the same ISO, aperture diameter & shutter speed in front of two different size sensors"
That would indeed result in same volume of light spread over an larger area. whether that means it is a "dimmer exposure" is a separate issue due to different understanding of what exposure means. but the resulting image will have less brightness.

Are you sure about that?

Absolutely.

Try it. Put the same lens w/ the same aperture setting on a smaller sensor body and then on a larger sensor body. Does the exposure change? (No).

You should follow your own advise - try it.

Let me break it down for you even more:

Put a 50mm on D810, set aperture to F10, you now have a 5 mm aperture diameter, set shutter speed to 1/50s and iso to 100, take the picture.

Now put a 35mm on a APS-C, set aperture to F7.1, you now have a 5 mm aperture diameter, set shutter speed to 1/50s and iso to 100, take the picture.

It should be abundantly clear that the APS-C image is brighter.

Again, the issue of "exposure" is complicated because it depends on one's understanding of what exposure means.

How about if you crop an image replicating a smaller sensor with the same pixel density...does the exposure change? (No) Or if you put your camera into crop mode? (No)

No idea what you are on about. in both scenario you are changing the FOV thus render comparison inappropriate.

Light does loose intensity as it spreads out over a larger area due to distance. But in order for a lens to function correctly the sensor plane must be at the same distance and therefore there is no increase in spread. The only question is whether the image circle is large enough to cover the larger sensor's size.

1, does D600 have better high ISO than D800?

Yes, but only marginally. The D4/4s more notably.

First. D4/D4s are not better except that they did not have purple glow, more of a problem with Sony sensor rather than result of smaller pixels.

Secondly, between D4s, D750 and D810, it is a wash, more or less. Despite pixel difference of 50% jum each step. You can check DXO and DPR's samples.

 

[ultimitsu]

it's basically the same argument HTC made, larger pixels allow you to catch more light for the same resolution, a larger sensor makes it easier to do this, but it's not the sensor size causing the cleaner ISO, it's the size of the pixels

It need to be pointed out that HTC's propaganda was fallacious, HTC promoted that 4mp camera because it was doing a 3 or 4 second video thing which probably would not have worked with higher resolution given the technology HTC had at the time. some reviews have proven that HTC's 4mp isnt any cleaner or better than other high end smart phone images downsampled to 4mp.

If HTC really believed in "ultra pixel" why did it not follow it up with another one? why is it the latest One M9 uses a 20mp sensor?

 

[J A C S]

It occurs to me one can go for a faster lens or a larger sensor size for a low light photography to maintain image quality. So on a crop sensor, when the lens cannot be made any faster, one needs to go to a bigger sensor. I think I finally got this, yes?

Yes. Of course, you get more light but less DOF, and this is how it works on the same sensor, as well.

When you go to longer FL's, there is (an expensive) 200/2 but not 300/2. There is an expensive 300/2.8, on the other hand. So you do not really get more light anymore with FF because you are limited by the maximal practical physical aperture. You do get more resolution, though.

 

[ultimitsu]

Practical APS-C and FF are equal!!!

More appropriate working should have been: APS-C and FF can equal in certain circumstance.

It is almost like saying, Ferrari and Fiat can be equally fast, on some roads.

So the FF may well be better on high iso because you're always 1 stop behind and APS-C. How much advantage has FF over APS-C?!? Roughly 1 stop? Not much different.

One stop difference cost you 1500 if you are talking about 24, 35, 50, or 85 prime.

And then there is the size of the lenses. To be able to create the same DOF..., for example the APS-C lens needs to be a f/2.8 lens and the FF lens a f4 lens. The APS-C lenses may be smaller than the FF lenses.

Exactly the opposite. I have owned Canon 17-55 and Nikon 24-85, the nikon is slightly faster all around (because the canon is a T3.3 lens, which makes closer to F4.6 on FF). The Canon is decidedly larger.