# So Who Believes that Full Frame Camera's Gather More Light Then APSC



## donny1963 (Jun 8, 2018)

Ok so who out there Believes that a Full Frame Camera, gathers more light then a crop sensor camera?
Or Who believes that a larger sensor gathers more then vs a smaller sensor??


----------



## donny1963 (Jun 8, 2018)

first all let me stress that Exposure is : per unit area, a crop sensor camera gets the same amount of light then a full frame camera does..

now if you think that isn't true then why doesn't any light meter have an entry for sensor size?
meaning you tell the light meter your measuring for a full frame sensor vs a crop sensor? Reason?? Is because it doesn't matter both sensors get the same amount of light..

Exposure is per unit area,   if you travel from the state of NY, to RI, once you get to RI will you get less light in RI then you did in NY?
NO..

also some say that, Bigger sensors require less resolving power of the lenses to be sharper.

Actually it's just the opposite..
every lens crops out a circle of light, if you use a full frame lens on a crop sensor, the crop sensor is using the center of the full frame lens, which is always the best part of that lens,

kind of cutting the crust off of your bread.

Full frame sensors are always using more of that circle of projection,
every lens drops a circle, the bigger the sensor the more of that circle it's using.

The further out it goes the worst it gets,
and it doesn't matter what lens from a cheap lens

or super expensive , like,  leica or  zeiss,

the further you go out of the center of the circle of projection the worst the image gets,

and another thing people think that ISO is connected to exposure, that is not true ISO is applied gain, if you don't believe me just look up the word iso invariance,
https://improvephotography.com/34818/iso-invariance/

people think of bigger sensors gathering more light like a window in a room,  bigger window opening the shades means more light in the room, then if you open the shades on a smaller windwo,
but Sensors don't work that way,
it's per unit area...
People always think full frame gives you more light then smaller sensors,  (NOT TRUE)
Donny


----------



## 480sparky (Jun 8, 2018)

I've never heard of such a 'belief'.  So I guess I don't believe it.


----------



## smoke665 (Jun 8, 2018)

Not to start an argument but isn't this a redux of the same premise you brought up in earlier threads this year?


----------



## Braineack (Jun 8, 2018)

people always thing a lot of things.


----------



## Ysarex (Jun 8, 2018)

donny1963 said:


> first all let me stress that Exposure is : per unit area, a crop sensor camera gets the same amount of light then a full frame camera does..
> 
> now if you think that isn't true then why doesn't any light meter have an entry for sensor size?
> meaning you tell the light meter your measuring for a full frame sensor vs a crop sensor? Reason?? Is because it doesn't matter both sensors get the same amount of light..
> ...








The total unit area of New York is 141,300 square km. The total unit are of Rhode Island is 3,144 square km. Exposure is measured in lux seconds (per unit area). If 3 lux seconds per square km of exposure falls on both New York and Rhode Island then New York will receive a total exposure of 423,900 lux seconds and Rhode Island will receive a total exposure of 9,432 lux seconds.

3 = 3.
423,900 != 9,432.

The significance of those two equations I'm sure the OP will now lucidly explain in photographic terms.



donny1963 said:


> also some say that, Bigger sensors require less resolving power of the lenses to be sharper.
> 
> Actually it's just the opposite..
> every lens crops out a circle of light, if you use a full frame lens on a crop sensor, the crop sensor is using the center of the full frame lens, which is always the best part of that lens,
> ...



You're right! That's not true because people don't always think full frame gives you more light than smaller sensors. OMG! They never did!

People do know that a larger sensor gathers more *total light* than a smaller sensor which is a different think altogether.

Joe



donny1963 said:


> Donny


----------



## Braineack (Jun 8, 2018)

Ysarex said:


> ...a smaller sensor which is a different* think *altogether.


----------



## pixmedic (Jun 8, 2018)

Braineack said:


> people always *thing* a lot of things.


----------



## smoke665 (Jun 8, 2018)

480sparky said:


> I've never heard of such a 'belief'. So I guess I don't believe it.



The negation of the maxim "You cannot prove a negative" is not "All negatives can be proven" but "At least one negative can be proven" or, to mirror the maxim more closely, "You can prove a negative." The existence of one (or more) unprovable negatives does not render my position untenable. One single counter-example destroys the claim that "No negatives can be proven", but no single example establishes it. 

Sorry we had our oldest grandsons this week, who are in advanced schools for the gifted, which includes the study of logic and are both on debate teams. I have learned that I am no match for them!!! LOL


----------



## donny1963 (Jun 8, 2018)

Larger sensors DO NOT GATHER MORE LIGHT.. 
if that was true the light meters would have to have a setting to account for large sensors vs small sensors, there is no such setting why? because The sensor size has nothing to do with how much light you get in your image, NONE!!!!
You can keep thinking that but you would be wrong..






Ysarex said:


> donny1963 said:
> 
> 
> > first all let me stress that Exposure is : per unit area, a crop sensor camera gets the same amount of light then a full frame camera does..
> ...


----------



## donny1963 (Jun 8, 2018)

that's total BS,   The state of RI is receiving the same amount of light as the state of NY is.
each per unit area gets the same amount of light,  weather the sensor is med format large or crop the same amount of light his them sensors, no more no less..




The total unit area of New York is 141,300 square km. The total unit are of Rhode Island is 3,144 square km. Exposure is measured in lux seconds (per unit area). If 3 lux seconds per square km of exposure falls on both New York and Rhode Island then New York will receive a total exposure of 423,900 lux seconds and Rhode Island will receive a total exposure of 9,432 lux seconds.

3 = 3.
423,900 != 9,432.

The significance of those two equations I'm sure the OP will now lucidly explain in photographic terms.



donny1963 said:


> also some say that, Bigger sensors require less resolving power of the lenses to be sharper.
> 
> Actually it's just the opposite..
> every lens crops out a circle of light, if you use a full frame lens on a crop sensor, the crop sensor is using the center of the full frame lens, which is always the best part of that lens,
> ...



You're right! That's not true because people don't always think full frame gives you more light than smaller sensors. OMG! They never did!

People do know that a larger sensor gathers more *total light* than a smaller sensor which is a different think altogether.

Joe



donny1963 said:


> Donny


[/QUOTE]


----------



## smoke665 (Jun 8, 2018)

donny1963 said:


> Larger sensors DO NOT GATHER MORE LIGHT..
> if that was true the light meters would have to have a setting to account for large sensors vs small sensors, t



Lost me on the direction you're taking with your argument. Your original question was  "Ok so who out there Believes that a Full Frame Camera, gathers more light then a crop sensor camera?
Or Who believes that a larger sensor gathers more then vs a smaller sensor??".  It appears that no one including yourself believes that so where are you going with this?


