[jsherman999]

You don't get it, do you? That's precisely the point, that significant factors which are influencing SNR and resolution are out of the realm of equivalence. Yet the claim was made that nothing else is needed (to be accurate, he said that "Should a 70-200mm F/2.8 or instead use a 135 F/2 and crop?" includes all the information required)
Regarding SNR: if we go for the "same total light", the lens with the better transmittance "wins" (at least assuming only photon noise is significant); a factor which we both agree is "out of the realm of equivalence". Resolution is also "out of the realm of equivalence"; with a ~10% crop, both the zoom and the prime has a chance.

At least now ElJamoquio understood his mistake, and tries to add previously unspecified parameters now that I've told him. Even if initially all he said was a 70-200 f/2.8 vs. a 135 f/2.

What I see is you being desperate to win a point.

I don't think anyone reading this thread misunderstood El J's original post. I even suspect *you* understood his point, but you willfully sublimated that understanding for effect.

We have a media outlet in this country that has turned that style of dishonesty into a successful business model. It's distasteful, I'd hope not to see it here.

[Kunzite]

For Pete's sake, it took him twelve posts to "admit" he actually needs more information about those lenses than he provided in the initial post. And I tried to either make him confirm that he believes those specs are all, or to say what exactly should be added. I asked him for clarifications. He ignored the questions.

Whatever; this is now nothing more than a personal vendetta. You want that point? It's yours. Same for the bar. Boriscleto'd™

[BrianR]

Then how is it that what used to be 80 watt panels are now 120 watt panels at the same size? That's the trouble with trying to get simple, you have to eliminate meaningful parts of the process in your equation, to create simple, and doing that if done too much leads to meaningless conclusions.

Does that in anyway affect your decision on how many 80 watt panels you want on your roof if you're hoping for 3 kw total? (120 watt panels aren't available to you at the moment, they're only manufactured by Soloveron, and your roof only accepts Suntax panels)

Everyone understands newer tech=more awesome (as a general trend for silicony stuff anyways), you've mentioned it about 517 times just in case anyone missed it. It doesn't somehow mean comparing the areas of the same units is suddenly invalid, or worthless, or can't be expanded to compare some number of 80 watt panels to some other number of 120 watt panels.

Same with sensors. Size alone won't give you the whole story when you compare a Canon 5d with a Pentax k5. Everyone understands this. Really, they do. But it can help you understand why the dated tech in the larger form still holds up reasonably well with the smaller newer model.

For the life of me, I can't understand why this seems to be so controversial.

[ElJamoquio]

For Pete's sake, it took him twelve posts to "admit" he actually needs more information about those lenses than he provided in the initial post. And I tried to either make him confirm that he believes those specs are all, or to say what exactly should be added. I asked him for clarifications. He ignored the questions.

Whatever; this is now nothing more than a personal vendetta. You want that point? It's yours. Same for the bar. Boriscleto'd™

Rhetorical question: how much information is required to answer a (recursive?) rhetorical question?

[jsherman999]

For Pete's sake, it took him twelve posts to "admit" he actually needs more information about those lenses than he provided in the initial post. And I tried to either make him confirm that he believes those specs are all, or to say what exactly should be added. I asked him for clarifications. He ignored the questions.

Whatever; this is now nothing more than a personal vendetta. You want that point? It's yours. Same for the bar. Boriscleto'd™

All right, I should probably withdraw the 'dishonest' charge and chalk it up to a point belabored past the breaking point IMO.

[altopiet]

At some point, sensor tech will probably get to the point that the size won't matter anymore except for the most extreme and demanding situations

If that happens, Pentax forums would become a very boring place

Not trying to hijack the thread, but if that stage is reached, and eliminate sensors as a difference between camera makers, and they've exhausted all the features possible that can be added, like WiFi, Bluetooth, etc. what would influence sales, except physical shape?

[rawr]

You'd be back to film days, essentially.
Manufacturers will always find various ways to make their light box seem more appealing to consumers than competitors light boxes, even if everything fundamental about their light boxes was the same...

