FF vs APS-C -- light per pixel vs whole image

[Lance B]

All things being equal, the bigger the sensor, generally the better the photos and that is the law of physics and that really can't be argued. Higher dynamic range, better high ISO ability, and yes, better light gathering ability when everything is equal, ie, technology time frame (when the technology of each sensor size is at the same stage of development), aperture, equivalent focal length, shutter speeds, etc and very importantly resultant image size and viewing distances, a little gem that people don't seem to think of when discussing such matters. If you take your hypothesis to the 'nth degree, then we wouldn't need any camera larger than a cell phone and that is just plainly wrong.

Here is some light reading:
http://www.invensense.com/cn/mems/gy...hPixelSize.pdf

[dtmateojr]

AP is a class above
More importantly it is safe.

Some people think "mine is bigger and more expensive so it must be better" (and when will I get a 645z -- wishing ).
We don't get that here very often, or they just leave after a while.

So lets see some more of your photos!!

"Show me your shots"
That's the quickest way to silence a poser

[swifty]

Most of the time it is only slipping up in semantics and expression that makes someone "wrong". That fixed, and lo! we're all talking the same language!

Am summed it up well here IMO.
Assuming identical underlying silicon and tech, per unit area its all the same. Pick any area. You can expand this to any sensor size really and say a 1/2.3" sensor has the same light gathering ability per unit area as FF or medium format.
But I think ppl are talking about different things when saying FF has a '~1 stop advantage' over APS-C'.

[Bennymiata]

I'm not going to get involved with the technical or mathematic arguments here, but I know my 5D3 images are better and have more latitude than I get from my 60D (crop), especially in low light.
Using high ISO's on the full frame are also very much better than the crop sensor.

I'd also love to get a Pentax 645Z for the same reason as above in comparison to full-frame.

So many people forget that what we do is record light - pure and simple.
The larger the sensor, the more light can hit it.
The more light you have, the better your image - if it is exposed correctly of course.

Just MHO.

[Mark L]

Discussion is interesting enough. But I have the camera I have, and regardless of light per pixel, I can't afford to upgrade. I'm happy that my camera does a reasonable
job.

"Show me your shots"
That's the quickest way to silence a poser

No wish to offend, though, don't be silent and post some photos.

[dtmateojr]

Discussion is interesting enough. But I have the camera I have, and regardless of light per pixel, I can't afford to upgrade. I'm happy that my camera does a reasonable
job.

No wish to offend, though, don't be silent and post some photos.

Sure

http://pentaxphotogallery.com/artist...sthenesmateojr

More here:

https://www.flickr.com/photos/dtmateojr

[Lance B]

Some excellent photos there, Demosthenes.

[dtmateojr]

Some excellent photos there, Demosthenes.

Thanks mate

[arthurking83]

Here's a big myth that is being spread in forums that I have been trying to debunk: full frame is better at gathering light compared to smaller sensor cameras. No it's not.

"No it's not" is technically an incorrect answer.

'It may not be' would be a more correct, or less incorrect answer(depending on how you prefer to argue), because you haven't taken into account so many variables.
Output size relative to input size, magnification vs FOV .. etc etc.

Just saying that a larger format is not better at gathering light cf a smaller format is wrong! .. plain and simple.

If you disagree with this proposition, in effect you will be describing great artists such as Ansell Adams as a fool for carrying around large format monstrosities into the wilderness, because he could have easily captured those exact same images as he had done using a box brownie!

Other's have already proposed reasons as to why the larger formats have the advantage, and it must be noted that the smaller formats have their advantages too(in terms of both size/weight and DOF capability for a given FOV, and any other that I can't currently think of)

Like NikonNellie said, you have one camera and you have another type of camera(in my case D300 vs D800E) and I much prefer the quality of the output of the D800E any day of the week.
And this is on the whole at base ISO .. and doesn't take into account the advantage of higher ISO from the D800E.

Strangely tho .. in looking back at my images every so often, I actually prefer the colour rendering of the old D70s(CCD) compared to most of my images with either the D300 or the D800 too.
(Although this could be a post processing dilemma of my own making).

