Low noise benefit of FF vs APS-C equals ... zero

Haakan · 09-01-2009, 09:05 PM

Originally posted by dosdan

According to Equivalence the difference in sensitivity between a APS-C & a FF is about 1.33 stops, everything else being equal.

Dan.

I just read that article, and it actually states the same thing as I said
"For the same perspective, AOV, DOF, shutter speed, and apparent exposure, all sensors, regardless of size receive the same total amount of light. Thus, under these conditions, for the same efficiency of sensor, all formats will have the same amount of total apparent image noise" (I added bold)

Best regards,
Haakan

pingflood · 09-01-2009, 11:22 PM

So how much impact does the more compact/dense circuitry of an APS-C or 4/3 sensor have on noise compared to FF (assuming same pixel count)?

(edit: after getting a good night's sleep I reread this thread and it's a pretty interesting topic actually. )

falconeye · 09-02-2009, 01:32 AM

Originally posted by pingflood

So how much impact does the more compact/dense circuitry of an APS-C or 4/3 sensor have on noise compared to FF (assuming same pixel count)?

This is another famous debate

I prefer to discuss this topic independent of sensor size because the size of a pixel and the size of the sensor are not linked to each other. It is just to simplify the discussion as in this thread that one keeps constant the pixel count constant.

If you take the D300, you see two FF derivatives: D3 (same pixel count) and D3X (same pixel pitch).

So, the question really is how much impact does the pixel pitch have on noise, independent of sensor size?

Here, Haakan's nice reinterpretation of DxO means that the impact in none.

In general, to compare noise, you must first normalize it to a given print size (factor out the different number of pixels resulting from the different pixel pitch). E.g., in order to normalize to 10 MPixels, you either resize all samples to this size, or multiply the ISO of measurements by SQRT(pixels/10mp) in ISO (which is a simple shift in ISO on a logarithmic ISO scale). I.e., You compare a 14.6mp/ISO800 pixel measurement with 10mp/ISO1000.

This normalization removes the first order effect of pixel pitch, i.e., the scale dependence of noise.

The second order effects are more subtle. On the one hand, you have more circuitry overhead per pixel (a larger shaded area), smaller circuitry (more electronic noise), etc. On the other hand, you have more pixels to average out the noise coming from, e.g., dark current or gain amplifiers. And microlenses reduce the effect of shading.

The second order effects are such that there exists a sweet spot (optimum pixel size) resulting in minimum normalized noise, which depends on the silicon process, chip and microlens design, and sensor temperature. Experiments with RAW files from P&S cameras suggest that this sweet spot is at somewhat smaller pixel sizes than in current use in dSLRs.

Normally, large pixel pitch FF sensors are expensive enough to have carefully designed gain amplifiers and ADC circuitry not adding to normalized noise.

If you compare D3 and D3X in DxO mark's SNR plot (the "Print" does the scale normalization and must be looked at), then you see almost identical results (less than 1dB difference).

So, to summarize: The pixel pitch can be ignored in this discussion. Fortunately.

--
Personally, I like the resolution advantage coming from high pixel pitch FF (like D3X). But it is expensive from Nikon (somewhat more affordable with 5D2 and esp. A850). Where high pixel pitch FF currently means 6µm vs. 5µm in K-7 and 4.3µm in 7D. And a high pixel pitch FF makes video expensive to implement if you don't want a noise penalty in video.

pingflood · 09-02-2009, 02:23 AM

So Falk, basically you are saying that the people clamoring for lower resolution "lower noise" sensors are chasing a mirage?

There've been some very heated debates on FM over this, with folks firmly entrenched in either camp.

One thing though... if you have a noise floor in the circuitry, once you get to a certain pixel pitch won't simply the low # of photons hitting each photosite cause the signal to entirely disappear in the noise? If you disregard the photon being a singular entity and simply look at it as a distribution of light then yeah, I am with you the entire way; however since we are ultimately down to individual photons then there has to be a breaking point somewhere. Right?