----------



## donny1963 (Jun 8, 2018)

smoke665 said:


> donny1963 said:
> 
> 
> > Larger sensors DO NOT GATHER MORE LIGHT..
> ...



was making a statement to those who think just because you got a bigger sensor your getting more light. 
Donny


----------



## Ysarex (Jun 8, 2018)

donny1963 said:


> Larger sensors DO NOT GATHER MORE LIGHT..
> if that was true the light meters would have to have a setting to account for large sensors vs small sensors, there is no such setting why? because The sensor size has nothing to do with how much light you get in your image, NONE!!!!
> You can keep thinking that but you would be wrong..



I specifically said this: "_a larger sensor gathers more *total light* than a smaller sensor._" My words are chosen carefully. I did not say what you screamed.

By your definition which amazingly is correct, "Exposure is : per unit area." Let's get that complete: "In photography, *exposure* is the amount of light per unit area (the image plane illuminance times the exposure time) reaching a photographic film or electronic image sensor, as determined by shutter speed, lens aperture and scene luminance."

An FX sensor is: 36mm X 24mm = 864mm square. A DX sensor is 23.6mm X 15.6mm = 368mm sqaure.

Expose both sensors to 3 lux sec. per unit area.
Therefore *total light* gathered by the FX sensor is 3 X 864 = 2,592 total lux sec.
and the *total light* gathered by the DX sensor is 3 X 368 = 1,104 total lux sec.

3 = 3.
2592 > 1,104.

Both sensors were exposed to the same light intensity per unit area 3 = 3.
The Fx sensor gathered more *total light* 2592 > 1,104.

I suspect you're having some difficulty with the simple concept that the same intensity spread over a larger area produces a larger volume. Consider this: Place a 12 x 12 inch cookie pan and a 16 x 16 inch cookie pan together out in the rain. Allow them to both collect 1 inch of rainfall. Then pour the water from each into separate containers. Will you have the same volume of water from both or more water from the 16 x 16 inch pan?

If you disagree at all with the above you must present the math that proves otherwise.

Joe



Ysarex said:


> donny1963 said:
> 
> 
> > first all let me stress that Exposure is : per unit area, a crop sensor camera gets the same amount of light then a full frame camera does..
> ...


----------



## KmH (Jun 8, 2018)

Oh No! Math?


----------



## Gary A. (Jun 8, 2018)

I believe a full frame gathers more total light than an APS-C sensor. When in use, a FF also gathers no moss.


----------



## Ysarex (Jun 8, 2018)

donny1963 said:


> Larger sensors DO NOT GATHER MORE LIGHT..



The problem is that you don't understand what this means and why it matters. You, like the idiot blogger I suspect you've been reading or watching, have confused the intensity of exposure with this different concept of *total light* gathered. That would explain the silly light meter comment.



donny1963 said:


> if that was true the light meters would have to have a setting to account for large sensors vs small sensors, there is no such setting why?



Because you're confused. Intensity of exposure and total light gathered are two different things. You're failing to recognize that.



donny1963 said:


> because The sensor size has nothing to do with how much light you get in your image, NONE!!!!
> You can keep thinking that but you would be wrong..



The analogy I made in my previous post should help you understand if you think about it. Two cookie pans -- one is 12 x 12 inches and the other is 16 x 16 inches. Put them both outside in the rain. The rainfall amount is the exposure intensity. Both pans will receive the same exposure intensity -- 1 inch of rainfall (note: light meter and rain gauge work for both!) The water in each pan will be one inch deep. This is equivalent to the exposure of the camera sensor and it's the same for both. But you also can't argue that the 16 x 16 inch pan will not have more total water in it. This is not equivalent to the exposure of the camera sensor as you're thinking about it.

Total light gathered is a concept that matters to digital camera sensors and what it basically tells us is that a sensor that gathers more total light will produce an image that is less noisy than a sensor that gathers less total light at the same exposure.

Joe


----------



## smoke665 (Jun 8, 2018)

Gary A. said:


> When in use, a FF also gathers no moss.



No that's stone, but a FF does make you a "professional" if you use the "P" mode. LOL


----------



## astroNikon (Jun 8, 2018)

Ysarex said:


> The analogy I made in my previous post should help you understand if you think about it. Two cookie pans -- one is 12 x 12 inches and the other is 16 x 16 inches. Put them both outside in the rain. The rainfall amount is the exposure intensity. Both pans will receive the same exposure intensity -- 1 inch of rainfall ...


I don't understand.  That only makes my cookies soggy and icky !!


----------



## 480sparky (Jun 8, 2018)

Braineack said:


> people always thing a lot of things.





donny1963 said:


> .............. which is a different think altogether.



I'm confused.

Are we thinging about thinks, or thinking about things?

Or thinging about things?


Or thinking about thinks?


----------



## astroNikon (Jun 8, 2018)

480sparky said:


> Braineack said:
> 
> 
> > people always thing a lot of things.
> ...


yeah, who woulda' thought about how those things think ?


----------



## astroNikon (Jun 8, 2018)

btw, does the OP own a FF and a Crop camera of the same generation at this very moment.  Does the OP do any low light photography ?


----------



## smoke665 (Jun 8, 2018)

From the OP's original post it appears it was a rhetorical question, that has morphed into a scattered thread, as I'm always interested in the more technical aspects, my personal feeling is  that it would be better if the OP were to open another thread on a more specific point. 


donny1963 said:


> was making a statement to those who think just because you got a bigger sensor your getting more light


----------



## BananaRepublic (Jun 9, 2018)

KmH said:


> Oh No! Math?



Its maths short for mathematics. Im not picking on you I just wanted to crowbar something into this thread.


----------



## donny1963 (Jun 9, 2018)

Exposure doesn't work that way, it's not like a window in a room if you open the shades wider you get more light..
one corner of the sensor has nothing to do with another part of the sensor..
the same amount of light hits all sensors, sensors do not pull light into itself, the light hits the sensor when it's directed to it from the image circle of the lens.

if you lay both a full frame camera and crop sensor on it's back and have the  aperture set the same on each lens and bot camera's are facing the same sky with the mirror open,
The same amount of light is reaching each sensor in terms of exposure.
just because the sensor is bigger on the full frame doesn't mean that the exposure is going to be greater then the crop sensor camera..
Donny




YOU SAID: I suspect you're having some difficulty with the simple concept that the same intensity spread over a larger area produces a larger volume. Consider this: Place a 12 x 12 inch cookie pan and a 16 x 16 inch cookie pan together out in the rain. Allow them to both collect 1 inch of rainfall. Then pour the water from each into separate containers. Will you have the same volume of water from both or more water from the 16 x 16 inch pan?

