FX vs. DX sensor REALITIES, 'more light', Dynamic Range, GAIN & EFFICIENCY
FX vs. DX sensor REALITIES, 'more light', Dynamic Range, GAIN & EFFICIENCY
FX vs. DX sensor REALITIES, ‘more light’, Dynamic Range, GAIN & EFFICIENCY
IF YOU LIKE THESE VIDEOS, YOU CAN MAKE A KIND DONATION OF $2 OR $5 VIA PAYPAL LINK HERE: https://www.paypal.com/cgi-bin/webscr?cmd=_s-xclick&hosted_button_id=BDZ3G8SJ4ABT4
(paypal email: kenw111@insightbb.com)
That laugh and ‘stupid’ voice – exactly like the Crack Fox from Mighty Boosh haha. Well explained good Sir!
Genius.
Thank you sir.
Great video Ken…..even some of the stupid people can probably understand it. I did own the 5DSR for awhile but because I was cropping to 7D2 size anyways and using it for birds a lot of the time it of course performed just like the 7D2 for noise and DR etc….so sort of useless….but when I could fill the frame with something then I got a super image.
Interested to hear your thoughts about if you downsize a 5DSR file to say D750 size you do hide the noise so that is a consideration if you have a high ISO image. The fact that Canon limited the ISO of the 5DSR to 6400 tells you something!! They still let the 7D2 go to 16000 which is really odd!! Still downsizing can get you back some of the stuff you loss with those tiny eyeballs on the 5DSR.
Still I sold the thing for the vastly superior 5D4 which rivals my 1DX2 at high ISO and that can only be down to SNR processing as it has 50% more pixels. Don’t flame me for the 5D4, I love it as a companion to my 1DX and 1DX2. Mostly for its f/8 focusing abilities as I use a lot of f/8 lens/TC combos in my bird/wildlife work.
D700 beats all of them
For a given resolution, APS-C sensors have more digital gain applied in-camera before they are saved to the RAW file.
Probably one of your best videos… but DEFINITELY your funniest 🤣 just brilliant. Thanks
This is what my lightmeter says: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=EpeKDcN7i_k
Awesome clarification. I’m being a fan of you dude. Just one question… I have an entry level dslr D5000 with APS-C sized sensor and pixel pitch is 5.51 micrometer but D7200 sensor has a pixel pitch of 3.89 micrometer. Does that mea n D5000 is more efficient in case of low light or dynamic range than D7200? or the pixel density has any role to low light efficiency and dynamic range?
So every FX and DX sensor is a collection of little sensors. The sum of which is no better than each ‘pixel’ (except for the SNR processing).
Genius!….ive always understood this principle. It is common sense. Well explained again) Ken.
Thank you all for teaching me this.
This is well explained great stuff !
Come on Ken. Light is on DX, FX and MF the same. But not the frame you what to shoot in your silly head. I shall never shoot DX because it’s not my nature. Studio always MF and the rrst 35mm Full Frame.
what is better, big eye balls or small eye balls? 🙂
I love watching your videos but I’m not smart enough to know what to do with this information 😬
when you are such nit-picker. be at least consistent and dont use pixel pitch. all the time you talk about area. use area units
Well done Ken thanks for the clarification
i got me a ff dslr and i want to teach myself exposure going full manual. and full analog, as in film. set iso for 100, take at least 36 pictures and do not take any peeks at the lcd till the day is over. where would be a good source of info for me on mastering exposure…
Does change the bokeh then?
Why? Why? Whyyyy? Hmm. Affiliate links.
they say it is not ay es ow but ayso…
Hi there, I like your channel and I even kinda like your style. Unfortunately, I believe you got this one wrong.
If you cover half of the frame, the uncovered part of the sensor indeed captures the very same image as it would before, HOWEVER, you are now stuck with only half of the image. In order to actually use it, you have to either scale it up (sacrificing resolution) or you have to replace your "eyeballs" with smaller ones, thus reducing their signal to noise ratio. Either way, you actually DID lose quality and you actually DID waste half of the light compared to using the whole sensor.