E.g. if the photosites receive say 200 photons each (no clue what the real numbers are) and the circuitry noise is equivalent to 20 photons, things are fine, but increase the pixel density significantly and each photosite might get 20 or 30 photons, and at that point, how do you sort it out from the noise? Or is the noise "orderly" enough that you can effectively get past it?

falconeye · 09-02-2009, 03:40 AM

Originally posted by pingflood

the circuitry noise is equivalent to 20 photons, things are fine, but increase the pixel density significantly and each photosite might get 20 or 30 photons, and at that point, how do you sort it out from the noise?

You ask about shot noise vs. read-out noise.

You assume that read-out noise is independent from the pixel size. It is not. Larger pixels have larger dark currents (because they have larger well capacities).

If you have 10 cells measuring 20 photons each and having the equivalent of 20 photons "circuitry noise" (50% read-out noise), then you have a mathematically equivalent situation to 1 cell ten times as big measuring 200 photons and having the equivalent of 63 photons "circuitry noise". So, would a larger real cell have less or more than 63 photons "circuitry noise"? You don't know. It depends on which side of the sweet spot you are.

And yes, 99.9% of people fighting over noise vs. pixel pitch had something better to do than listen at this statistics lessons in high school ...

The remaining 0.1% are in the know and seriously care about the remaining 1dB difference. Like speaker wires in high end audio ...

Haakan · 09-02-2009, 04:05 AM - **1 Like**

Originally posted by falconeye

And yes, 99.9% of people fighting over noise vs. pixel pitch had something better to do than listen at this statistics lessons in high school ...

The remaining 0.1% are in the know and seriously care about the remaining 1dB difference. Like speaker wires in high end audio ...

When I read dpreview, I often wonder in which category their reviewers fall. The quote below is taken from their conslusion in the Sony A900 review:
"especially when you factor in the rather disappointing high ISO performance that is the inevitable consequence of such a high pixel density" (I added bold)

Best regards,
Haakan

pingflood · 09-02-2009, 04:19 AM - **1 Like**

Originally posted by Haakan

When I read dpreview, I often wonder in which category their reviewers fall. The quote below is taken from their conslusion in the Sony A900 review:
"especially when you factor in the rather disappointing high ISO performance that is the inevitable consequence of such a high pixel density" (I added bold)

Best regards,
Haakan

It is rather funny when people start ranting about how 20-25MP on full frame is too high density, then turn around and praise 10MP APS-C sensors.

Haakan · 09-02-2009, 04:36 AM

Originally posted by pingflood

It is rather funny when people start ranting about how 20-25MP on full frame is too high density, then turn around and praise 10MP APS-C sensors.

I agree, it seems to lack somewhat in consistency.

Best regards,
Håkan

newarts · 09-02-2009, 06:00 AM

Originally posted by Haakan

I just read that article, and it actually states the same thing as I said
"For the same perspective, AOV, DOF, shutter speed, and apparent exposure, all sensors, regardless of size receive the same total amount of light. Thus, under these conditions, for the same efficiency of sensor, all formats will have the same amount of total apparent image noise" (I added bold)

Best regards,
Haakan

What happens as the sensor size approaches zero, ie. no sensor at all?

Seriously; there's something amiss in the original statement, diffraction limits, etc aside.

Dave in Iowa

Wheatfield · 09-02-2009, 06:16 AM - **1 Like**

I love it when people throw in meaningless parameters to create false equivalencies. In this case, the whole DOF thing. If you need the extra low light advantage that a full frame camera can give, you are going to shoot in such a way to ensure that the advantage is utilized.
Throwing in an arbitrary requirement that the "depth of field has to be the same or else there is no advantage" is not a meaningful parameter 99% of the time.

nostatic · 09-02-2009, 07:25 AM

Originally posted by Wheatfield

I love it when people throw in meaningless parameters to create false equivalencies. In this case, the whole DOF thing. If you need the extra low light advantage that a full frame camera can give, you are going to shoot in such a way to ensure that the advantage is utilized.
Throwing in an arbitrary requirement that the "depth of field has to be the same or else there is no advantage" is not a meaningful parameter 99% of the time.