If you disagree at all with the above you must present the math that proves otherwise.

Joe


----------



## BananaRepublic (Jun 9, 2018)

donny1963 said:


> If you disagree at all with the above you must present the math that proves otherwise.
> 
> Joe



Its Maths as in the science of numbers PLURAL


----------



## donny1963 (Jun 9, 2018)

astroNikon said:


> btw, does the OP own a FF and a Crop camera of the same generation at this very moment.  Does the OP do any low light photography ?



I got a Nikon D810 and done plenty of night photography.
I know how a full frame works vs APSC..

Also work with video, and sense i brought up video, i have learned that when you go buy a lens for a DSLR camera like a Nikon 70-200 F2.8
i have learned that these lenses are false as far as the F-stops spec's on alot of these lenses.
for example the 70-200 f2.8 aperture, measurement is incorrect it's not really F2.8 it's more like F3,2 or something similar.
you see light going through the lens is measured in T-stops, T-stops is more accurate, with video lenses they measure that and label it in T-stops,
and if they put a label on that 7-200 F2.8 with the T-Stops it would really be a higher number then F2.8
Wish lens manufacture's would label the DSLR lenses with T-stops because they re miss-leading people thinking they are getting one F-Stop when it's really another.

Donny


----------



## Ysarex (Jun 9, 2018)

donny1963 said:


> Exposure doesn't work that way, it's not like a window in a room if you open the shades wider you get more light..
> one corner of the sensor has nothing to do with another part of the sensor..
> the same amount of light hits all sensors, sensors do not pull light into itself, the light hits the sensor when it's directed to it from the image circle of the lens.



You are still confusing exposure and total light gathered.  Until you can get past that misunderstanding you're going to stay confused. Total light gathered is not the same as photographic exposure. Two cameras can both receive the same photographic exposure and at the same time gather different amounts of total light (different size sensors). From my very first response I started to make that point for you:

_3 = 3.
423,900 != 9,432._

and then again in a follow up response:

_3 = 3.
2592 > 1,104._

You see the 3 = 3 in both cases? 3 is the same as 3 -- that's your photographic exposure. The other figures are different because they represent *total light gathered*.



donny1963 said:


> if you lay both a full frame camera and crop sensor on it's back and have the  aperture set the same on each lens and bot camera's are facing the same sky with the mirror open,
> The same amount of light is reaching each sensor in terms of exposure.



That is correct. The intensity of exposure would be the same for both. Now don't confuse that with *total light gathered* and you'll be OK. When people talk about *total light gathered* they are not confused and do not believe that the two different sized cameras are receiving different photographic exposures. Of course they're not. But if the sensors are different in size then the larger sensor will gather more total light just like the cookie pans in the rain where the larger pan gathers more water even though both experienced 1 inch of rainfall. *You're confusing 1 inch of rainfall with how much water is collected in each pan. Go back and read the cookie pan analogy: you quoted it below. The 1 inch of rainfall represents "exposure" as you're using the term. That is not how much water is collected.*

You started this whole thing off with that fundamental misunderstanding. Total light gathered is not photographic exposure. You're still making that same mistake in this post.



donny1963 said:


> just because the sensor is bigger on the full frame doesn't mean that the exposure is going to be greater then the crop sensor camera..



No one who understands what *total light gathered* means or why it's worth knowing would claim that. We're not confusing the two concepts, you are.

Joe



donny1963 said:


> Donny
> 
> 
> YOU SAID: I suspect you're having some difficulty with the simple concept that the same intensity spread over a larger area produces a larger volume. Consider this: Place a 12 x 12 inch cookie pan and a 16 x 16 inch cookie pan together out in the rain. Allow them to both collect 1 inch of rainfall. Then pour the water from each into separate containers. Will you have the same volume of water from both or more water from the 16 x 16 inch pan?
> ...


----------



## limr (Jun 9, 2018)

BananaRepublic said:


> donny1963 said:
> 
> 
> > If you disagree at all with the above you must present the math that proves otherwise.
> ...



Oh enough already. Brits say maths. Americans say math. Get over it.


----------



## KmH (Jun 9, 2018)

If you don't feed a troll it goes elsewhere for sustenance!


----------



## donny1963 (Jun 9, 2018)

No I think you're the one that is confused.
Sensors do not gather more white regardless of its size just because it's bigger.
In terms of how much light hits the sensor the sensor really has nothing to do with it the amount of light that hits the sensor is determined by how much light the lens allows onto the sensor.
The only way for the sensor to get more white is to turn up the lights on the subject that the sensor is recording.
If you have two giant boxes in a football field one of them 20 ft by 20 ft and the other one 10ft by 10ft and you have nothing in its path no trees or anything like that the amount of light that hits those two boxes will be the same regardless of how biger the box is.
The only way for those two boxes to receive more light as for the sun to shine brighter
 same thing with the senses no matter how big the senses are the same amount of light will be projected On Any Given sensor determining how much light is allowed through the lens.
It's just like exposure and ISO people think that is oh is connected to exposure it really isn't if you turn up the iso dial on a camera from 100 to 3200 the same amount of white is going to hit the sensor the only reason I underexpose picture would be more exposed turning up the ISO is because you're applying the gain  which is the signal from the sensor to the computer in the camera that's why you get noise when you go to a higher number turning up the iso dial does not increase the amount of light that comes into the lens on the sensor.
The same amount of light shines down on the sensor regardless if you're at 100 ISO or at 2 million ISO it doesn't matter





Ysarex said:


> donny1963 said:
> 
> 
> > Exposure doesn't work that way, it's not like a window in a room if you open the shades wider you get more light..
> ...





Ysarex said:


> donny1963 said:
> 
> 
> > Exposure doesn't work that way, it's not like a window in a room if you open the shades wider you get more light..
> ...


----------



## Overread (Jun 9, 2018)

Donny I'm, not honestly even sure what the point of this thread is nor what is being argued here.

You keep mixing up the total amount of light with the level of exposure of light across the sensor.


Lets try this. Forget cameras and think solar cells.
Think of two solar cells, one larger and one smaller. If exposed to the same amount of light over the same period of time with no interruption in the light then its clear that even though the exposure of light levels is identical, the larger solar cell will have had more area to gather that exposure over. Ergo it will have collected and generated more energy than the smaller solar cell.


