[Fogel70]

Then your "normal" is apples versus oranges. In any at least semiprofessional comparison it is "normal" to have the whole result static with only the one item being looked at changing. All you can say is you get less noise with less sharpness in the depth of the picture.

So how do you suggest ISO noise test should be done and presented to emulate having to stop down an extra stop on FF compared to APS-C?
I mean, stopping down the lens one extra stop on FF do not change anything in the measurement as one stop slower shutter speed will then be used.
When shooting test charts you do not need much DOF.

In practise this means you only get a noise advantage when using the fastest possible lens for that angle of view and wide open. For any applications where the photographer deliberately chooses a certain non-wide-open aperture for some reason, the noise advantage is gone. I once was told that being able to freely choose aperture is a big thing for a photographer...

Sure you may no longer have a noise advantage if you need to stop down the lens an extra stop on FF, but by stopping down the lens an extra stop may gain other advantages instead. It's just not black and white, but with larger sensor you often get more option to choose from when capturing images.

[Rondec]

I have been a big APS-C proponent for many years as providing a cheaper format that is "good enough" for most folks. But that does not change the fact that if you are at the extremes -- narrow depth of field, high iso, or printing really large -- full frame cameras will give a performance boost over what crop sensors offer. This performance boost may come at the cost of having more narrow depth of field, but often this can be dealt with without problem.

Be that as it may, if your typical settings on APS-C are f5.6 iso 200 and 1/200 second, than you probably won't see much difference going to full frame. If on the other hand, you are at iso 3200, f2 and 1/20 second, than you probably will see some improvement.

[BrianR]

That's why I said you have an advantage with 36x24 shooting wide open. But on most lenses ƒ5.6 isn't wide open. But ya, that's the general idea.

Yes, it's when you're pushing the boundaries of one system that you might have a clear preference for another.

I think we're saying the same thing.

Unlikely, but this does seem true

jsherman among others.

I can't recall anything of the sort out of him, but I'll go back and look at some of his posts.

No, those things are stated constantly without reservation, I respond to them constantly because they are so misleading, and everyone doesn't know that, so in that regard we are completely opposed. The only time I ever post along this line of reasoning is when someone posts using the assumptions you've posted above, to clarify what the average shooter needs to understand. The fact that many shooters do understand, doesn't man they state their case for those who don't. In fact most leave huge gaps of assumption in their postings.

And thats where you and I differ. I respond to in threads and many in PMs etc. to many people who don't understand those things. Many people are new to photography and every thing is strange. They are just trying to comprehend. Assuming that you can promote something without a clear statement of the values involved is not appropriate for a place with so many beginners.

Sorry, by 'everyone' I meant to include a qualifier of 'the usual antagonists'. Just remember if someone states their views based on the uses they are concerned with, it should not be seen as a kick in the nuts to someone else's different use. It should also not necessarily be seen as conveniently forgetting facts that support another view. Assuming everyone has a nefarious intent will save you from email scams, but it's also a good approach to needlessly building animosity and the beginners looking to find out what's important to them end up with a sea of useless arguing to wade through.

Underlying agreement rarely stops a massive argument on these forums.

[TwoUptons]

You're still leaving out Aesthetic Values and Artistic Merit, thus leaving out 90% of photography to focus on the least important 10%. I'm questioning the merits of doing that. Especially since I know of no correlation between the two.

This is common in every field I have experience with... The problem is that the 10% is much easier to quantify than the 90%, more directly connected to the equipment, and relatively "objective". Hence a zillion photos of brick walls, etc...

Though what we do with the objective differences is clearly less objective...

- Eric

[Fogel70]

You're still leaving out Aesthetic Values and Artistic Merit, thus leaving out 90% of photography to focus on the least important 10%. I'm questioning the merits of doing that. Especially since I know of no correlation between the two.

I did not include this part as that is not part of comparing cameras. I don't understand how you can say that 10% is the least important, as any photographer will not be of much use without a camera. Even the worst of photographer with a camera captures better images than the best photographer without a camera.


BTW, do you apply equivalence on Aesthetic Values and Artistic Merit when using different cameras...

[GordonZA]

Anyone willing to guess what the next feature to be revealed on the teaser site will be?

[Nicolas06]

"The print graph shows us that when the 810 uses the full frame it will outperform the K5. Not because it has bigger pixels (which it doesn't), but because it has a bigger total sensor area."

Ask yourself: Why would this not be true in the screen graph as well?