For me it is very simple. I take a shot under conditions that I need to shoot. If I'm lucky, I can compare two different cameras shooting under said conditions. I look at the results. If I'm really lucky, I do it again. If under real world conditions on camera outperforms the other, then that is the one I want.

Theory is nice to understand a phenomenon, but it is important to remember that the math/science is created to try and explain something you see. Not the other way around.

WMBP · 09-02-2009, 07:35 AM - **1 Like**

Originally posted by deadwolfbones

All I know is I've been looking at D700 ISO12800 shots all afternoon and they're way cleaner than my K20D ISO1600 shots.

and

Originally posted by Wheatfield

I love it when people throw in meaningless parameters to create false equivalencies. In this case, the whole DOF thing. If you need the extra low light advantage that a full frame camera can give, you are going to shoot in such a way to ensure that the advantage is utilized. Throwing in an arbitrary requirement that the "depth of field has to be the same or else there is no advantage" is not a meaningful parameter 99% of the time.

I just read this whole thread. I am indeed interested in the technicalities and I do my best to understand them. I want to understand them better than I do.

But the comments above from deadwolfbones and Wheatfield strike me as valid and important. deadwolfbones's quip reminds me of the old joke, "Who you gonna believe - me or your lying eyes?"

And Wheatfield's comment really speaks to the point for me. My Pentax DSLRs produce dramatically less noisy photos at, say, ISO 800-1600, than those that I used to take with my Canon S5 IS several years ago. And like deadwolfbones, I've seen pictures from Nikon D3's taken at absurdly high ISOs that rival or surpass mine at ISO 1600. I don't care to "normalize" the comparisons, since I'm not interested in the technicalities personally, I'm only interested in the results available from real cameras in real shooting situations. I understand - I consider it quite obvious - that, in order to get the noise advantage of a given camera, you have to take the camera as a package. A Nikon D3 is a lot bigger than my old Canon S5 IS and there are tons of other technical differences. That's okay. What would matter to me (if I had a D3) is that I can actually take usable pictures with a D3 in much lower light than I could with any point and shoot. Perhaps I'd lose a little depth of field in some shots, but I'd get the shot.

Now, I hasten to add that I am not wracked with full-frame envy. I would love someone to GIVE me a D3X or even a lowly D700. If somebody wants to give me a digital Hasselblad, I'll take that, too. But in the real world where I actually have to BUY my own cameras, everything I do is a compromise, and I'm pretty happy with the compromise represented by the K20D. A Canon 5D might have 1+ stop better high ISO performance, but the Pentax has built-in shake reduction, so I can shoot slower and still hope to get a usable result. Where the Canon or a Nikon is plainly superior in technical ways, I have to work a little harder. And perhaps, in extreme lighting conditions, there will be times when my results won't be as good as those of a much more expensive camera.

But the lighting isn't extreme most of the time, and in the vast middle ground, I find that it's very hard to tell if a photo was taken by a K20D or a D3X.

Woops, there I go again, believing what I see. ;-)

Will

falconeye · 09-02-2009, 08:07 AM

Originally posted by Wheatfield

the whole DOF thing.

You are right, the question asked by the OP isn't very relevant.

However, I didn't bother because it can be restated as following:

"What if I keep the physical size (diameter, weight, cost) of the lenses I use constant?" That may be more relevant than asking "What if I keep DoF constant?".

As it turns out, both questions are equivalent.

Originally posted by newarts

What happens as the sensor size approaches zero, ie. no sensor at all?

If the sensor size approaches zero so does the focal length. And the required f-stop number will approach zero as well, like requiring a f/0.001 lens

And no sensor at all means requiring an impossible lens.