A camera sensor is the very same; a larger sensor will have gathered more light than a smaller sensor.

HOWEVER With a camera we are not comparing the total amount of light energy, but the exposure. And yes you are correct, it doesn't matter about the size of a sensor (all other things being equal). The exposure over time will be the same; which is why external light meters work regardless of sensor size.
I don't think anyone here has argued against that. Indeed all we have here for 3 pages is a pedantic argument/debate on the terminology which is further confused by the flip-flop between casual and scientific terminology.


----------



## Ysarex (Jun 9, 2018)

donny1963 said:


> No I think you're the one that is confused.
> Sensors do not gather more white regardless of its size just because it's bigger.
> In terms of how much light hits the sensor the sensor really has nothing to do with it the amount of light that hits the sensor is determined by how much light the lens allows onto the sensor.
> The only way for the sensor to get more white is to turn up the lights on the subject that the sensor is recording.
> If you have two giant boxes in a football field one of them 20 ft by 20 ft and the other one 10ft by 10ft and you have nothing in its path no trees or anything like that the amount of light that hits those two boxes will be the same regardless of how biger the box is.



OK, let's use your boxes in the football field. They're being exposed to light. Light is made up of photons. We can count photons. In fact that's what a digital camera sensor does -- it counts photons.

Just to make the math easier let's say 100 photons per square foot per second are falling on your two boxes. How many photons will the 20 ft X 20 ft box count and how many photons will the 10 ft x 10 ft box count in a one second exposure? Do that math unless you need me to do it for you. Will both boxes count the same number of photons? Yes or no?

If you're going to claim yes then please show your work -- let's see the math.

*You continue to confuse exposure with total light gathered.* Here's a link to the definitive reference on this issue: Joseph James Photography article on equivalence. I've linked to the appropriate page in the article for you where you can see that he correctly defines total light as: "Total Light = Exposure · Effective Sensor Area." In other words he's saying you're confused.

Another repetition of your rambling is worthless without both the math for your football field boxes shown and some appropriate references that support your claim.



donny1963 said:


> The only way for those two boxes to receive more light as for the sun to shine brighter
> same thing with the senses no matter how big the senses are the same amount of light will be projected On Any Given sensor determining how much light is allowed through the lens.



The below about ISO is unrelated and only serves to cause greater confusion -- we're not talking about ISO and you probably shouldn't.

Joe



donny1963 said:


> It's just like exposure and ISO people think that is oh is connected to exposure it really isn't if you turn up the iso dial on a camera from 100 to 3200 the same amount of white is going to hit the sensor the only reason I underexpose picture would be more exposed turning up the ISO is because you're applying the gain  which is the signal from the sensor to the computer in the camera that's why you get noise when you go to a higher number turning up the iso dial does not increase the amount of light that comes into the lens on the sensor.
> The same amount of light shines down on the sensor regardless if you're at 100 ISO or at 2 million ISO it doesn't matter
> 
> 
> ...


----------



## BananaRepublic (Jun 10, 2018)

limr said:


> Oh enough already. Brits say maths. Americans say math. Get over it.



Actualy Im Irish, I realise it may not seem much different to Americans but after 800 hundred years of colonisation we can tell see the difference.

That said English is English no matter which way you look at it.


----------



## limr (Jun 10, 2018)

BananaRepublic said:


> limr said:
> 
> 
> > Oh enough already. Brits say maths. Americans say math. Get over it.
> ...



I know the difference between the Brits and the Irish, but my apologies for not knowing that you are Irish. The point remains, however. You also say "maths" while Americans say "math." English has many different dialects and no one dialect is more correct than another. This thread is pointless enough as it is without someone introducing meaningless spats over language differences. Get.Over.It.


----------



## pixmedic (Jun 10, 2018)

if its not the Queen's English, it is not proper.


----------



## limr (Jun 10, 2018)

pixmedic said:


> if its not the Queen's English, it is not proper.



Oh, you hush!


----------



## Derrel (Jun 10, 2018)

Ysarex said:
			
		

> You are still confusing exposure and total light gathered.  Until you can get past that misunderstanding you're going to stay confused. Total light gathered is not the same as photographic exposure. Two cameras can both receive the same photographic exposure and at the same time gather different amounts of total light (different size sensors).



And yet, a few years ago, a well-respected web site, dPreview if I am not mistaken, published a long article proclaiming that a larger sensor "gathers more light" than a smaller sensor, and because of that, performs better in low light. The article gave the wrong impression to many,many people. The author of that article seemed to be confused about exposure, and total light gathered, but because his feeble thoughts were written down and had been published by a well-known web outlet, his thinking sort of came to be accepted by many. Yet another case of the internet being used to add credibility to half-baked thoughts.


----------



## Ysarex (Jun 10, 2018)

Derrel said:


> Ysarex said:
> 
> 
> 
> ...



Yes, and it remains a difficult and confusing topic with lots of bad info out there. It initially derives from the hashing out of the whole "equivalence" idea and gets taken to some pretty extreme ends that certainly get ridiculous. I was reluctant for that reason to post the link above to Joseph Jame's article. I've found plenty of reason myself in the past to rant on about some of that stuff including some presentations of this "total light" concept. Upon first introduction to the concept a photographer's knee jerk reaction is to think in terms of exposure and do exactly what's being done in this thread. Obviously a 35mm fujichrome in a 35mm camera and a 6X6 fujichrome in a 6X6 camera are going to get the same exposure for the same scene -- and by exposure that means same shutter speed and f/stop. It doesn't matter if the two film sizes are different, so what do you mean the 6X6 fujichrome is gathering more light, that's nonsense it get's the same exposure.

So where's this "total light" idea come from and why the bleep should anyone care?! It's an "equivalence" measurement of shot noise between digital sensors of different size. And frankly most of us shouldn't care very much if at all. It can be used as a technical way to explain the fact that larger sensor cameras perform better in low light than smaller sensor cameras and it allows for a quantization measurement of that phenomena. Two days ago Smoke posted a photo from his new camera taken at ISO 819,200. I can use my new 1" sensor compact indoors at ISO 3200 and get noiseless results. "Total light" then as a way to compare sensor noise performance over size is pretty bleepin' esoteric -- but that's what it is.

If we can just identify it for what it is we can leave it alone.

Joe


----------



## Derrel (Jun 10, 2018)

Here's where the bullspit originated from.... and yes, it was dPreview and Richard Butler. What is equivalence and why should I care?

RE your comment, "I_f we can just identify it for what it is we can leave it alone_."

