neuroanatomist said:

For example (not enumerating some parameters for the sake of simplicity), if you use an f/1.2 lens on FF then you would need an f/0.75 lens on APS-C to get DoF as shallow. Good luck finding that. OTOH, you can stop a lens on FF down by 1.3 stops to match the deeper DoF of APS-C.

Click to expand...

I'm not sure if it's true, but I had seen people say there is no decrease in depth of field after f/1 (only more light is available). If true, it's not only difficult to acquire such a lens, but the cropped images' depth of field can never replicate anything less than f1.6 of a larger image sensor.

However, I see crop fans saying things like "I don't care about depth of field," I suppose it's a legitimate stance, but I also see complaints about canon's narrow aperture lenses.

And these are from today. For the first one I have no idea: what it did resembles to me from at a firs glance was the Pleurotus eryngii from Europe - what I mean is the color and the impressed-fibrillate cap... Nothing else: it makes almost perfect ring in the grass (there is NO grass that will accommodate this mushroom on Hawaii! And P. eringii rarely does a ring - it grows solitary!) and very different attachment of the gills to the stem (+ several other differences!). Went to the Wikipedia to check at least the color of the cap (just for curiosity!) and was blown out by the images there: practically everything is artificially grown mushrooms and what is most disturbing some are arranged to look as growing in the nature!!! The photo in Wikipedia (some total ignorant from Poland!!!) is perfect example: P. eringii (aka King Oyster mushroom) in the nature is:
1. Parasitic on Eyingium campestre (it's a species complex with others growing on different Umbiliferae!). Not around the trees!
2. The wild mushrooms have in proportions by far bigger cap than stems (look at my photo: the closer and on focus fruit-body is about the right proportions !!! You can't say it's the same mushroom in comparison with the artificially grown!!!
After that just Agaricus subrufescens. I wish they were 6-8 of the same size: stuffed and on the side with baked baby potatoes and caramelized baby onions + fresh greens they would make an excellent dinner for two!

Owned both Canon (6D to R62) and Sony System (A72 to A7R2 to A7c), and my experience is that the colours of the Sony system is not as good as Canon system, the (I have tried multiple methods and plenty of time to match exactly between the two cameras but it doesnt exactlyget the result of Canon camera). It get close but.never will match as the sensor response of the cameras are diffrent.

Availability of third party lens is not that big of an issue.as i am a street photographer and only uses prime lens, the 28/2.8 and 35/1.8 serve me well and i am interested in getting the 45 as well. The 28/2.8 is the most affordable prime i ever owned (bought used and its very sharp with good colors).

I use the 35/2.8on sony system and the kit lens of 28-60 sony lens.


Right now, I am happy for Canon 's offering of 45/1.2 for users whom do not have much cash like me and have a characteristic of clasic lens wih autofocus. I hope to get the classic lens look through this lensshooting wide open.

Do i wish for third party on Canon, yes the sigma 35/2 for its build quality but.i have to do suffice with current canon offering.

Sometimes i can't understand the hate canon gets from its user and other brands. No matter what they do, even when they litsen to its customer needs by producing cheaper lens. There will always be hate upon.

From today: checked if the "strange Waxbills" are still there. They were and actually I did see one more partially leucistic Waxbill - totally different pattern of the white feathers from that on the photo! Didn't succeed with taking image...
Also Yellow-fronted Canary...

AlanF said:

It's because the Photographic DR is measured on an image enlarged to a specific standard size. For the FF, the whole image is enlarged to that size. When you crop the centre to APS-C size, you have to enlarge the crop 1.6x by 1.6x more.

Click to expand...

Just to add, this practice is necessary to compare different formats. It’s how DoF calculators work, it’s how dynamic range is compared, etc.

Some would like to believe that larger sensors and faster lenses don’t really provide advantages. That’s silly, of course they do…at least in the technical sense. Whether or not those technical advantages benefit an individual’s photography is up to that individual (and perhaps those who view their photos).

It’s also worth noting that while it’s possible to take an equivalent image with a larger sensor compared to a smaller sensor, the converse is not necessarily true. For example (not enumerating some parameters for the sake of simplicity), if you use an f/1.2 lens on FF then you would need an f/0.75 lens on APS-C to get DoF as shallow. Good luck finding that. OTOH, you can stop a lens on FF down by 1.3 stops to match the deeper DoF of APS-C.

What that means is that larger sensors offer more capabilities and more flexibility. Those benefits come at the cost of more money and more size/weight of gear. Conversely, the higher pixel density of APS-C sensors enables putting more pixels on target for distant or macro subjects. That’s a tradeoff that can be worthwhile, provided you understand what you’re giving up to achieve it.

The bottom line is that there’s no free lunch. If smaller sensors gave ‘more reach’ with lower cost and less gear to carry and no downside, we’d all be using iPhones. Smaller sensors aren’t magical, which is why it’s so easy to distinguish the iPhone shot from the R3 + 70-200/2.8 in my earlier example.