Mister Guy · 09-02-2009, 11:04 AM

Originally posted by WMBP

And Wheatfield's comment really speaks to the point for me. My Pentax DSLRs produce dramatically less noisy photos at, say, ISO 800-1600, than those that I used to take with my Canon S5 IS several years ago. And like deadwolfbones, I've seen pictures from Nikon D3's taken at absurdly high ISOs that rival or surpass mine at ISO 1600. I don't care to "normalize" the comparisons, since I'm not interested in the technicalities personally, I'm only interested in the results available from real cameras in real shooting situations. I understand - I consider it quite obvious - that, in order to get the noise advantage of a given camera, you have to take the camera as a package. A Nikon D3 is a lot bigger than my old Canon S5 IS and there are tons of other technical differences. That's okay. What would matter to me (if I had a D3) is that I can actually take usable pictures with a D3 in much lower light than I could with any point and shoot. Perhaps I'd lose a little depth of field in some shots, but I'd get the shot.

Well, that's something of the point isn't it?

The whole of the statement can easily be generalized as a blanket statement that Full Frame cameras are not automatically better than APS-C cameras by sheer virtue of their sensor without any sense of context. They do not, in toto, out perform all smaller sensors.

The point of normalizing in theory is, in fact, a way to account for the real world. It is simply a way of addressing the fact that in the real world, composition is more than a hard line matter of pushing ISO. Normalizing is a way to account, in discussions, for the real world conditions that change when you change any piece of the exposure triangle.

The question becomes: If Pentax, today, made a FF camera with a K mount, would it provide better performance than the K-7?

I believe, if I'm understanding this discussion correctly, the answer becomes yes with an "if", or no with a "but".

Yes, IF you put the same FA lenses (assuming they cover, of course) on a FF body as a APS-C body, and IF you take the same picture, from the same vantage point, with the same shutter and aperture settings, you'd end up being able to use a lower ISO to take the picture, if it was available, IF you are willing to crop it to get the same field of view, but your depth of field will be slightly different, so IF your subject is within subset of the FF DOV, you will end up with a better picture.

OR

No, you can try and take the same picture, with the same field of view, and same depth of field, BUT you won't be able to take the same picture with the same setting from the same location, and thus your picture is always going to be slightly different, which will probably result in you needing to adjust your ISO to match your new settings, which will negate the advantage.

That's a very real world way of looking at it, because it prompts the more practical question: Is it REALLY the sensor size that is preventing me from taking the picture I want to take? Many people have convinced themselves the answer to that question is yes, but a careful examination indicates the circumstances when that answer really IS yes require much more nuanced construction than is often realized.

Torphoto · 09-02-2009, 11:28 AM - **1 Like**

Ok so let me get this, this thread says if I shoot my k20D vs the mk2 at 1600 iso and compare with shots from the k7 there is no difference in noise?

but comparing raw shots in similar if not identical conditions my mk2 out performs either by 1-2 stops, the noise from the mk2 at 1600 iso looks like or better than 800 from the k20d and close to the k7's 400 iso, so explain this all again to me?

Hell I can shoot the mk2 to 4000 iso and it looks better than 1600 iso from the pentaxes.

what am I doing worng here?

09-02-2009, 03:40 AM	#35
falconeye Veteran Member Join Date: Jan 2008 Location: Munich, Alps, Germany Photos: Gallery Posts: 6,871	Originally posted by pingflood the circuitry noise is equivalent to 20 photons, things are fine, but increase the pixel density significantly and each photosite might get 20 or 30 photons, and at that point, how do you sort it out from the noise? You ask about shot noise vs. read-out noise. You assume that read-out noise is independent from the pixel size. It is not. Larger pixels have larger dark currents (because they have larger well capacities). If you have 10 cells measuring 20 photons each and having the equivalent of 20 photons "circuitry noise" (50% read-out noise), then you have a mathematically equivalent situation to 1 cell ten times as big measuring 200 photons and having the equivalent of 63 photons "circuitry noise". So, would a larger real cell have less or more than 63 photons "circuitry noise"? You don't know. It depends on which side of the sweet spot you are. And yes, 99.9% of people fighting over noise vs. pixel pitch had something better to do than listen at this statistics lessons in high school ... The remaining 0.1% are in the know and seriously care about the remaining 1dB difference. Like speaker wires in high end audio ... Last edited by falconeye; 09-02-2009 at 03:52 AM.