You mean like a teenager with a big pimple on his nose? The one he cannot leave alone? This idea is like that big-pimple-on-teenager's-nose. Even though identified for what it is, it can not simply be left alone.


----------



## BananaRepublic (Jun 10, 2018)

limr said:


> BananaRepublic said:
> 
> 
> > limr said:
> ...



Don't get me started on aluminium


----------



## tirediron (Jun 10, 2018)

BananaRepublic said:


> Don't get me started on aluminium


How are you on alyoominnyum?


----------



## BananaRepublic (Jun 10, 2018)

tirediron said:


> BananaRepublic said:
> 
> 
> > Don't get me started on aluminium
> ...



phonetically I would say it sort of like: al - you - min - yum, where as state side it sounds like: a - loo - min - um.


----------



## ClickAddict (Jun 11, 2018)

Ok.  To use your logic......  if you place a small sensor and large sensor on the table facing up, they both get the same amount of light......

you are missing a key point....

Imagine the two sensors side by side. Take a pencil and draw the edge of the large sensor onto the table.  Now swap them places putting the small sensor in the spot outlined by the large sensor....

You following?

Now you are correct the large sensor and the OUTLINE of the large sensor will get the same amount of total light.  but the small sensor in that outline is missing some of it as it is hitting the table... not the sensor.


----------



## astroNikon (Jun 11, 2018)

pixmedic said:


> if its not the Queen's English, it is not proper.


That makes no sense what so ever !!





Just like this thread ...


----------



## Ysarex (Jun 11, 2018)

Derrel said:


> Here's where the bullspit originated from.... and yes, it was dPreview and Richard Butler. What is equivalence and why should I care?
> 
> RE your comment, "I_f we can just identify it for what it is we can leave it alone_."
> 
> You mean like a teenager with a big pimple on his nose? The one he cannot leave alone? This idea is like that big-pimple-on-teenager's-nose. Even though identified for what it is, it can not simply be left alone.



That article is a perfect example of taking the equivalence idea way past the point of any pragmatic application and it's silly since the whole point get's lost when he shrugs off the variations that he was bound to get by comparing different brand/manufactured sensors.

We all know we get better low-light noise performance from larger sensors and we can say that one reason for that is because the larger sensors are larger -- but there are additional complicating factors.

Joe


----------



## BananaRepublic (Jun 11, 2018)

I opened the equivalents link read the first paragraph and then thought to myself why am I reading this trash. Some times reviewers use jargon and long words like marmalade and dodecahedron to make it sound like the sky is falling when in actual fact they are just hacks looking to push their product.

Just point the thing at the thing and take a picture; yes knowledge is power but at the same time a little knowledge can be a dangerous thing. You dont have to worry about the getting round pegs into square wholes thats for manufactures to worry about.


----------



## BananaRepublic (Jun 11, 2018)

astroNikon said:


> pixmedic said:
> 
> 
> > if its not the Queen's English, it is not proper.
> ...



Isnt that guy dead anyway


----------



## Ballistics (Jun 11, 2018)

4 pages in and no one has said it...

Who cares? What difference does knowing this or not knowing this effect anything in anyway shape or form?


----------



## pez (Jun 11, 2018)

My phone cam sucks in photons like a black hole.


----------



## limr (Jun 11, 2018)

Ballistics said:


> 4 pages in and no one has said it...
> 
> Who cares? What difference does knowing this or not knowing this effect anything in anyway shape or form?



Don't know about anyone else, but I didn't care enough to say I didn't care.


----------



## MartinCrabtree (Jun 11, 2018)

If size didn't matter would a solar cell the size of a dime would power a city?


----------



## 480sparky (Jun 11, 2018)

Here's a better idea:

Take your camera, regardless of sensor size, and just go out and shoot something.


----------



## zombiesniper (Jun 11, 2018)

480sparky said:


> Take your camera, regardless of sensor size, and just go out and shoot something.


It's much more appropriate to show your photographic prowess with a keyboard than a camera......or so it would seem some days.

Edit: Crap I promised myself I'd stay out of this thread and got suckered in by @480sparky. Dagnabbit!


----------



## limr (Jun 11, 2018)

zombiesniper said:


> 480sparky said:
> 
> 
> > Take your camera, regardless of sensor size, and just go out and shoot something.
> ...


----------



## BananaRepublic (Jun 12, 2018)

Ballistics said:


> 4 pages in and no one has said it...
> 
> Who cares? What difference does knowing this or not knowing this effect anything in anyway shape or form?



Actually I said it


----------



## 480sparky (Jun 12, 2018)

Silly me, but here's my take on it:

If larger sensors 'gather more light', why is it they produce the same exposure as smaller sensors when the three settings of aperture, shutter speed and ISO are the same on both cameras?  If there's a 'crop factor' for focal length equivalences, then there would be a corresponding 'exposure factor' between the two formats.

Full-frame:  ISO 200, 1/60 sec, f/8 would require ISO 250, 1/30 sec f/5.6 for a crop.  But since any triad produces identical exposures for both (given the same scene), then I guess 'full-frame gathers more light' doesn't stand up.


----------



## Braineack (Jun 12, 2018)

480sparky said:


> Silly me, but here's my take on it:
> 
> If larger sensors 'gather more light', why is it they produce the same exposure as smaller sensors when the three settings of aperture, shutter speed and ISO are the same on both cameras?  If there's a 'crop factor' for focal length equivalences, then there would be a corresponding 'exposure factor' between the two formats.
> 
> Full-frame:  ISO 200, 1/60 sec, f/8 would require ISO 250, 1/30 sec f/5.6 for a crop.  But since any triad produces identical exposures for both (given the same scene), then I guess 'full-frame gathers more light' doesn't stand up.



which is correct.

but..................


cover your entire body with SPF50 suntan lotion except for a micro 4/3 sensor sized patch and a 35mm patch.

expose them for the same amount of time in direct sunlight.   Which patch is going to piss you off more the next day?

Think about it you've exposed* two different sized areas *with the same amount of light, so it's kinda hard for the larger sensor not to gather more -- there's more area of coverage, so more light is captured.

Or I liked the sheet pan analogy before.

let's say it takes 1 cup of water to fill an 8x8" baking dish with 1/4" of water.

if you pour 1 cup of water in a 13x9" baking dish, can you still measure 1/4" of water?

If 1/4" of water is the equal exposure, then the larger pan/sensor needs more water/light in order to achieve the same exposure.



I'm still in the "who cares" crowd however.


