Light gathering capability difference between APS-C and Full frame sensor .
Vložit
- čas přidán 23. 07. 2018
- Hello CZcamsrs.
Not too long ago I had some comments in one of my videos about the light gathering capability difference between the APS-C and Full Frame cameras. As you all know probably until now I am a very practical guy who does not really give a damn on scientific arguments until the [oint where it does not affects my image quality visibly. We can start arguing here about scientific differences between APS-C and Full Frame or even APS-C and Micro 4/3 cameras but the truth is that until it does not affects your images in a severe way where even your customers will notice, well until then there is no argument for me. So in this video I want to share with you some sample images made with the Fujifilm X-T20 , the FujiFilm X-A3 and the Panasonic FZ330/300 whatever you want to call it. The Panasonic FZ330/300 is a 1/2.3 inch sensor camera with an f2.8 constant aperture lens. Why did I choose this camera? Because one of my viewers commented and asked if a smart phone`s camera will have the same effect????? Honestly, I never tried but this small sensor in the Panasonic FZ330 is very close to a smartphone sensor. I do have to emphesise that the ISO noise ratio will be different in the photos, but in the same time who will notice that???
So let`s see those photos and let`s discuss this for a second.
If you are interested in photography and in videography well then enjoy this video and if you like it please like and subscribe and share my videos . If you want to add something constructive to this video , feel free and leave a comment down below. Other than that I wish you a great day and I`ll see you in the next one .
My work .
www.zonerama.com/BlueSkyPhoto... www.flickr.com/photos/1406555...
That was exactly that what I meant Attila. The Iso noise on Aps-c is higher than on full frame with the same f-stop.
Therefor you have to divide your f-stop with your crop factor and put such a faster lens on your aps-c camera. Then you will see the same amount of iso noise.
If this is an issue for you or not is another story.
Hello Attila!
Glad that you are so honest to tell that there is a difference in ISO noise with APS-C compared to full frame when lenses with the same f-stop are used.
But this isnt the point really.
The point is that some fuji photographers are missleaded.
They think that for example their XF 56 mm F1.2 for 1000 bucks is a cheaper and faster lens than the Sony GM 85 mm F1.4 which costs 1600 bucks.
The truth is, that the full frame equivalent of this fuji lens is the Sony 85 mm F1.8 for 600 bucks.
Suddenly the "oh so expensive" Sony lens lineup is cheaper than Fuji.
Thats the point. People compare wrong and so they think Fuji lenses a much cheaper than the Sonys.
The opposite is true and this is the point of the hole story.
Helmut Lotti the FujiFilm 56mm lens is definitely cheaper but not faster than the 85mm f1. 4 on a full frame. (depth of field vise) if you want to have the same ISO noise ratio like on a full frame camera, than you are right, it will be kind of like f1. 8 - is. But like I said in this video because no one will notice that ISO grain difference, I will not care about that, and in that situation light-vise you will have actually advantage. I don't know if you get what I mean.
In which way will the 56 mm F1.2 be faster (light wise) when its the same depth of field and Iso noise level as the 85 mm F1.8 full frame?
The only difference I notice is price wise....
Fuji fan if you want to have the same ISO noise like a FF sensor, than you are kind of right. Although I think that's not f1. 8 it's more like a f1. 4 but let's not argue on that. I think that the ISO grain is not as bad especially with Fuji cameras. I used photos with ISO 10 000 and it was fine after a little bit of noise reduction. But that's personal preference. Like I said in the video, I don't care about scientific BS I care what I see. You can not be sure that the ISO noise grains are the same as f1.8 because you can not count the grains. You just guessing. You think it looks like. So at the end of the day it is about personal preference.
No Attila its not "more lika a F 1.4" as far is ISO noise and bokeh is concerned.
This is your wishfull thinking.
Its exact an F1.8 and this is - oh wonder - the F1.2 of the lens multiplied with the crop factor of 1.5 of the Fuji sensor.