Needless to say I'm a convert to the larger frame digital camera and while there are a few disadvantages, there are far more advantages to them.

I was telling the boys at the last Melb meetup .. my ideal camera setup would definitely be a Pentax 645z plus a few lenses of interest for the bulk of what I like to shoot.

The argument you've made in your OP is more relevant to a situation where you're comparing a smaller format camera's ability to capture light with a larger format camera with the specific situation where you would be cropping all the images of the larger format camera back to the same format size as the smaller one.
This is a ridiculous proposition, and is not why you would get a larger format camera.
While it does allow you the option to do this when the situation may require it, if you do this as a matter of course, then you've simply wasted you time, effort and resources in having the larger format camera!
A simple example of this is where you would upgrade from a D7000 to a D800(E or not) and then somehow lock the D800 into a Dx crop mode only.
if that sounds like an idiotic solution to an update/upgrade path .. it's because it is.
You just wouldn't do that if you were sound of mind.
You'd have the option to shoot in Dx mode if you chose, but you'd then use the Fx mode when you could .. in effect you have two cameras.

I did that for about a year or so whilst I was deciding on what UWA lens I wanted(or needed) .. and just shot with my Sigma 10-20mm in either Dx mode or Fx mode depending on what mood I was in.

[dtmateojr]

Please stay on topic. We are discussing light gathering capability, not DoF or colour or whatever.

And Ansel Adams, well he wanted more resolution. Why would he choose a smaller format but maybe he would. He was, afterall, quite excited about the prospect of digital photography. Was his choice of format due to its superior light gathering? Emphatic NO!

And since you brought film into this discussion, I will use film to refute your argument:

https://dtmateojr.wordpress.com/2014...iority-part-2/

[I @ M]

That's a very long-winded response that is mostly off-topic. In case you are not aware, the topic is light gathering capability, not DoF or colour or whatever.

And Ansel Adams, well he wanted more resolution. Why would he choose a smaller format but maybe he would. He was, afterall, quite excited about the prospect of digital photography. Was his choice of format due to its superior light gathering? Emphatic NO!

And since you brought film into this discussion, I will use film to refute your argument:

https://dtmateojr.wordpress.com/2014...iority-part-2/

Demo, you have your views, others are allowed to disagree but instead of accusing others of long winded replies and then directing views to your blog, maybe you could copy and paste your blog into a post in this thread.
Or aren't you into long winded responses?

[dtmateojr]

Demo, you have your views, others are allowed to disagree but instead of accusing others of long winded replies and then directing views to your blog, maybe you could copy and paste your blog into a post in this thread.
Or aren't you into long winded responses?

Apologies for that. Post has been edited.

[ricktas]

It seems to me you feel hard-done by, cause of the responses on other forums. Then you have come across to AP, and tried to see if we would get stirred up by the same debate. This did not happen. It is almost like you were hoping we would say you are wrong, just so you could become all defensive.

I am sorry that you experienced this on other forums, but please stop trying to create an argument on this one.

[geoffsta]

dtmateojr. The best thing about this forum is the respect all members have for each other.

It seems to me that what you are trying to do, is push your own blog. And I'm surprized that Rick has allowed you to post a link with only 30 or so posts (I thought a minimum of 50 was required)

I see that you have only added one image for CC. So your credentials as a photographer are very limited on this site. And yes, there has been some heated threads started on here. But in the end because of the culture Rick has created through solid rules and expectations. We kiss and make up, and have a good laugh after. Our only aim is to spend some time taking photos, uploading the images on the computer. And hoping that a fair amount of what we take, works out fine... And we can put one or two on here for others to CC. And what light hits the sensor we hope turns out to be a beauty.

So.. Lets see some more of your work. So we can give you some comments on them. And lets form a friendship that only this forum can produce.

[arthurking83]

Please stay on topic. We are discussing light gathering capability, not DoF or colour or whatever.

.....

LOL!

.... makes the point of this thread quite useless.

discussing the light gathering capabilities of APS-C vs 135 format sensor doesn't achieve any end point.

Not discussing DOF or the reproduction ability of various technologies misses the point of choosing one hardware spec or tech over another.