----------



## mrca (Jun 12, 2018)

Two comments.  I think it was Shaw that said England and that could include Ireland are 2 countries separated by a common language.  Second is I too started to write a post pages ago indicating who cares.   I care about my and your images, not semantics.


----------



## 480sparky (Jun 12, 2018)

Braineack said:


> 480sparky said:
> 
> 
> > Silly me, but here's my take on it:
> ...



So a rock band is louder when they play to 100,000 people as opposed to just 1,00 pairs of ears?


----------



## john.margetts (Jun 12, 2018)

480sparky said:


> So a rock band is louder when they play to 100,000 people as opposed to just 1,00 pairs of ears?



Yes!  Louder measured in decibels at the loudspeakers. If they were not, either the 1000 people would have their eardrums turned to jelly or the 100,000 people would be unable to hear them. But the user experience is likely to be much the same.

Sent from my 8070 using Tapatalk


----------



## ClickAddict (Jun 12, 2018)

Given all other identical settings, imagine your small sensor produces an image the same size as the larger one but with black border all around it (where it missed the light captured by the larger sensor.)  End result you have the same image but more light on the larger one as the small one is full of black border.  (Over simplification but simply trying to give another way for people who are confusion RATES vs QUANTITY)


----------



## Braineack (Jun 12, 2018)

480sparky said:


> So a rock band is louder when they play to 100,000 people as opposed to just 1,00 pairs of ears?



The question here isn't "are they louder?"  the question is: was more sound collected?


if sound is a unit of 1.   the same exposure of sound to both audiences got a total collection of 1,000 sound units vs 100,000 sound units.  but both audiences heard the same thing.


again, is a pretty useless thing here...


----------



## smoke665 (Jun 12, 2018)

So far in this thread I've learned that

 DO NOT EAT THE COOKIES  @Ysarex and @Braineack house, because you never know where the cookie pans have been.
Europeans have a different abbreviation of mathematics, and @BananRepublic is Irish.
Not everything you read on the internet is true (I'll admit I kind of already believed that one)
Supposedly @Braineack has two really red patches of sunburn somewhere on his body.
And lastly don't go to a rock concert and sit up front (might be why I have hearing problems today).
As to the OP I still haven't learned anything that I didn't already know.


----------



## Braineack (Jun 12, 2018)

I learned that all solar panels are equal, but dime-sized ones are more equal than others.


----------



## Fujidave (Jun 12, 2018)

I have had great fun reading through this post a laugh through some of it.  A camera is a tool for folk to use whether its a crop or not, I have seen some fantastic shots taken with just a point and shoot so to me I think it is the person behind the camera that does all the work.


----------



## jcdeboever (Jun 12, 2018)

It's not the size of the sensor but how you use it.


----------



## smoke665 (Jun 12, 2018)

jcdeboever said:


> It's not the size of the sensor but how you use it.



Even small clowns can work the big top.


----------



## TCampbell (Jun 12, 2018)

Wow... that was a LONG thread.  

Put simply...  if I use a hand-held light meter... it doesn’t ask me which lens I’m using or what sensor size my camera has before it can display exposure settings.  ...and there’s a good reason for that.  ;-)


----------



## Ysarex (Jun 13, 2018)

TCampbell said:


> Wow... that was a LONG thread.
> 
> Put simply...  if I use a hand-held light meter... it doesn’t ask me which lens I’m using or what sensor size my camera has before it can display exposure settings.  ...and there’s a good reason for that.  ;-)



But the original topic of the thread is total light gathered by the sensor. Why bring up photographic exposure? You're not actually getting the two confused are you?

Joe


----------



## BananaRepublic (Jun 13, 2018)

Braineack said:


> 480sparky said:
> 
> 
> > Silly me, but here's my take on it:
> ...




Logic has no place in this arena and I have to ask you to leave


----------



## Tim Tucker 2 (Jun 13, 2018)

I think @Ysarex summed it up well here:



Ysarex said:


> It's an "equivalence" measurement of shot noise between digital sensors of different size. And frankly most of us shouldn't care very much if at all. It can be used as a technical way to explain the fact that larger sensor cameras perform better in low light than smaller sensor cameras



But cameras aren't equivalent so I don't see the point of trying to take the same photos with all of them.  ;-)

Also, what's not clear is that if you use two different sized sensors to take the same photo, (i.e. same FOV) then to achieve the same exposure ISO, shutter speed and _f_-stop are the same. But in the smaller sensor with the wider angle lens the actual aperture diameter in mm is smaller letting in less light. It has to be this way because if you concentrate the same point light, such as the sun, and focus it on a smaller area the light intensity increases. If you use the same lens at the same _f_-stop then the sensor captures less of the image, (FOV) and again less of the light. To maintain exposure on a smaller sensor you must decrease the total amount of light to maintain intensity per sq mm, hence the increased noise.

All *equivalence* does is dictate that certain parameters should be held constant so that the total amount of light is always the same, but then you find that exposure must vary between sensor size to maintain this condition.

I did the experiment with the dishes in the rain, but I could only find the dog's dishes and it hasn't rained, so I used and inch of dog food. The results were inconclusive other than the dogs went to sleep after.  ;-)


----------



## Gary A. (Jun 13, 2018)

Let sleeping dogs lie.


----------



## Braineack (Jun 13, 2018)

icwatudidthar


----------



## astroNikon (Jun 13, 2018)

... and I thought this thread was about soggy cookies.

I'll have to pay more attention next time when I'm not baking.


----------



## EJA64 (Sep 5, 2018)

donny1963 said:


> Ok so who out there Believes that a Full Frame Camera, gathers more light then a crop sensor camera?
> Or Who believes that a larger sensor gathers more then vs a smaller sensor??



I'd guess that-from aps-c / aps-h to FF, it is about the same. More, but smaller, sites on one sensor probably do as well as do the fewer, but larger, photo sites on the other sensor. When comparing m4/3, or 'one inch', or smaller, to FF, I'd guess that the number of photo sites is great enough that FF probably gathers more total light. Still, you can get good images from just about any sized sensor. Does it matter which sensor does what, light wise, as long as it does enough to get you a good image?


----------



## mrca (Sep 5, 2018)

You know what makes a real difference in your photography?  Not a sensor, not a camera, your mastery of the craft.  I have gotten perfect scores on an image taken with an 8 mp d200 and one of Ken Rockwell's 10 worst nikon lenses of all time.    All this hand wringing over minute differences is meaningless when most images have no message or meaning combined with crummy light and bad composition.


----------



## petrochemist (Sep 6, 2018)

For photographic exposure photons per unit area is what matters.
Larger sensors NEED more photons in total than smaller sensors - yet everyone claims they are better in low light!