On the flip side, in bright light with a reasonably close subject and no desire for a shallow DoF, a smaller sensor can produce results that are just as good as those from a larger sensor.

Philnick said:

....

Telling folks just getting into photography, and are primarily concerned with whether the lens/camera combination they're looking at can capture enough light in low light situations that the f/2.8 lens they're looking at is really an f/4 lens is totally misleading to the ordinary photographer, and is primarily designed to steer them to buy more expensive full-frame gear.

Click to expand...

There are 2 aspects to light/exposure/noise that might be important to photographers. And are often confused. Your f-ratio measures the intensity of light in a given area, but his is not the total amount of light gathered. Since exposure is intensity, it does not change if sensor size is different. This is why an exposure of f/2.8 is the same regardless of sensor size. But light gathered is a different measurement and is tied into how much noise (S/N ratio). How much light is gathered depends on the size of the entrance pupil - not the f-ratio. For example:

Using a 300mm lens on your FF camera at f/4=75mm entrance pupil (300/4=75mm)
To get the same field of view on your Canon crop camera, your focal length is approx. 187.5 (300/1.6). Your 187.5 focal length divided by your f/4 f-ratio=approx. 47mm entrance pupil. Smaller entrance pupil means less light gathered by the sensor, even though your f-ratio is the same.
To get an equal amount of light on the Canon crop sensor, you need to get the same size entrance pupil, which is 75mm.
187.5mm focal length divided by 75mm entrance pupil = f/2.5 f-ratio.

If you go to the Clarkvision website, you will see there are actually a few other factors, but I think this gives you a good starting pint about exposure versus light gathering/noise. I think once you get these basics, you can make an informed decision as to what sensor size camera you might want, what lenses you will want, and how they deal with equivalence when it comes to both exposure and light gathering/noise. So this way you can steer yourself to whatever gear you want.

SereneSpeed said:

Thank you both for the explanation and the diagrams - very helpful.

It seems to me that there’s a large divide between the popular colloquial language and the formal terminology used in these discussions.

Click to expand...

It’s a pleasure to reply to a question from someone who is appreciative.

Thank you both for the explanation and the diagrams - very helpful.

It seems to me that there’s a large divide between the popular colloquial language and the formal terminology used in these discussions.

Zadak said:

I kind of agree, while the 20mm 1.4L is probably a great lens (haven't tried it), it's just one piece on a whole line of VCM lenses, which I wouldn't count as "great", just a good "mid"-L lens. Nothing groundbreaking there

Click to expand...

that 20 might be the perfect astro lens

Richard CR said:

It's difficult to make a very good ultra-wide, especially one that is considerably faster than 2.8. The 20mm VCM was such a generational leap for Canon; arguably, it's the best f1.4 ultra wide made.

The MTF is exceptional, and it's very well chromatically corrected.

Click to expand...

It is very good indeed, it's currently the most tempting lens to me, and I'm still biting my nails because I didn't buy it last week for €1429 here in Portugal; however I'd lean towards the Sigmas 135mm f/1.4 or 300-600mm f/4 for runner ups in this recognition, since 20mm f/1.4 lenses have already been made a few times, while the other two are truly groundbreaking.

Mekos said:

Best "compact"? For sure the Fujifilm X-E5 !!!

Click to expand...

That's an ILC

SereneSpeed said:

I have a very deep practical understanding of how a camera works and follow most of the details discussed above. However, the above quote and graph are throwing me off…

I shoot often in crop mode and will switch between crop and FF for framing and composition (light, camera, lens, exposure triangle stay unchanged). If my distance to subject is fixed, the quality of the pixels, reviewed on my monitor, at 1:1 (100%), show what I believe to be no discernible difference. The noise (or SN ratio?) is consistent whether the image was captured in FF or crop.

I believe my observations are correct; that the same number of photons are hitting each pixel bin (photo site?) on the sensor, regardless of FF or crop setting. So how is the graph showing different DR? Is that because DR and noise are independent, or not as linked as I thought?

There seems to be a gap in my understanding, because, without having read the above articles, I’d certainly have told anyone who’d asked that the center of my sensor captured an ‘equivalent’ image, whether in crop or FF (if no other factors changed…).

So, where’s the disconnect? What am I missing?

Click to expand...

Perhaps a graphical illustration of what @AlanF explained.

If you look at the FF vs. crop mode images like this, then there is no difference:


If you look at them like this, then there is a difference (in photographic DR and in DoF).

SereneSpeed said:

I have a very deep practical understanding of how a camera works and follow most of the details discussed above. However, the above quote and graph are throwing me off…

I shoot often in crop mode and will switch between crop and FF for framing and composition (light, camera, lens, exposure triangle stay unchanged). If my distance to subject is fixed, the quality of the pixels, reviewed on my monitor, at 1:1 (100%), show what I believe to be no discernible difference. The noise (or SN ratio?) is consistent whether the image was captured in FF or crop.