Similar Threads
Thread	Thread Starter	Forum	Replies	Last Post
K5 Low ISO Noise ----- Not!	JeffJS	Pentax K-5 & K-5 II	52	06-24-2011 12:07 AM
Achieving low-noise footage?	inferno10	Video Recording and Processing	13	03-03-2010 11:10 AM
Poll - $2500 low end FF or Hi-spec APS-C? - Please read initial post before voting	Richard Day	Pentax News and Rumors	126	02-15-2010 03:08 PM
Noise at low ISO in k200d	Pusiek	Pentax DSLR Discussion	10	08-24-2008 02:53 PM
Low light and noise	Substitute	Photographic Technique	11	11-09-2007 10:31 AM

09-01-2009, 09:05 PM	#31
Haakan Senior Member Join Date: Jun 2008 Location: Stockholm Photos: Gallery Posts: 182 Original Poster	Originally posted by dosdan According to Equivalence the difference in sensitivity between a APS-C & a FF is about 1.33 stops, everything else being equal. Dan. I just read that article, and it actually states the same thing as I said "For the same perspective, AOV, DOF, shutter speed, and apparent exposure, all sensors, regardless of size receive the same total amount of light. Thus, under these conditions, for the same efficiency of sensor, all formats will have the same amount of total apparent image noise" (I added bold) Best regards, Haakan

09-01-2009, 11:22 PM	#32
pingflood Veteran Member Join Date: Jun 2008 Location: Borås, Sweden Photos: Gallery Posts: 3,169	So how much impact does the more compact/dense circuitry of an APS-C or 4/3 sensor have on noise compared to FF (assuming same pixel count)? (edit: after getting a good night's sleep I reread this thread and it's a pretty interesting topic actually. )

09-02-2009, 01:32 AM	#33
falconeye Veteran Member Join Date: Jan 2008 Location: Munich, Alps, Germany Photos: Gallery Posts: 6,871	Originally posted by pingflood So how much impact does the more compact/dense circuitry of an APS-C or 4/3 sensor have on noise compared to FF (assuming same pixel count)? This is another famous debate I prefer to discuss this topic independent of sensor size because the size of a pixel and the size of the sensor are not linked to each other. It is just to simplify the discussion as in this thread that one keeps constant the pixel count constant. If you take the D300, you see two FF derivatives: D3 (same pixel count) and D3X (same pixel pitch). So, the question really is how much impact does the pixel pitch have on noise, independent of sensor size? Here, Haakan's nice reinterpretation of DxO means that the impact in none. In general, to compare noise, you must first normalize it to a given print size (factor out the different number of pixels resulting from the different pixel pitch). E.g., in order to normalize to 10 MPixels, you either resize all samples to this size, or multiply the ISO of measurements by SQRT(pixels/10mp) in ISO (which is a simple shift in ISO on a logarithmic ISO scale). I.e., You compare a 14.6mp/ISO800 pixel measurement with 10mp/ISO1000. This normalization removes the first order effect of pixel pitch, i.e., the scale dependence of noise. The second order effects are more subtle. On the one hand, you have more circuitry overhead per pixel (a larger shaded area), smaller circuitry (more electronic noise), etc. On the other hand, you have more pixels to average out the noise coming from, e.g., dark current or gain amplifiers. And microlenses reduce the effect of shading. The second order effects are such that there exists a sweet spot (optimum pixel size) resulting in minimum normalized noise, which depends on the silicon process, chip and microlens design, and sensor temperature. Experiments with RAW files from P&S cameras suggest that this sweet spot is at somewhat smaller pixel sizes than in current use in dSLRs. Normally, large pixel pitch FF sensors are expensive enough to have carefully designed gain amplifiers and ADC circuitry not adding to normalized noise. If you compare D3 and D3X in DxO mark's SNR plot (the "Print" does the scale normalization and must be looked at), then you see almost identical results (less than 1dB difference). So, to summarize: The pixel pitch can be ignored in this discussion. Fortunately. -- Personally, I like the resolution advantage coming from high pixel pitch FF (like D3X). But it is expensive from Nikon (somewhat more affordable with 5D2 and esp. A850). Where high pixel pitch FF currently means 6µm vs. 5µm in K-7 and 4.3µm in 7D. And a high pixel pitch FF makes video expensive to implement if you don't want a noise penalty in video.