----------



## greybeard (Sep 6, 2018)

Yes, I believe it.


----------



## Solarflare (Oct 4, 2018)

Err, yes. Larger sensors collect more light in total. Obviously. Because for a given exposure the same amount of light per area shines on a larger area. Duh.

More importantly larger sensor usually leads to larger pixels. Larger pixels means they collect more light in total, again at the same exposure. More light in total results in better signal to noise which is why the output of larger sensors has less noise, more dynamic range, etc. Also larger pixels produced at the same resolution means less loss and better efficiency.

So assuming we use the smaller and the larger sensor to produce the same image, the image of the larger sensor will be from a larger amount of light and will have a better signal to noise, i.e. less noise, more dynamic range, better color resolution (aka bit depth), and more reserves for high ISO. Of course assuming both sensors have the same level of technology, however the advantage of having a twice as large sensor is pretty steep advantage compared to the rather slow progress in sensor technology we had recently.

Also the image from the larger sensor will have less depth of field, which depending upon subject might be desireable or not so much.

As to the "its the same exposure" - yes, but so what ? Thats of no practical consequence. The larger sensor still performs better.

So ... why are we discussing this ?





greybeard said:


> Yes, I believe it.



You've seen the light ! SCNR


----------



## Gary A. (Oct 4, 2018)

mrca said:


> You know what makes a real difference in your photography?  Not a sensor, not a camera, your mastery of the craft.  I have gotten perfect scores on an image taken with an 8 mp d200 and one of Ken Rockwell's 10 worst nikon lenses of all time.    All this hand wringing over minute differences is meaningless when most images have no message or meaning combined with crummy light and bad composition.


This isn't entirely true ... as one's skill levels improves ... equipment becomes more important.  A pro level photog can consistency capture more exceptional images with top level hardware than the same pro level photog can capture with entry level hardware.


----------



## Dave442 (Oct 4, 2018)

I like the pan example, but would like to try adding to that example by putting a crop in each pan. If plant type and spacing is the same in both pans (similar to two sensors of equal design - only different size) then each plant only cares about how many inches (mm) of water reaches it, the individual plant doesn't care about the total amount of water applied over the whole area. 

Only the engineers care about making sure they can apply the total amount of water required, just like it is only the engineers that need to make sure the lens for the camera is capable of providing light coverage of the entire sensor area. 

So just like a larger pipe is required to carry the larger total amount of water to the larger pan, a larger lens is required to deliver the larger amount of total light to the larger sensor. 

However, in photography we run into wanting to capture the exact same image with two different size sensors. For example, our hand-held light meter gives a reading of 1/200th sec @ f/4 and we put that into both a FF and crop-sensor camera. The FF has the 50mm lens at f/4 and the crop-sensor has the 35mm at f/4. The only difference then is that for the same scene from the same distance the 50mm lens has a larger lens opening (50/4=12.5mm) than the crop-sensor (35/4=8.75mm).  So is the extra light required to cover the FF sensor coming from the larger opening in the lens or is there something else going on that I am missing?


----------



## greybeard (Oct 4, 2018)

I  own a Nikon d7500, a Sony A6000, which are both crop frame and a full frame Nikon D750.  I can recover at least 2 stops more shadow detail with the D750 than the D7500 and about 3 stops more than the A6000.   Does this mean that the full frame gathers more light?


----------



## Braineack (Oct 4, 2018)

greybeard said:


> Does this mean that the full frame gathers more light?



Yes.

*5.9µm *vs. *4.2 µm *vs. *3.92µm*


----------



## OldManJim (Oct 4, 2018)

Try this experiment. Get 2 buckets, one larger than the other. Place them side by side in a rain storm for a the same amount of time. Measure the amount of water in each.


----------



## Solarflare (Oct 12, 2018)

OldManJim said:


> Try this experiment. Get 2 buckets, one larger than the other. Place them side by side in a rain storm for a the same amount of time. Measure the amount of water in each.



And then measure the water each of them got. The ones with the bigger diameter ... had collected more water.

Now realize that the circuit after the bucket will add a random amount of water, which we call noise. Its the same random amount. The bucket that had more water total will have thus less noise, because the larger amount of water is less changed by percentage from the same amount of noise.

For the same exposure the larger sensor will collect more light, simply because exposure is light per area and the larger sensor has more area.

Likewise the pixels on the larger sensor are likely to be larger, thus we will see better data from the larger sensor. What needs to be understood is that every pixel, no matter which size, runs through the same amplifier which has the same level of noise added. So if a pixel holds more charge the relative amount of noise will be less.


----------



## dunfly (Oct 13, 2018)

There are only two things that determine how much light is gathered by any camera, aperture and shutter speed.  It doesn't matter the size of the "bucket" the light falls in, the amount of light is the same.


----------



## Ysarex (Oct 13, 2018)

dunfly said:


> There are only two things that determine how much light is gathered by any camera, aperture and shutter speed.  It doesn't matter the size of the "bucket" the light falls in, the amount of light is the same.



You're confusing exposure with the topic of the thread which was total light -- see link:

So Who Believes that Full Frame Camera's Gather More Light Then APSC


----------



## Dave442 (Oct 13, 2018)

Ysarex said:


> donny1963 said:
> 
> 
> > ......
> ...



After going back over this link about equivalence it is pointed out that the aperture diameter is intimately related to the total light that lands on the sensor. Then he shows that an ASPC camera can receive the same amount of light on the sensor as a FF camera by opening the aperture (in the example with 50mm lens on FF and 35mm on ASPC for same FOV as same distance). This then gives the same Total Light on the sensor as the FF camera, but by then dropping the ISO on the ASPC camera the two images end up having the same brightness when processed by the camera.


----------



## Derrel (Oct 13, 2018)

Not to derail this thread, but I'm looking for an iPhone app that will help me calculate the value percentage of the of China's tea industry as a separate part of the Chinese mainland's annual Gross Domestic Product. Any leads on a good app for that?

As far as this "total light" concept...it's amazing how at times, something nonsensical gets posted on a popular web site, or on YouTube, and it generates huge buzz, and despite inaccuracy, or utter B.S. reasoning, there is created a huge wave of misunderstanding,and the error is repeated over and over and over, and in that way, nonsense becomes "accepted fact". The idea of total light somehow being something to crow about, and forgetting that exposure is about Intensity X Duration at a given aperture value....ahh...sheesh....nevermind.


----------



## n614cd (Oct 13, 2018)

I always thought it was about pixels.
If you a 35mm with the 20 mega pixel crop sensor and compare it to a 50mm with a 20 mega pixel full frame. The images and resolutions will be identified. 