[jsherman999]

If that happens, Pentax forums would become a very boring place

Not trying to hijack the thread, but if that stage is reached, and eliminate sensors as a difference between camera makers, and they've exhausted all the features possible that can be added, like WiFi, Bluetooth, etc. what would influence sales, except physical shape?

They would have to start concentrating more on lenses! (not a bad thing.)

[Erictator]

If that happens, Pentax forums would become a very boring place

Not trying to hijack the thread, but if that stage is reached, and eliminate sensors as a difference between camera makers, and they've exhausted all the features possible that can be added, like WiFi, Bluetooth, etc. what would influence sales, except physical shape?

Just look to the Television industry for clues... TV tech has stagnated. They try to come up with reasons to replace your perfectly fine current TV. In TV, tech peaked (quality wise) with the likes of the Pioneer Kuro Plasma TV sets... but, they were power hogs, so low power LCD and LED was the new deal. BUT... the black level sucked, and the lighting was un-even. Then 3-D was the big thing... and it sucked and was stupid. Then there was convex curved screens recently trying to make a come back (really people? Curved? Puhlease!) then Ultra HD 4K whatever... blah blah blah. Just excuses to part you from your money with no real advantage, and more often then not, quite a few disadvantages. I still run my 60" Pioneer Kuro Plasma, I've got it tuned for realistic viewing, which gives true black levels, and not over-sharpened. It has out-lasted all the dire predictions of blown power supplies, etc. because I'm not running it in super-crazy-unrealistic-overly-bright & contrasty-mode. and will probably last a good bit longer that way. Hopefully, it will last until O-LED screens have come down in price, and I can afford one. If not, I will scour Craigs list to find another used 60" Kuro, or the parts to fix mine if repairable.

Look at automobiles... just about every auto maker can make an engine now that doesn't need a tune-up for 100K miles, and will last double that. So... now we harp on economy and safety.

Back to sensors... When sensors become a non issue, it will be all about something else. Oh wait! SNAP! I forgot! I can just check my Time Machine!

Hold on... hopping in... ok... here we go...

*Grinding wheezing noise*

OK, I'm here in the future, and I'm looking at Pentax Forums...

****News Flash****
Pentax Forums
Photokina, Sept 2024
Johnson&Johnson merged with Sony-Pentax (formerly known as Ricoh-Pentax) to introduce the new Eye-Fi Camera called the Eye*ist.
The Eye-*ist uses the latest Flu-Capsule virus (swallowed in a capsule and good for 10years) to interact with the SUHD (Super Ultra HD) sensor in your brain and optic nerve.
This virus also sets up a WiFi network in your bloodstream using natural minerals and elements in your body in conjunction with NANO tech to transmit your 128 bit, 16 TerraPixel images at 100FPS directly to your Eye-*ist Cloud account.
Ultra Zoom is controlled by your excitement level of what you are looking at.
Birders can get help with Ultra-Zoom range by swallowing a little blue pill from Pfizer to artificially enhance their excitement level when needed and can get a 35mm equivelent of up to 1000mm f4.0 zoom!
Actual release date will depend on an intense market analasys, but hopefully will be on the street and in your eye by next year!
Stay tuned!

*Grinding wheezing noise*

Wow... was that wild or what?
I better lay off the Time Machine for a while, I'm not sure I could handle much more news like that...
Eric

[ElJamoquio]

