Forgot Password
Pentax Camera Forums Home
 

Reply
Show Printable Version Search this Thread
04-19-2014, 09:57 AM   #241
Veteran Member




Join Date: Feb 2011
Posts: 4,893
Original Poster
QuoteOriginally posted by HavelockV Quote
As matter of fact that statement is not true. More pixels = more noise. But in many cases such as 36x24 vs 24x16 sensors this more noise is not significant.

The whole reason for the existence of back side illuminated sensors is driven by the underlying reason: more pixel = more "wiring". "Wiring" does not gather light, so area is lost for light, so more noise. To avoid this they put the wiring on the other side. Since it's only significant for extreme pixel densities this is the only area where manufacturers do it.
There's tiny lenses on the sensor to attempt to combat this, FYI.

04-19-2014, 10:07 AM   #242
Site Supporter
Aristophanes's Avatar

Join Date: Jul 2008
Location: Dartmouth, Nova Scotia
Photos: Albums
Posts: 3,913
This is hysterically funny:

"Look closely at the illustration above again because now I will go further into saying that in fact, the larger sensor is capturing less light in this situation. Now why is that? Because lenses aren’t perfect. Light diminishes as you move away from the center of the lens. You want proof? Wide open, the same lens will produce vignettes on a full frame while it looks perfect on a crop sensor. A vignette can be as bad as two stops down at the corners. That’s four times less light!!! If truly a full frame captures more light then there won’t be vignetting."

From:

https://dtmateojr.wordpress.com/2014/03/08/debunking-the-myth-of-full-frame-superiority/

If you want to really test for light falloff, then check out:

Imatest - Using Uniformity Part 1

But basic math eludes the Wordpress poster. The FF sensor is 2.5x more surface area larger than the APS-C crop sensor. It collects exactly the same amount of light as the crop within the cropped frame, and additional light from the non-cropped area less the falloff. And by far most falloff is in the extreme corners only. This was never a problem with film.

By definition the larger sensor cannot...EVER...capture less light. The Demo Mateo Wordpress posting is 100% wrong and is a complete misunderstanding of optical physics.

For the sake of argument, let us say both the FF and crop sensor are 24MP's. The FF now has larger photo sites because of the 2.5x extra surface area. So the FF sensor captures more photons. More photons = a larger sampling size so less photon noise. Less photon noise = less gain needed on the sensor to readout and therefore less electronic signal noise.

Settled science. Nice try debunking but, again, that Wordpress article is 100% wrong.
04-19-2014, 10:19 AM   #243
Veteran Member




Join Date: Feb 2011
Posts: 4,893
Original Poster
Let's be nice.
04-19-2014, 10:50 AM   #244
Site Supporter
Aristophanes's Avatar

Join Date: Jul 2008
Location: Dartmouth, Nova Scotia
Photos: Albums
Posts: 3,913
QuoteOriginally posted by ElJamoquio Quote
Let's be nice.
It's awkward to hear someone say something larger gets less light. It's like saying a larger window get less sunshine. Does the solar panel industry know this?

04-19-2014, 05:25 PM   #245
Senior Moderator
Loyal Site Supporter
Parallax's Avatar

Join Date: Apr 2008
Location: South Dakota
Photos: Gallery
Posts: 15,593
I don't have a blah, blah, blah blah blahg, but I always believe everything I read on anyone else's. Don't you?
04-20-2014, 04:12 PM   #246
Veteran Member




Join Date: Dec 2013
Location: N.E. Ohio
Posts: 535
Wow, this topic really got 'em going... Somebody should have started a betting pool on how many pages of back and forth this thread will have accumulated by May Day. I need a tall soda and a bucket of popcorn to start taking all this in! I'm not sure what refreshments are standard fare at a Test cricket match... or the Tour de France.
04-20-2014, 05:01 PM   #247
Senior Moderator
Loyal Site Supporter
Parallax's Avatar

Join Date: Apr 2008
Location: South Dakota
Photos: Gallery
Posts: 15,593
I'm not sure what refreshments are standard at those either, but this needs at least 90 proof.
04-20-2014, 08:36 PM   #248
Veteran Member




Join Date: Feb 2011
Posts: 4,893
Original Poster
I think the thread's done.

04-23-2014, 04:09 PM   #249
bxf
Site Supporter
bxf's Avatar

Join Date: Jul 2010
Location: Lisbon area
Posts: 1,108
QuoteOriginally posted by Aristophanes Quote
...For the sake of argument, let us say both the FF and crop sensor are 24MP's. The FF now has larger photo sites because of the 2.5x extra surface area...
I've wondered about things like this. Perhaps the following makes no sense, but strictly from a layman's point of view it makes sense to ask: when the MPs are the same, how do we know if the larger sensor has larger photo sites, or smaller ones, spread over a larger area?
04-23-2014, 08:28 PM   #250
Site Supporter
Aristophanes's Avatar

Join Date: Jul 2008
Location: Dartmouth, Nova Scotia
Photos: Albums
Posts: 3,913
QuoteOriginally posted by bxf Quote
I've wondered about things like this. Perhaps the following makes no sense, but strictly from a layman's point of view it makes sense to ask: when the MPs are the same, how do we know if the larger sensor has larger photo sites, or smaller ones, spread over a larger area?
You mean with nothing in between the photo sites? What would be the point? They still have to mask and fire the litho light the get less product. Lots of energy to make a large sensor will less collecting power.