Or am I missing something? 

Tim

Sent from my SM-J737T using Tapatalk


----------



## greybeard (Oct 13, 2018)

n614cd said:


> I always thought it was about pixels.
> If you a 35mm with the 20 mega pixel crop sensor and compare it to a 50mm with a 20 mega pixel full frame. The images and resolutions will be identified.
> 
> Or am I missing something?
> ...


Yes and no.  A 20 mp FF file and a 20mp APS-C file should be roughly the same size and contain the same amount of information.  Because the APS-C is sampling  a smaller image size the lens won't usually be able to resolve as many lines as the FX.  If you look at DxO lens testing, you will notice that FX lenses can resolve 25 to 30 MP where as APS-C lenses rarely resolve more than 14mp and in most cases it is like 6-10.  And, if you compare the resolution of the same FX lens on APS-C, it will usually show much lower lower resolution numbers.   There are darn few lenses on APS-C that can take advantage of the 21-24MP sensors on even entry level dSLR's


----------



## n614cd (Oct 13, 2018)

greybeard said:


> n614cd said:
> 
> 
> > I always thought it was about pixels.
> ...


Yes. If comparing like lenses. You will notice I compensated for lens in my example.

Tim

Sent from my SM-J737T using Tapatalk


----------



## JBPhotog (Oct 13, 2018)

donny1963 said:


> Actually it's just the opposite..
> every lens crops out a circle of light, if you use a full frame lens on a crop sensor, the crop sensor is using the center of the full frame lens, which is always the best part of that lens,
> 
> kind of cutting the crust off of your bread.
> ...



A rather simplistic deduction that contradicts many lens designs. Do you actually know the image circle of  a lens? Hint, it’s not the same for every focal length.


----------



## Trever1t (Oct 14, 2018)

sounds to me like a classic case of sensor envy.


----------



## greybeard (Oct 14, 2018)

If you think about it, the lens is what gathers the light and projects it onto a piece of film or sensor.  Film through the chemical process of development creates a analog negative of the image.  The sensor through multi-millions of pixels and the microprocessors they are connected too, creates a digital description of the image.


----------



## Solarflare (Oct 16, 2018)

greybeard said:


> Yes and no.  A 20 mp FF file and a 20mp APS-C file should be roughly the same size and contain the same amount of information.  Because the APS-C is sampling  a smaller image size the lens won't usually be able to resolve as many lines as the FX.  If you look at DxO lens testing, you will notice that FX lenses can resolve 25 to 30 MP where as APS-C lenses rarely resolve more than 14mp and in most cases it is like 6-10.  And, if you compare the resolution of the same FX lens on APS-C, it will usually show much lower lower resolution numbers.   There are darn few lenses on APS-C that can take advantage of the 21-24MP sensors on even entry level dSLR's


Nope.

DxO is not worth discussing. Bunch of ignorant technocrats who only look at their equipment and measurement results but never look at actual images. For example bitingly sharp lenses get called soft, soft lenses get called sharp, all because they are unable to even test something trivial as lens sharpness without doing every n00b error in the book. And thats sharpness, which is relatively easy to test.

And yes DX lenses are usually pretty poor. Thats because of how they are made - cheaply - not because theres something magic about full frame lenses thats suddenly gone with APS-C. Besides one can always use full frame lenses on APS-C sensors, anyway.

And no an APS-C sensor will not record the same information as a full frame sensor. Otherwise why would we bother buying bigger sensors ?

If you offer me a D4s with 16 megapixels and a D7200 with 24 megapixels as a constant free loan (so I cant sell either) I'll pick the D4s. Unless I need the smaller pixels.


----------



## Overread (Oct 16, 2018)

Solarflare said:


> Bunch of ignorant technocrats who only look at their equipment and measurement results but never look at actual images.



Actually that is a very GOOD thing. If they are testing and comparing multiple lenses against each other then having really boring dull test photos that are the same photo for every lens is far superior for comparison work. You don't need a pretty subject or interesting scene to compare sharpness, edge performance, curvature, edge softness, vignetting etc... Far far far easier to compare it on test shots taken of a test card.

Sample variation can be an issue, some lenses like the Canon 100-400mm original were famous for being quite wide in their variation. Some could be sharper through their entire range, some sharper at the short, some at the long and some soft all through - and all that on the same camera body (to say nothing of variation between camera bodies due to variations in calibration tolerances). So yes sometimes  lens they test might under or over perform, but that often gets flagged up and noted. Often good compare their results to viewpoints from places like Lens Rentals - Lens Rentals being a rental company and thus sees a bigger selection of the same lens pass through their hands far more so than many  review sites can afford to purchase for testing purposes.


----------



## greybeard (Oct 16, 2018)

Solarflare said:


> greybeard said:
> 
> 
> > Yes and no.  A 20 mp FF file and a 20mp APS-C file should be roughly the same size and contain the same amount of information.  Because the APS-C is sampling  a smaller image size the lens won't usually be able to resolve as many lines as the FX.  If you look at DxO lens testing, you will notice that FX lenses can resolve 25 to 30 MP where as APS-C lenses rarely resolve more than 14mp and in most cases it is like 6-10.  And, if you compare the resolution of the same FX lens on APS-C, it will usually show much lower lower resolution numbers.   There are darn few lenses on APS-C that can take advantage of the 21-24MP sensors on even entry level dSLR's
> ...


Unlike a lot of people, I actually have and use a DX (D7000 and now D7500) and a FF FX (D750) and I use FX lenses with my DX body all the time.  I also have and use several upper shelf DX lenses and their build quality is excellent.    I like DxO because they test and compare lenses on several different bodies and give us a read out of how a lens technically performs.  A FX lens will always have about half its' FF resolution on APS-C  and the reason is simple, the sensor is only recording the center portion of its' FF image.  Now, a high quality DX lens will only produce an image as large as the APS-C sensor and, its' resolution will be similar to the FX on APS-C but will be smaller and less expensive.


----------



## TreeofLifeStairs (Oct 16, 2018)

Overread said:


> Solarflare said:
> 
> 
> > Bunch of ignorant technocrats who only look at their equipment and measurement results but never look at actual images.
> ...



I agree. DxO, IMO, does a good job of taking as much subjectivity out of their tests as possible. This is good for technical comparisons, but there are many subjective nuances that lenses and cameras have that are not testable. These may be desirable or not. You just need to know what DxO is good for and what it’s not. 


Sent from my iPhone using ThePhotoForum.com mobile app


----------