If I wanted easier to achieve deep DOF with acceptably fast shutter speeds .. I wouldn't be choosing a larger format, I'd be using a smaller format.
If I wanted more detail, I wouldn't choose a smaller format, I'd choose a larger format.

just discussing the merits of the light gathering capability of one format over another is a wasted effort.
On a per pixel level the format is of no relevance, the technology of the hardware is what is important.

So it begs the question, to what end were you expecting the discussion to finish at?

The better light gathering capability is almost always from the smaller format sensor, and by this I mean the small 1/3" smart phone sensors, as that's where the most research is being done.
That technological advancement is then sent 'up' the production line to be used in larger sensored (dedicated) cameras.

Your arguments re film are actually quite humorous.(ie. over simplistic!).

Referring back to a specific input value without taking into consideration the output type when discussing image creation is futile.
As already said in this thread.
There is no advancement in knowledge just in the fact that the light gathering capability of one format over another is equal.
This is of no value to anyone.
Where it becomes valuable is when the information is used to effect an end. With photography there is an end point(the image).

What you are discussing is the ability for various formats to capture light(equally) but then nothing is done with the output.
It would be either discarded or not actually captured at all.
Simply that the light gathering power of each is measured and that's it.
(does this advance our knowledge of anything in any way?)

You can't have a discussion about the relative merits, advantages, disadvantages or any other aspect of the format without referring back to the differences they also create!.
And if your argument is simply that a 36Mp Fx sensor's cropped (to 15Mp)image has the same light gathering power as that of the 15Mp Dx sensor again misses the point.

While I'm not as emphatically positive on AA's motives and reasoning in his choices as you seem to be(maybe you knew him better than me) .. I'm sure that foremost in his mind was the ability to OUTPUT!! .. to a particular print size. He did afterall rely on his prints to make a living .. and larger meant more.

So had he used a film APS-C camera, do you think he'd have had the ability to reproduce finely detailed 40" prints compared to his preferred choice of LF film.
He was a businessman afterall and a smaller format would have meant both speedier processing as well as much reduced costs and so on.
So on that theory, I'm pretty sure he'd have based his choice of gear simply for the ability to output to a specific size, and the lager the input, the larger the output can be for a given amount of detail rendering.

And Andrew made a comment about one's views vs another's views and this thread isn't so much about point's of view, it's should be about common sense.

if you're going to fix a variable(format) to be a constant(light gathering) and then hobble the variable with a restriction, you're not really going to be making any sense.

For sure make the case for certain sensors and certain formats, but don't pick and choose your criteria and talk about theoreticals for one side of your argument and then practical(or impractical) uses for the other, without any balance between them all.

And while Rick and Andrew are on the right track about personal views and causing arguments over nothing .. I feel there's nothing wrong with a healthy debate(as long as the arguments and propositions aren't of a personal nature). But the argument or proposal should at least make some sense.

[dtmateojr]

Does anyone else think that we are getting really out of topic here? If you want to discuss other aspects of FF vs smaller formats then open a new thread.

SNR is a very specific and important aspect of image capture because it is something that is fixed at manufacturing time. You can't control it. DoF, colour, DR can be controlled by the photographer.

My arguments on film are simplistic because not everyone can handle the physics and math in my other articles. Why is simple humorous? Do you have a counter-argument?

I'm not sure either why you are trying to argue the obvious. Larger image size of course can produce a larger print. So nobody is arguing with that.

Where are you going with this?

[Lance B]

Because everything you've mentioned, DOF, colour accuracy, DR and SNR are all interlinked with the end result of how much light a FF sensor collects and an APS C sensor collects. DOF because it has to do with the lens being used, ie what focal length is used, what aperture is being used and what shutter speed is being used to make the measurement equal between the two different formats and are all interlinked.

[dtmateojr]

Not true at all. f/2.8 at 1/60 has the same light as f/2 at 1/125 therefore same SNR and same DR and colour but the DoF are very different.

[dtmateojr]

A D7000 and D800 at the same f-stop and shutter speed will be the same in every aspect except DoF.

[dtmateojr]

A 35mm Ektar and 8x10 Ektar are exactly the same for the same f-stop and shutter speed except DoF.