Just look to the Television industry for clues... TV tech has stagnated. They try to come up with reasons to replace your perfectly fine current TV. In TV, tech peaked (quality wise) with the likes of the Pioneer Kuro Plasma TV sets... but, they were power hogs, so low power LCD and LED was the new deal. BUT... the black level sucked, and the lighting was un-even. Then 3-D was the big thing... and it sucked and was stupid. Then there was convex curved screens recently trying to make a come back (really people? Curved? Puhlease!) then Ultra HD 4K whatever... blah blah blah. Just excuses to part you from your money with no real advantage, and more often then not, quite a few disadvantages. I still run my 60" Pioneer Kuro Plasma, I've got it tuned for realistic viewing, which gives true black levels, and not over-sharpened. It has out-lasted all the dire predictions of blown power supplies, etc. because I'm not running it in super-crazy-unrealistic-overly-bright & contrasty-mode. and will probably last a good bit longer that way. Hopefully, it will last until O-LED screens have come down in price, and I can afford one. If not, I will scour Craigs list to find another used 60" Kuro, or the parts to fix mine if repairable.

Look at automobiles... just about every auto maker can make an engine now that doesn't need a tune-up for 100K miles, and will last double that. So... now we harp on economy and safety.

Back to sensors... When sensors become a non issue, it will be all about something else. Oh wait! SNAP! I forgot! I can just check my Time Machine!

Hold on... hopping in... ok... here we go...

*Grinding wheezing noise*

OK, I'm here in the future, and I'm looking at Pentax Forums...

****News Flash****
Pentax Forums
Photokina, Sept 2024
Johnson&Johnson merged with Sony-Pentax (formerly known as Ricoh-Pentax) to introduce the new Eye-Fi Camera called the Eye*ist.
The Eye-*ist uses the latest Flu-Capsule virus (swallowed in a capsule and good for 10years) to interact with the SUHD (Super Ultra HD) sensor in your brain and optic nerve.
This virus also sets up a WiFi network in your bloodstream using natural minerals and elements in your body in conjunction with NANO tech to transmit your 128 bit, 16 TerraPixel images at 100FPS directly to your Eye-*ist Cloud account.
Ultra Zoom is controlled by your excitement level of what you are looking at.
Birders can get help with Ultra-Zoom range by swallowing a little blue pill from Pfizer to artificially enhance their excitement level when needed and can get a 35mm equivelent of up to 1000mm f4.0 zoom!
Actual release date will depend on an intense market analasys, but hopefully will be on the street and in your eye by next year!
Stay tuned!

*Grinding wheezing noise*

Wow... was that wild or what?
I better lay off the Time Machine for a while, I'm not sure I could handle much more news like that...
Eric

Any Stock market tips?

[dracluff]

I have been reading over this thread trying in the end to make sense of what is going on. To me the claim is that there is a better SNR with more 'total light' even on a pixel level. I guess I had trouble with this concept because if you think of Photon shot noise as the noise in the signal due to the counting of photons at the pixel level it should not change with size of sensor so long as the pixels are the same size and have the same pitch.
For example if we assume two sensors that are exactly the same but one is 100x100 pixels and the other is 150x150 pixels and each receive 10 photons per pixel (say we use a 50 f2 on the 100x100 sensor and a 75 f2 on the 150x150 sensor) so we have the same FOV and the same average illumination/area on both sensors. From here we can determine two different SNR ratios from the photon noise the first is if we assume total light so with the small sensor we get 10000 pixels with 10 photon/pixel so 100 000 photons and a signal to noise of 316 (sqrt(100000) and on the larger sensor we get 225000 total photons with a SNR of 474. But this assumes that the whole sensor is counting as one which I believe is incorrect because it make the sensor behave as a single pixel.
So if we take this to the pixel level which is how the sensor is counting we get 10 photons/pixel in both sensors and so both sensors have a SNR of 3.2 at the pixel level.
(It is true that the shot noise I am speaking of is essentially due to counting and may tie into QE? not sure though)

That being said I think I do believe in the total light theory producing lower noise but not because of the photon shot noise. If we think of noise as the fluctuation (or variation) in light intensity between pixels (i.e. one pixel receiving too much light while his neighbour receives to little) when there should be none I think then we look at requiring the total light instead of the discrete per pixel measurement for some form of SNR. The light falling on the sensor does not care where the pixels are but with an increase in total light I believe we reduce variability in the light across the board and each pixel receives closer to the 10 photons/pixel.
For example in the 150x150 sensor the center 4 pixels might get 9, 11, 8 12. Where as in the 100x100 sensor the center 4 pixels might get 8, 12, 6, 14 which will show up as more noise in the image.