You keep denying you have a shaky grasp of the basics, but your posts are repeatedly saying otherwise. ☺

Because you consider only Snr per photosite as the precision you go for the light level but you ignore the loss in quality in spatial frequency that you have in a K5 vs say a D810. If you both print small from a K5 an a D810 the D810 shoot will look better because the downsampling done either by yourself, by the printer or by your eyes will average the noise present in small pixels.

If you both print very large, the K5 will show bigger "blobs", less refined details than the D810 degrading picture quality. In both case the K5 picture is not as good.

In many case it doesn't really mater say iso 100-400, no heavy crop, no 30"+ prints. In others like 30"+ prints, iso 800+ the D800 would get the edge.

Of course normhead is right, it depend if you still get enough deph of field with the FF vs APSC. Using 200mm f/2.8 instead of 135mm f/2.8 may mean the apperture is too thin and 200mm f/4 doesn't make you loose the high iso benefit.

On the APSC side, it would depend if you will find a lens that can be 1 stop faster than with the FF with the right crop factor and that will perform as well as the FF lens... It may be difficult to find a 50mm at f/2 that would match the quality an FA77 provide at f/2.8 on an FF for example.

Still basically the FF has more margin and if you master it you will be able to use this margin for your own benefit: conveniance to use a pair of f/2.8 zoom each on its own FF body instead of f/2 prime to get the same high iso performance is one example. Astrophotography or a distant landscape is an interresting case as you always focus on the infinite. A narrow deph of field portrait taken at f/4 instead of the f/2.8 where lenses are typically not as good is one another.

Overall an FF is better. The question is to know when it is worth it and if you also accept the downsides: more expensive, bigger/heavier gear.

To me if you are not after very narrow deph of field or very high iso shooting, it is not.

[Pål Jensen]

Yaawn. This is getting tedious.
In short, with FF you have the potential of better image quality at the expense of one stop longer shutterspeed at the same DOF and ISO than with APS. Everything else follows from that....

[Rondec]

Yaawn. This is getting tedious.
In short, with FF you have the potential of better image quality at the expense of one stop longer shutterspeed at the same DOF and ISO than with APS. Everything else follows from that....

But, that is why they make tripods.

[Pål Jensen]

But, that is why they make tripods.

True. And thats why the larger the format the more likely the photographer is using a tripod.

[Rondec]

True. And thats why the larger the format the more likely the photographer is using a tripod.

In my experience, the two things that most photographers would do well to learn are (a) to use a tripod more and (b) to use an external flash. Narrow depth of field does work for some photos, but I have had plenty of photos on APS-C spoiled because of too narrow depth of field -- making that even more shallow could be problematic.

[clackers]

Bigger sensor => more pixels => less noise for a given print size.

Tsk, tsk.


It's not true, Brian.


The K-3 has more pixels than an A7IIS or a Canon 1DX.


You're certainly one of the Good Blokes of the forum, but not for the first time you've mixed up causation with correlation.


You could equally say "More Money Spent => less noise for a given print size" and it's just as silly.

I don't want to put words in your mouth so please stomp all over this if I'm misrepresenting you, but I think you are opposed to this phrasing since the larger sensor area isn't the direct mechanism that's helping out to noise?

Correct. People think that it is - I know you don't.

[clackers]

By looking at the DxO mark scores for the above mentioned cameras (and some more) and compensate for sensor size you would get the following.

Fogel, please prove that DxO Mark compensate for sensor size.


The 'Print' graph does no such thing.


For the last time, it's the result of *downsampling* (you can get Gimbal to explain it to you - he reckons he understands it!)


The screen graph is the only genuine one showing noise captured in the camera image.


The print graph is a repeat analysis after noise has been removed by software algorithm.

[clackers]

And that is what the graph tells us, that graph does not consider total sensor area, it just looks at individual pixels.

It's scary that you don't realise a picture is a collection of individual pixels.


The RAW file is simply a set of pixel values to be manipulated afterwards.


The Print graph also is a result of individual pixel values. Comment?

If a large pixel is better then a small pixel, isn't a larger sensor better then a smaller sensor for just the same reasons?

No, the wafer of sensor does not collect light, the 16, 24 or whatever million pixels do!

*They* are the light gatherers.

They are neither holistic or synergic. They're unaware of their neighbours (except negatively, by crosstalk) or the size of the board they're embedded in.

If you point them at a squirrel, they do not register any differently if shot in APS-C mode on a FF camera or using the whole frame. (255,255,255) is still (255,255,255).

[Sandy Hancock]

I can't wait for the new website update so we can start a new thread, which should be at least briefly uncontaminated by equivalence measurbation.