The reason why you go less dense is to make larger photo sites precisely to gather a more robust signal per site. Fuji F30 compact comes to mind. Nikon D700 also.
04-23-2014, 09:57 PM   #251
Pentaxian




Join Date: Nov 2007
Location: Western Canada
Posts: 4,072
Graphs, theories, computer models, etc....all interesting.

When it comes to resolution......

The only thing I believe is my eye...what I actually see.

Up to 11 X 14, I don't see a difference between say a K-5 series / K-3 camera and a Limited lens and say a 5D2 or a D600 with a comparable
Canon/ Nikon lens.

Maybe a poster size will do the trick...or perhaps if I subject the photos to the cold, analytic view of a Zeiss microscope.
04-23-2014, 09:59 PM   #252
Veteran Member




Join Date: Feb 2011
Posts: 4,893
Original Poster
You've made back to back comparisons?
04-23-2014, 10:15 PM   #253
Pentaxian
cali92rs's Avatar

Join Date: May 2011
Location: Long Beach, CA
Posts: 3,346
QuoteOriginally posted by lesmore49 Quote
Graphs, theories, computer models, etc....all interesting.

When it comes to resolution......

The only thing I believe is my eye...what I actually see.

Up to 11 X 14, I don't see a difference between say a K-5 series / K-3 camera and a Limited lens and say a 5D2 or a D600 with a comparable
Canon/ Nikon lens.

Maybe a poster size will do the trick...or perhaps if I subject the photos to the cold, analytic view of a Zeiss microscope.
A person's eye is probably the last thing one should trust. It tends to be biased to what that person has spent money on. It's amazing what brand loyalty can cover up. It's like sober beer goggles.
04-24-2014, 03:12 AM   #254
Site Supporter




Join Date: Mar 2009
Location: Gladys, Virginia
Photos: Gallery
Posts: 16,009
QuoteOriginally posted by cali92rs Quote
A person's eye is probably the last thing one should trust. It tends to be biased to what that person has spent money on. It's amazing what brand loyalty can cover up. It's like sober beer goggles.
I both agree and disagree. There are sites like DXO Mark that test for the differences and let you know based on numbers what kind of performance you can expect from a sensor with regard to dynamic range, high iso performance and so on. That is useful to know, particularly if you are struggling with a camera in a certain respect.

However, I don't think there is anything wrong with viewing images and processing images to see what can be done as well. The biggest reasons to get full frame are (1) to print bigger and (2) to get access to faster lenses not available for APS-C. If you aren't printing bigger or shooting at really high iso, it is doubtful how much difference you will see, although maybe you could see some difference if you look over the prints with a loupe. But who does that?
04-26-2014, 04:44 AM   #255
bxf
Site Supporter
bxf's Avatar

Join Date: Jul 2010
Location: Lisbon area
Posts: 1,108
I stopped trying to digest every detail offered in this thread some time back, as each side was presenting some technical reasons that sound plausible. In the end, the proof is in final product, not theoretical arguments.

I have no great desire for FF (mainly because of size and cost), but, if there is any credibility to the argument that FF does not provide real-world superiority, I have to wonder why DXO numbers show consistent and significant low-light advantage for FF.
Reply

Bookmarks
  • Submit Thread to Facebook Facebook
  • Submit Thread to Twitter Twitter
  • Submit Thread to Digg Digg
Tags - Make this thread easier to find by adding keywords to it!
24x36mm, aperture, aps-c, camera, check, da, dof, equivalence, f/8, ff, ff resolution, full-frame, lenses, mf, pentax, photo, photography, post, practice, reasons, resolution, sensor, shot, shutter, theory, time, wrong
Thread Tools Search this Thread
Search this Thread:

Advanced Search


Similar Threads
Thread Thread Starter Forum Replies Last Post
How to shoot a wedding with APS-C and FF nick52 Photographic Technique 8 08-05-2013 05:14 PM
K-5IIs reviews at Amazon - Better than FF Canon? Docrwm Pentax K-5 4 02-19-2013 12:12 PM
Quick question regarding field of view - FF vs APS-C glass? Julie Pentax SLR Lens Discussion 5 12-23-2012 05:33 PM
APS-C does not increase focal length over FF, it decreases field of view. TomTextura Photographic Technique 135 06-09-2012 04:58 PM
What is your best example for FF over APS-C? leeak Pentax DSLR Discussion 21 12-11-2008 12:25 PM



All times are GMT -7. The time now is 12:31 AM. | See also: NikonForums.com, CanonForums.com part of our network of photo forums!
  • Red (Default)
  • Green
  • Gray
  • Dark
  • Dark Yellow
  • Dark Blue
  • Old Red
  • Old Green
  • Old Gray
  • Dial-Up Style
Hello! It's great to see you back on the forum! Have you considered joining the community?
register
Creating a FREE ACCOUNT takes under a minute, removes ads, and lets you post! [Dismiss]
Top