So larger sensors actually do "gather more light" (in total) than smaller ones. Admittedly, it is a very unscientific expression but it’s basically true.
How many shutter clicks is too many when purchasing a D3? I found one with about 130k….
All these people cooing over up and coming 100MP sensors thinking they will be awesome not realising all it is is a full frame sensor with the pixel pitch of a 1" 20MP sensor. You coukd make a 250MP if you scaled up a point and shoot 20MP 1/2.3" sensor but of course it’s dynamic range would be horrendous. Fuji seem to be the only ones who really understand what this video teaches. If you want more megapixels without reducing dynamic range you can only do it one of two ways. Make the sensor physically bigger ( thus the medium format ) or continue to squeeze more out of signal processing which is rapidly reaching a point where improvements are harder to increase.
so Ken, since the Pixel doesnt matter but only the pixil pitch. FX are only better for Low light than DX?
Do not discard the picture window idea so quickly. Actually, the individual photosites work like miniature picture windows, millions of them. The comparison between the 21MP D5 and D500 was a perfect example of this distinction.
On another note, does multiplying pixel pitch times total MP yield a meaningful value? I think it does. It would be proportional to how efficiently the photosites cover the sensor.
love this vid, thanks. the duck-tape example says it all..
Oh no … you’re ignoring the result again.
It’s all about the image. A larger sensor (with the same pixel pitch) produces a greater image, period.
So the Fuji GFX with its 51.4 MP sensor being 1,7x the size of FX (like the one in the Canon 5DSR) has a pixel pitch of about 7um. That’s close to the 7,3 um of the 16 MP Nikon D4. I wonder how good Fuji’s SNR efficiency is and if it will come close to the Nikon. What do you think? Thanks for the video, Ken!
I like the "Southern Cattle Man / Falsetto Person" schizo dialogue, lol.. Sensor is a bunch of buckets, I got it.
Hey, after watching Tony Northrup’s video. My question is If I have a full frame lens of maximum aperture of f2.8. will that be still effectively f2.8 on the crop sensor camera? thanks!
So on film were those "eye balls" the grain since there was no A/D conversion?
I don’t get it. Is this some kind of a joke? Your simple bucket vs. kiddie pool analogy does a great job of demonstrating how a larger sensor gathers more total light than a smaller one. Are you just testing us to see if we can think for ourselves? Just because the amounts of light per unit of area are equal does not mean the total amounts of water in each vessel are equal. 2” of rainfall in a bucket with an 8” diameter (= 4” radius) bottom would place about 100 cubic inches of water (2 * 4 * 4 * pi) in the bucket, whereas the same amount of rainfall in a kiddie pool with an 8’ (96”) diameter (= 48” radius) bottom would place about 14,476 cubic inches of water (2 * 48 * 48 * pi) in the pool. Both containers receive the same amount of rainfall but the one with the larger area clearly receives more total water.
This is a lovely analogy for the sensors. Even though the amount of light per unit of area is the same for both sensors, the total amount of light is a function of the sensor size, not just the amount of light per unit of area, thus the larger sensor receives more total light. This, of course, does not affect exposure, since exposure at the sensor surface has to do only with the quantity of light per unit of area and not the total light received by the sensors.
This, incidentally, is why your little trick where you covered half the sensor works and yet fails to support your conclusion. While it’s true that covering part of the sensor does not change the exposure of the uncovered part, it nevertheless cuts the total amount of light received by the sensor in half. Total amount of light received by the sensor does not affect the exposure. The truth is, the sensor does act like a picture window, just like the lens aperture does, and the bigger the window the more light it allows through. Okay, technically, the sensor is more like an ice cube tray than a window, nevertheless, the total amount of light it receives is directly related to its size. Both the picture window and the bucket analogies are useful for describing this.
The argument that the lens “poops out” the same amount of light regardless of sensor size is accurate, but irrelevant. Because the sensors are rectangles set within the circle of light produced by the lens, some of the light falls outside of the sensor and is lost. Neither sensor receives all the light produced by the lens. Each one gets a fraction of the lens’ light dependent on the size of the sensor. Smaller sensors simply allow more light to be lost. The lens doesn’t need to know about the sensor size because it supplies more than enough light for either sensor. And this has nothing to do with exposure because the light per unit of area does not change from one sensor to the other, only the total amount of light the sensor senses.