09-02-2009, 02:23 AM	#34
pingflood Veteran Member Join Date: Jun 2008 Location: Borås, Sweden Photos: Gallery Posts: 3,169	So Falk, basically you are saying that the people clamoring for lower resolution "lower noise" sensors are chasing a mirage? There've been some very heated debates on FM over this, with folks firmly entrenched in either camp. One thing though... if you have a noise floor in the circuitry, once you get to a certain pixel pitch won't simply the low # of photons hitting each photosite cause the signal to entirely disappear in the noise? If you disregard the photon being a singular entity and simply look at it as a distribution of light then yeah, I am with you the entire way; however since we are ultimately down to individual photons then there has to be a breaking point somewhere. Right? E.g. if the photosites receive say 200 photons each (no clue what the real numbers are) and the circuitry noise is equivalent to 20 photons, things are fine, but increase the pixel density significantly and each photosite might get 20 or 30 photons, and at that point, how do you sort it out from the noise? Or is the noise "orderly" enough that you can effectively get past it?

09-02-2009, 04:05 AM - 1 Like	#36
Haakan Senior Member Join Date: Jun 2008 Location: Stockholm Photos: Gallery Posts: 182 Original Poster	Originally posted by falconeye And yes, 99.9% of people fighting over noise vs. pixel pitch had something better to do than listen at this statistics lessons in high school ... The remaining 0.1% are in the know and seriously care about the remaining 1dB difference. Like speaker wires in high end audio ... When I read dpreview, I often wonder in which category their reviewers fall. The quote below is taken from their conslusion in the Sony A900 review: "especially when you factor in the rather disappointing high ISO performance that is the inevitable consequence of such a high pixel density" (I added bold) Best regards, Haakan

09-02-2009, 04:19 AM - 1 Like	#37
pingflood Veteran Member Join Date: Jun 2008 Location: Borås, Sweden Photos: Gallery Posts: 3,169	Originally posted by Haakan When I read dpreview, I often wonder in which category their reviewers fall. The quote below is taken from their conslusion in the Sony A900 review: "especially when you factor in the rather disappointing high ISO performance that is the inevitable consequence of such a high pixel density" (I added bold) Best regards, Haakan It is rather funny when people start ranting about how 20-25MP on full frame is too high density, then turn around and praise 10MP APS-C sensors.

09-02-2009, 04:36 AM	#38
Haakan Senior Member Join Date: Jun 2008 Location: Stockholm Photos: Gallery Posts: 182 Original Poster	Originally posted by pingflood It is rather funny when people start ranting about how 20-25MP on full frame is too high density, then turn around and praise 10MP APS-C sensors. I agree, it seems to lack somewhat in consistency. Best regards, Håkan

09-02-2009, 06:00 AM	#39
newarts Inactive Account Join Date: Dec 2008 Location: Ames, Iowa, USA Photos: Albums Posts: 2,965	Originally posted by Haakan I just read that article, and it actually states the same thing as I said "For the same perspective, AOV, DOF, shutter speed, and apparent exposure, all sensors, regardless of size receive the same total amount of light. Thus, under these conditions, for the same efficiency of sensor, all formats will have the same amount of total apparent image noise" (I added bold) Best regards, Haakan What happens as the sensor size approaches zero, ie. no sensor at all? Seriously; there's something amiss in the original statement, diffraction limits, etc aside. Dave in Iowa

09-02-2009, 06:16 AM - 1 Like	#40
Wheatfield Moderator Join Date: Apr 2008 Location: The wheatfields of Canada Posts: 15,975	I love it when people throw in meaningless parameters to create false equivalencies. In this case, the whole DOF thing. If you need the extra low light advantage that a full frame camera can give, you are going to shoot in such a way to ensure that the advantage is utilized. Throwing in an arbitrary requirement that the "depth of field has to be the same or else there is no advantage" is not a meaningful parameter 99% of the time.