All this being told. It really does not affect me and my photography. I would like a full frame but will not have the money to buy one and would rather spend my money on something like the Voigtlander Bessa III (or fuji 667) and get a real size increase.

[jsherman999]

I have been reading over this thread trying in the end to make sense of what is going on. To me the claim is that there is a better SNR with more 'total light' even on a pixel level.

No.

Not on a pixel level, on an entire-image level.

If I read some of your comments right, you might get some useful information out of this thread.

[dracluff]

No.

Not on a pixel level, on an entire-image level.

If I read some of your comments right, you might get some useful information out of this thread.

I think what I am trying to say is what the thread you mentioned is getting at. It just seems there is a lot of confusion because I believe people have a hard time with each pixel getting the same average amount of photons/pixel and yet somehow the sensor with the most light has a lower SNR. I think they are two separate issues. One in which the SNR on a per pixel basis is the same (for the same sensor tech with one just having more pixels and a larger physical area) so it should not matter what the size is when dealing with average, even illumination. The second is the actual statistics of the way the light hits the sensor (and very little to do with the sensor at all). And it is here that I think we see the difference in the SNR. I am saying that the more light coming in results in more even illumination. This would decrease what we see as noise in two ways the first real: if every pixel is closer to the average each pixel will have a higher real SNR where as with a higher deviation from average we are more likely to get pixels collecting much lower than the average and hence show a lower SNR. The second is perhaps more perceived in that if one pixel gets 15 photons and an adjacent pixel gets 5 they still average to 10 but we see the difference far more than one pixel getting 11 and an adjacent 9. This happens regardless of the sensor tech and would be a physical phenomena. To me this is where the greater total light increases the SNR in the whole image.
Also realistically this lower noise in bigger sensors is only really beneficial to enlargements and/or heavy cropping. Is it significantly noticeable at web resolutions? Maybe if we are talking about using really high ISO but otherwise...

[jsherman999]

Also realistically this lower noise in bigger sensors is only really beneficial to enlargements and/or heavy cropping. Is it significantly noticeable at web resolutions? Maybe if we are talking about using really high ISO but otherwise...

The higher the photon count, the less noise you'll see because the variance from pixel to pixel (which *is* the shot noise) will matter less. Thus you see much less noise with better-lit scenes (which consequently are shot with much lower ISOs.) Lower-light scenes, you are also getting more effect from read noise, which becomes apparent when you increase brightness (ISO.)

So in summary yes, it's going to matter much more with lower-light shooting... which shouldn't be shocking news Also, smaller web recreations (< 800p width) of the whole image are going to look pretty good from almost any modern camera. My iphone output looks fairly good on most of my facebook shots. Bigger you get, worse it looks.

[dracluff]

That pretty much makes sense and is what I was essentially trying to say (maybe not clearly). The shot noise seems to be a tricky term for me then. From the definition I found it is based on a counting process and so to me is the noise (or deviation) produced when trying to count the number of photons striking a pixel and would be isolated to an individual pixel counting the photons. The noise produced by the variance when comparing one pixel to another is related but just seemed to me to be something slightly different. I am not so tied to the definition though it is more an understanding of the concept which I think I have.

It is an interesting topic but also one that makes me realize why I like film much more. With digital we pixel peep the living crap out of a photo (a 16 MP image at web resolution is what 68 " long - who would look at a 68" long image from 10-12" inches away?) and scrutinize the smallest details which in the real world matter to very few people. It becomes too easy to scrutinize the technical and dismiss a photo without seeing the aesthetic qualities of it. I know I am guilty of it when I look at photos and especially with my own photos. I probably trash too many because they are not sharp enough, too much noise, etc... when they might be a quite acceptable photo, just not at 1:1.