The semantic argument that ISO is applied gain and therefore not part of exposure is even less relevant to the question of total light than your other arguments. All of your arguments fall into the same category as Microsoft Help: Highly Accurate and Completely Useless.
Really, I am amazed that you can have such great analogies, demonstrations, and just plain helpful information, yet arrive at such logically unsound conclusions. Is it possible that you get some pleasure out of confusing people and browbeating them into incoherent sheep-like behavior, or are you really this confused yourself? Maybe you’re just setting out bait for poor saps like me who can’t let this kind of crazy talk go unchecked (looks like I took the bait)! I’m not trying to be disparaging or diminutive, I like a lot of your videos and respect your viewpoints, but in this case you’re simply wrong and it would be disrespectful to let you go on and on without saying something.
Bigger solar panels generate more electricity. They aren’t gathering the same amount of light as a smaller one. It’s the amount of light per unit area that counts.
ustad Ken !!!
When i tell someone with an FX camera that their sensor doesn’t capture more light than a DX they get angry ..and then i refer them to the angry photographer.. freeze brain and they walk away ..perfect !
hA!! aWESOME. I actually understood MORE than 10 minutes ago. Thanks for that man.
But….the low light performance on the D500 is "light" years ahead of most Nikon models (see what I did there?). It is clear that Nikon used an entry level full frame pixel pitch sensor and cropped it to DX format. Then crammed in the D5’s processing into the D500. This seems to have altered some of the basic understanding (for me) of setting ISO, shutter speed and aperture. Having used the D40x, the D90 and the D750, I can use my base understanding in Manual mode to get the shots I want. The D500 has completely altered that for me. I feel like I am starting all over again with a DSLR. The D500 is an insane beast of a camera! I can set it to ISO 100 with an F stop of 5 or 5.6 and shoot at 1/60 at medium light and get blown out highlights. With those settings the D40x, D90 or D750 (similar or same lens) I get under exposed or dark images that I have to rescue in PhotoSlop. In fact, with the D500, when I use the meter, I keep it one full stop under exposed to get the right amount of exposure (without blown highlights.) Is it possible I am doing something wrong? Absolutely. So…what I am I doing wrong, Professor? 🙂
Bigger sensor, bigger pixels. Bigger eyeballs right? Magic after the sensor? Sure. Efficiency? Sure. Grainy on film? Sure. Don’t treat your audience like fools Ken, some of us have been watching and listening for a long time, before your Fujifilm adventure started. Full frame or Cropped, both great technologies, however different. Different use for different situations. Low light shooting with digital cameras I’ll take a full frame camera anytime. Why? Simple, I get better results. I want better out of focus blur at minimal focus distance? I’ll take a full frame camera anytime. Why? Simple, I get better results. In fact I don’t care if the camera uses Voodoo or black magic, I ONLY look at the results because that is why I make the picture in the first place. Continuing to make video’s like this, with disdain, you will get results, sure. You will have the audience you’ll attract and be dismissed as a fool, which is a shame because you’re not. You are changing Ken, and not for the better.
D3 too
Hi, would you buy a Nikon D500 or D750 for wedding photography?
wish Xt-2 has Fx sensor with 24megapixel..
So, can we say bigger the sensor size/megapixels ratio chances of getting better images increases ?
If you just had a hot looking wife sitting next to you and agreeing with everything you said your subs would skyrocket ..even if you didnt know what you are talking about !
I’ll take some of whatever it is that you’re smoking. ;->
so is the canon a BSI Sensor? Is the larger pitch only for shadow detail?
What about a FF lens on a crop sensor with a speed booster? Isn’t the change of lens projection like burning ants with a magnify glass. Are those tiny eyeballs seeing brighter light?
JUMP OF THE CLIFF!… this video is awesome haha
Wacky , but most geniuses are………