09-02-2009, 07:25 AM	#41
nostatic Veteran Member Join Date: Feb 2008 Location: socal Photos: Gallery Posts: 1,575	Originally posted by Wheatfield I love it when people throw in meaningless parameters to create false equivalencies. In this case, the whole DOF thing. If you need the extra low light advantage that a full frame camera can give, you are going to shoot in such a way to ensure that the advantage is utilized. Throwing in an arbitrary requirement that the "depth of field has to be the same or else there is no advantage" is not a meaningful parameter 99% of the time. For me it is very simple. I take a shot under conditions that I need to shoot. If I'm lucky, I can compare two different cameras shooting under said conditions. I look at the results. If I'm really lucky, I do it again. If under real world conditions on camera outperforms the other, then that is the one I want. Theory is nice to understand a phenomenon, but it is important to remember that the math/science is created to try and explain something you see. Not the other way around.

Thread Tools	Search this Thread
	Search this Thread: Advanced Search

09-02-2009, 07:35 AM - 1 Like	#42
WMBP Veteran Member Join Date: Dec 2006 Location: Dallas, Texas Photos: Gallery Posts: 2,482	Originally posted by deadwolfbones All I know is I've been looking at D700 ISO12800 shots all afternoon and they're way cleaner than my K20D ISO1600 shots. and Originally posted by Wheatfield I love it when people throw in meaningless parameters to create false equivalencies. In this case, the whole DOF thing. If you need the extra low light advantage that a full frame camera can give, you are going to shoot in such a way to ensure that the advantage is utilized. Throwing in an arbitrary requirement that the "depth of field has to be the same or else there is no advantage" is not a meaningful parameter 99% of the time. I just read this whole thread. I am indeed interested in the technicalities and I do my best to understand them. I want to understand them better than I do. But the comments above from deadwolfbones and Wheatfield strike me as valid and important. deadwolfbones's quip reminds me of the old joke, "Who you gonna believe - me or your lying eyes?" And Wheatfield's comment really speaks to the point for me. My Pentax DSLRs produce dramatically less noisy photos at, say, ISO 800-1600, than those that I used to take with my Canon S5 IS several years ago. And like deadwolfbones, I've seen pictures from Nikon D3's taken at absurdly high ISOs that rival or surpass mine at ISO 1600. I don't care to "normalize" the comparisons, since I'm not interested in the technicalities personally, I'm only interested in the results available from real cameras in real shooting situations. I understand - I consider it quite obvious - that, in order to get the noise advantage of a given camera, you have to take the camera as a package. A Nikon D3 is a lot bigger than my old Canon S5 IS and there are tons of other technical differences. That's okay. What would matter to me (if I had a D3) is that I can actually take usable pictures with a D3 in much lower light than I could with any point and shoot. Perhaps I'd lose a little depth of field in some shots, but I'd get the shot. Now, I hasten to add that I am not wracked with full-frame envy. I would love someone to GIVE me a D3X or even a lowly D700. If somebody wants to give me a digital Hasselblad, I'll take that, too. But in the real world where I actually have to BUY my own cameras, everything I do is a compromise, and I'm pretty happy with the compromise represented by the K20D. A Canon 5D might have 1+ stop better high ISO performance, but the Pentax has built-in shake reduction, so I can shoot slower and still hope to get a usable result. Where the Canon or a Nikon is plainly superior in technical ways, I have to work a little harder. And perhaps, in extreme lighting conditions, there will be times when my results won't be as good as those of a much more expensive camera. But the lighting isn't extreme most of the time, and in the vast middle ground, I find that it's very hard to tell if a photo was taken by a K20D or a D3X. Woops, there I go again, believing what I see. ;-) Will