Fuji fan here we go again. OK whatever you think. Did you hear me in the video saying several times... WHO THE HELL CARES ABOUT??? BECAUSE I DON'T. 😂😂😂 Just believe what you want but you can't prove it that it is f1.8 I know that there is more noise but at the end of the day it is what it is. I really don't care. You should use FF cameras only. I use my APS-C no bother. That's it. We don't have to agree all the time. 😂😂😂
You are correct Attila. The size of the sensor has nothing to do with the light gathering capability. There is the same amount of light per square millimetre no matter the size of the sensor. The size of each pixel or photosite is what determines the light gathering capability. A 16mp sensor of 1 square inch will gather the same light as a 64mp sensor of 4 square inches because the photosites are the same size . But a 16mp sensor of 4 square inches will gather more light than a 16mp sensor of 1 square inch because it has bigger photosites.
A lens does not somehow let less light in because it is on a smaller sensor.
Scott Williams I agree with you 100 %. Thanks mate.
Gideon Heydemann absolutely correct. Because the pixel size will be bigger the low light performance is better . But that has disadvantages as well. The detail reproduction will be lower because of low pixel density.
Gideon Heydemann 👍👍👍
Yup, spot on Attila. The sensor size has no bearing on exposure. If you meter a scene with a digital light meter ( which itself contains a tiny sensor comprising a small number of pixels ) the exposure settings will be the same no matter what camera ends up taking the final image. Now there are variables that will affect the end result however. So if each camera receives the same light/identical camera settings it might not result in the same end exposure. Lens transmission is one. If the light has to pass through nearly 30 elements before it reaches the sensor then that will potentially rob some of the light and result in a minor exposure reduction. Whether it's perceptible to the human eye is another thing of course. Secondly is what the camera does with the exposure, that is to say what process does the captured signal undergo? The image you capture has to go through a myriad of processes including signal to noise algorithms, the cameras " secret sauce " will impact the exposure of the final image. Again it's likely imperceptible. You touched upon the ISO variability, that being that ISO 400 for say a Nikon camera isn't identical to ISO 400 in a Canon camera. Sure, there must be a universal standard by which camera manufacturers should keep within but I doubt it's absolutely identical. There could be as much as a third stop difference perhaps, not much but it's probably there. All things being equal ( and they never are ) a FF sensor should produce lower noise images by virtue of its larger pixel pitch and thus higher signal gain compared to APSC. Where a FF camera like the D850 shares the same pixel pitch as it's APSC D500 little brother, the noise level differences will be purely down to signal to noise processing. In closing, does any of this make any difference if your pictures are crap? Absolutely not! 😊
dunnymonster that was the best ending man😂😂😂 I think that many times people give too much attention to technical stuff and less attention on real important things. Great comment. Thanks mate. 👍👍👍
Actually even DOF won't change. It only changes if you try to mimic the same framing with the FF sensor with the same lens :)
So If you have a 50mm 1.8 lens on a FF body, and if you just swap the body with a crop body and don't change the position of the subject AND the camera, the DOF, the exposure everything will be the same except 2 things: ISO performance (again,even this might not be true if you are comparing an old FF canon or nikon to for example A6500 sony) and your field of view.
Emre Yazgin I agree with you completely. The DOF will change only if you want to get the same framing.
Atilla, I read the idiot's posting. I have also viewed Tony Northrup's original video several years back. Due to his style of expression, many people misunderstood, and many created counter-videos to refute his POV. Then Tony published another video clarifying what he really meant to say. There are many diehard moronic Tony fans who have seen only his first video, and still cling to the idea of multiplying aperture with crop factor to get "corrected" f-stop.
You have lucidly stated the correct situation: to get DOF, not exposure, that formula is correct.
Here is link to Tony's original video - seeing this you will understand why morons got puzzled by this:
czcams.com/video/YDbUIfB5YUc/video.html
ds.techie I saw that video myself but I think that it is scientific bull crap and it is useless in real world. It is only good to create arguments on a rainy day with a bottle of wine. 😂😂😂