[Gimbal]

Read my post 150.

You clearly have comprehension issues.

Well thank you.


But you are still wrong though.
Total sensor size have a large impact on noise, pixel size not so much, some impact but not nearly as much as the total sensor size.
And of course we are talking about comparing the whole picture, not individual pixels.

If we are looking at one pixel, then naturally the size of that pixel matters in the same way as the size of the total sensor area matters for the total picture. The larger the better.

[clackers]

Well thank you.


But you are still wrong though.
Total sensor size have a large impact on noise, pixel size not so much, some impact but not nearly as much as the total sensor size.

Incorrect.

As said: "Sensor size does *not* affect noise performance, whatever you've read other people post in other threads, over many years, I bet.

Numbers and size of pixels, circuitry design and suppression of heat/stray currents do."

If you have proof otherwise, let's see it.

I know English is not your first language, so let's give you some leeway about overlooking my post on downsampling's benefits.

That does not excuse you for commenting without looking at the K-5 vs D810 graph, though.

Fogel asked me which forum members didn't understand the FF/cropped noise issue.

Well, there's you. ☺

[Kunzite]

AFAIK a larger sensor would have an advantage regarding the shot noise, no matter the technology used.

As for "pixel size not so much", for a given sensor area you can have more smaller pixels, or fewer larger ones. And, from what I see, same sized sensors are more or less clumped together, instead of being intermixed with different sized sensors.

[reh321]

Total sensor size has a large impact on noise, pixel size not so much, some impact but not nearly as much as the total sensor size.
And of course we are talking about comparing the whole picture, not individual pixels.

No, No, No!!!

This is an Internet myth I've seen before.

Compare, for example, the new Canon 5DS to the Nikon 810. The Canon sensor is hampered by being a Canon sensor rather than a Sony sensor, but that is only part of the story.
The two cameras have exactly the same size sensor, but the 50MB version on the Canon does much worse on DXO scores than the 36MB version on the Nikon does. Much to the distress of Canon fans, I had predicted this behavior when the Canon was first announced, because back-of-envelope calculations showed that pixels on the Canon sensor would be roughly the same size as pixels on a typical APS-C sensor.

[Gimbal]

That does not excuse you for commenting without looking at the K-5 vs D810 graph, though.

I did look at the graphs, both screen and print. I guess the difference is that I understood them.

The screen graphs shows us that pixel for pixel both sensors perform roughly the same. So an APS-C crop from the 810 will be just as good/bad as a photo from the K5.

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.

[Fogel70]

Incorrect.

As said: "Sensor size does *not* affect noise performance, whatever you've read other people post in other threads, over many years, I bet.

Numbers and size of pixels, circuitry design and suppression of heat/stray currents do."

You obviously contradict yourself, The first line above is incorrect, but the second line is correct.
What do you think happens with sensor size on the second sensor if you use same pixel design, where the first sensor has 16MP and the second sensor has 125% more pixels? And how does the extra 125% pixels affect image noise?

[Fogel70]

No, No, No!!!

This is an Internet myth I've seen before.

Compare, for example, the new Canon 5DS to the Nikon 810. The Canon sensor is hampered by being a Canon sensor rather than a Sony sensor, but that is only part of the story.
The two cameras have exactly the same size sensor, but the 50MB version on the Canon does much worse on DXO scores than the 36MB version on the Nikon does. Much to the distress of Canon fans, I had predicted this behavior when the Canon was first announced, because back-of-envelope calculations showed that pixels on the Canon sensor would be roughly the same size as pixels on a typical APS-C sensor.

Canon is behind Sony when it comes to some parts of the sensor design, which is the simple explanation why Canon cameras perform worse in some regards than cameras using Sony sensors. But when it comes to image noise Canon 5DS and Nikon D810 perform the same.

It's basically in low ISO dynamic range where Canon falls behind Sony.

Attached Images

   

---

Last edited by Fogel70; 01-02-2016 at 08:32 AM.

[Gimbal]

No, No, No!!!

This is an Internet myth I've seen before.

Compare, for example, the new Canon 5DS to the Nikon 810. The Canon sensor is hampered by being a Canon sensor rather than a Sony sensor, but that is only part of the story.
The two cameras have exactly the same size sensor, but the 50MB version on the Canon does much worse on DXO scores than the 36MB version on the Nikon does. Much to the distress of Canon fans,

Never mind the DXO scores, some of them are heavily based on performance at base iso, and since the Sony sensor has a lower base iso than the Canon it will get higher scores. Just as the K5 with it's base iso at 80 won the race at the time.

Back off from base iso and the Canon sensor performs pretty much the same as the 810, not identically but close.

Compare instead the 5DS with the Canon EOS M3 (both are from feb. 2015 so same generation, same manufacturer) "Only" difference being that the 5DS have a larger FF sensor but slightly smaller pixels then the 24Mp APS-C M3.

Pixel for pixel they perform roughly the same, but thanks to the larger total sensor area in the 5DS it outperforms the M3 as much as a FF usually outperforms a APS-S sized sensor. Even though it actually has smaller pixels then the M3.

[BrianR]

Canon is behind Sony when it comes to some parts of the sensor design, which is the simple explanation why Canon cameras perform worse in some regards than cameras using Sony sensors. But when it comes to image noise Canon 5DS and Nikon D810 perform the same.

For extra kicks you can flank the Nikon D810 on both sides of the megapixel spectrum with the Canon 5DS and 5D Mark III.