09-02-2009, 08:07 AM	#43
falconeye Veteran Member Join Date: Jan 2008 Location: Munich, Alps, Germany Photos: Gallery Posts: 6,871	Originally posted by Wheatfield the whole DOF thing. You are right, the question asked by the OP isn't very relevant. However, I didn't bother because it can be restated as following: "What if I keep the physical size (diameter, weight, cost) of the lenses I use constant?" That may be more relevant than asking "What if I keep DoF constant?". As it turns out, both questions are equivalent. Originally posted by newarts What happens as the sensor size approaches zero, ie. no sensor at all? If the sensor size approaches zero so does the focal length. And the required f-stop number will approach zero as well, like requiring a f/0.001 lens And no sensor at all means requiring an impossible lens.

09-02-2009, 11:04 AM	#44
Mister Guy Senior Member Join Date: Jan 2009 Location: Raleigh, NC Posts: 244	Originally posted by WMBP And Wheatfield's comment really speaks to the point for me. My Pentax DSLRs produce dramatically less noisy photos at, say, ISO 800-1600, than those that I used to take with my Canon S5 IS several years ago. And like deadwolfbones, I've seen pictures from Nikon D3's taken at absurdly high ISOs that rival or surpass mine at ISO 1600. I don't care to "normalize" the comparisons, since I'm not interested in the technicalities personally, I'm only interested in the results available from real cameras in real shooting situations. I understand - I consider it quite obvious - that, in order to get the noise advantage of a given camera, you have to take the camera as a package. A Nikon D3 is a lot bigger than my old Canon S5 IS and there are tons of other technical differences. That's okay. What would matter to me (if I had a D3) is that I can actually take usable pictures with a D3 in much lower light than I could with any point and shoot. Perhaps I'd lose a little depth of field in some shots, but I'd get the shot. Well, that's something of the point isn't it? The whole of the statement can easily be generalized as a blanket statement that Full Frame cameras are not automatically better than APS-C cameras by sheer virtue of their sensor without any sense of context. They do not, in toto, out perform all smaller sensors. The point of normalizing in theory is, in fact, a way to account for the real world. It is simply a way of addressing the fact that in the real world, composition is more than a hard line matter of pushing ISO. Normalizing is a way to account, in discussions, for the real world conditions that change when you change any piece of the exposure triangle. The question becomes: If Pentax, today, made a FF camera with a K mount, would it provide better performance than the K-7? I believe, if I'm understanding this discussion correctly, the answer becomes yes with an "if", or no with a "but". Yes, IF you put the same FA lenses (assuming they cover, of course) on a FF body as a APS-C body, and IF you take the same picture, from the same vantage point, with the same shutter and aperture settings, you'd end up being able to use a lower ISO to take the picture, if it was available, IF you are willing to crop it to get the same field of view, but your depth of field will be slightly different, so IF your subject is within subset of the FF DOV, you will end up with a better picture. OR No, you can try and take the same picture, with the same field of view, and same depth of field, BUT you won't be able to take the same picture with the same setting from the same location, and thus your picture is always going to be slightly different, which will probably result in you needing to adjust your ISO to match your new settings, which will negate the advantage. That's a very real world way of looking at it, because it prompts the more practical question: Is it REALLY the sensor size that is preventing me from taking the picture I want to take? Many people have convinced themselves the answer to that question is yes, but a careful examination indicates the circumstances when that answer really IS yes require much more nuanced construction than is often realized.

09-02-2009, 11:28 AM - 1 Like	#45
Torphoto Veteran Member Join Date: Mar 2008 Location: Trinidad W.I. Photos: Gallery Posts: 612	Ok so let me get this, this thread says if I shoot my k20D vs the mk2 at 1600 iso and compare with shots from the k7 there is no difference in noise? but comparing raw shots in similar if not identical conditions my mk2 out performs either by 1-2 stops, the noise from the mk2 at 1600 iso looks like or better than 800 from the k20d and close to the k7's 400 iso, so explain this all again to me? Hell I can shoot the mk2 to 4000 iso and it looks better than 1600 iso from the pentaxes. what am I doing worng here?