[normhead]

Low DR is is probably the least relevant metric, especially since some films were as low as 7EV DR and all cameras currently available exceed that by between 70 and 100%. DR is great for sunsets and sunrise, in a lot of every day photography it's not terribly relevant. Which is why you can have pros shooting Canons for weddings etc. Most images shot in high contrast situation just look bad, so the extra DR doesn't help. The Canon shooter at the booth next to me on my last show, had a number of leaf and fruit images where he too advantage of the lower DR to black out the image around the subject. Having more DR would have possibly reduced the effectiveness of those images and detail in the black would have been eliminated in post in any case. But, the standard MO for shooters like me, is to have a variety of shots. IN most cases people look at all you artsy images, and then buy wildlife or a sunset. Max DR for natural looking sunsets are key for shooters like myself.

But, that's not true for every shooter. For the guy in the next booth, the narrow DoF and DR lower resolution of hIs Canon FF was more suited was as suited to his style as my K-3 is to me. For those of us who are used to managing the 7 to 9 EV of film, any camera with 12 EV of DR or over is a dream. Just some are more of a dream than others. If you could deliver good images on film, there isn't a digital camera made that you can't deliver good images with.

For the most part, these metrics are pretty useless unless you understand exactly what they mean to you, and your shooing style. Another reason why posting images is so important. Beginners need to create a collection of images in a style they'd like to shoot, and look to see what equipment was used. I always asked my students early in their semester to pick an image they really liked and try and duplicate it. People don't need to know everything that's out there. They need to know what they need for what they want to do. You can tell looking thought the https://www.pentaxforums.com/forums/122-lens-clubs/55946-300mm-plus-lens-club...ng-lenses.html and see, that a K-3 can take top notch long lens images, and other threads show off other capabilities. Understanding what equipment you need depends on a thorough understanding of what you wish to take pictures of.

Nothing alarms me more than someone posting about how much they love their camera and how good it is, without qualifying that by telling folks what they do. I take selfies for Facebook is different than the gear you use for macro or astro photography. People will say "duh" because those are extremes. But, there are many less extreme preferences that should affect people's positions on these issues.

I picked up a Lumix FZ1000 last weekend, I have serious trouble believing it would survive my adventures in the great outdoors, it just felt flimsy. I loved everything about the camera but that, and it's impossibly bad high ISO capability. But for a lot of folks it would be great camera. It's all part of the equation.

[bxf]

Numbers and size of pixels... do

But doesn't this translate to "bigger sensor... does"? In other words, a bigger sensor can accommodate more pixels of a given size, or, each of a given number of pixels can be larger if the sensor area is larger.

[One3rdEV]

I really like what Norm most recently contributed due to its realism in application, and also recognition that one should qualify the application from which their opinions or statements are made. I am very ignorant of digital technology so I just keep quite and observe.

I really love the dynamic range (DR) of my Pentax DSLR (presently K-5) and it allows me to capture a large amount of information within an image for me to work with later. But it is the output medium that dictates the ultimate DR limitation of final image (and hence the processing of the image in effort to achieve the desired end result).

My limited non-professional expertise was in film- where it is interesting to note that in much of the commercial / advertising field the situation was even more constrained with transparency film generally considered to be limited to a range of 5 EV, and magazine print output limited to about 3 EV. In general the human eye can only differentiate between about 1/3 EV or 3/10 of a stop.

[beholder3]

DR is great for sunsets and sunrise, in a lot of every day photography it's not terribly relevant.

Some of your points are valid. The "not terribly relevant" part is pure personal opinion though and this is what sparks these discussions.

Autofocus is not terribly relevant for many every day photography things. Noise is not either. Lens "quality" is not as all lenses today are more than good enough. Nothing is. It all depends on private opinion based on personal use case.

I shoot galloping horses which in the majority are very dark brown colored if not black. You can not see the muscles and veins of them if you shoot them outdoors and don't do some postprocessing.



You do need to pull up the shadows in post a lot to be able to see this. Otherwise all you get on a sunshiny day is a boring black flat thing as the riders wear well reflecting white stuff as well.

I only care for the maximum input dynamic range. I couldn't care less for dynamic range at anything but base ISO. Personal opinion only.

[normhead]

Some of your points are valid. The "not terribly relevant" part is pure personal opinion though and this is what sparks these discussions.

Maybe it's just you.

So, you tell me, how did folks take pictures they liked with 7EV film cameras for 80 years?

What causes discussion is often, people can't or don't read.

What I said was...

Max DR for natural looking sunsets are key for shooters like myself.

But, that's not true for every shooter.

The fact that you are another shooter for whom DR is important doesn't in anyway make it relevant for all shooters, or even the majority. So, ya, you might think it's me causing your arguing, but you didn't pay enough attention to my post to understand what I said. My point is, there are some people like you, and there are some people that aren't. There are some people who need other things. I didn't exclude anyone, needing anything.

It doesn't matter how careful I word my post, someone misreads it and goes off.

By the way thanks for posting the image. That is service to the thread, in that you've done great job of showing exactly what type of image depends on the best Dynamic Range. You have to shoot with the sunlight you have, moving to an environment with less contrast isn't an option. Anyone taking this type of shot could use this as an example of how to do it. And it's more than an opinion, it's an opinion backed up by the physical characteristics of cameras. There are opinions and there are opinions.

DR is great for sunsets and sunrise, in a lot of every day photography it's not terribly relevant.

Your photography is not everyday photography.

IN fact in my years of participation in the forum, I don't think I've seen another one like it. You're pretty unique dude.

[Fl_Gulfer]

If you were paddling your canoe across the desert and the wheels fell off, how many pancakes would it take to shingle a doghouse?