I believe my observations are correct; that the same number of photons are hitting each pixel bin (photo site?) on the sensor, regardless of FF or crop setting. So how is the graph showing different DR? Is that because DR and noise are independent, or not as linked as I thought?

There seems to be a gap in my understanding, because, without having read the above articles, I’d certainly have told anyone who’d asked that the center of my sensor captured an ‘equivalent’ image, whether in crop or FF (if no other factors changed…).

So, where’s the disconnect? What am I missing?

Click to expand...

It's because the Photographic DR is measured on an image enlarged to a specific standard size. For the FF, the whole image is enlarged to that size. When you crop the centre to APS-C size, you have to enlarge the crop 1.6x by 1.6x more. It's described somewhere on the photonstophotos site.

Best "compact"? For sure the Fujifilm X-E5 !!!

AlanF said:

I hope you will find someone. The 600/4 ii is too good, too new and still too expensive to write off. Of the ones suggested by Gemini, these were top of the list:

• Fixation (London): One of the most famous names in the UK. Though now part of Wex Photo Video, they operate as a specialist workshop for Nikon, Canon, and Sony. They offer sensor cleaning, lens calibration, and "while-you-wait" services.1
• A.J. Johnstone (Glasgow): A highly regarded repairer in Scotland with nationwide postal services.2 They are an authorised repair agent for several major brands like Canon and Nikon.
• DKAVS (Horley, Surrey): An authorised service centre for Panasonic (Lumix), Sony, and others.4 They are known for being one of the few places capable of handling complex electronic repairs on modern digital bodies.
• Camera Repair Direct (Surrey): A digital specialist with over 30 years of experience, known for fast turnaround times on DSLRs and compact cameras.
  

---

​

Click to expand...

Helpful as ever....you're a star! I'll give them a go.

neuroanatomist said:

Now compare the DR of the R5II with the R5II in crop mode. The same, exact pixels but a smaller sensor area used to take the picture. The larger sensor area does offer a DR advantage.

View attachment 227174

Click to expand...

I have a very deep practical understanding of how a camera works and follow most of the details discussed above. However, the above quote and graph are throwing me off…

I shoot often in crop mode and will switch between crop and FF for framing and composition (light, camera, lens, exposure triangle stay unchanged). If my distance to subject is fixed, the quality of the pixels, reviewed on my monitor, at 1:1 (100%), show what I believe to be no discernible difference. The noise (or SN ratio?) is consistent whether the image was captured in FF or crop.

I believe my observations are correct; that the same number of photons are hitting each pixel bin (photo site?) on the sensor, regardless of FF or crop setting. So how is the graph showing different DR? Is that because DR and noise are independent, or not as linked as I thought?

There seems to be a gap in my understanding, because, without having read the above articles, I’d certainly have told anyone who’d asked that the center of my sensor captured an ‘equivalent’ image, whether in crop or FF (if no other factors changed…).

So, where’s the disconnect? What am I missing?

I'd say the 45 f1.2 is definitely the worst of 2025

@neuroanatomist Our posts closely followed in the ether. At least I used different examples from you, and also poured a bucket of water!

justaCanonuser said:

No, the pixel size does affect DR, I learned that from a Zeiss engineer involved in the development of smartphone camera lenses. To put it in a simple picture: you can imagine a pixel like a bucket that is filled not with water but photons. The smaller the pixel is, the earlier is the bucket full and therefore not able to collect more photons. Btw that's exactly the metaphor used by this engineer.

Click to expand...

No!! You are confusing engineering DR, which is the DR of a single pixel, with photographic DR, which is the DR of the collection of pixels that make up the image. When we look at an image, we don't look at the DR of a single pixel but of the collection. To use your bucket analogy, 4 1/4 sized buckets that occupy the same area of space as a single 4xlarger bucket, hold as much water as the large one. Surely, you must have seen the DR curves on photonstophotos that have been used here 100s of times to show that photographic DR is virtually independent of pixel size. I'll show two pairs: the R7 and lower pixel R10, R5 and lower pixel R6. I recommend you read the first link posted by @neuroanatomist.

justaCanonuser said:

No, the pixel size does affect DR, I learned that from a Zeiss engineer involved in the development of smartphone camera lenses. To put it in a simple picture: you can imagine a pixel like a bucket that is filled not with water but photons. The smaller the pixel is, the earlier is the bucket full and therefore not able to collect more photons. Btw that's exactly the metaphor used by this engineer.

Click to expand...

When you take a picture with one pixel, let us know and we'll be happy to agree that the DR of your picture is determined mainly by the size of your pixel. But if you use a large array of pixels to take a picture (like most of us do), then it's the size of that array that determines the DR, not the size of the individual pixels.

Compare the 4.4 µm pixels of the R5II with the 6 µm pixels of the R6II. The larger pixels offer no DR advantage.



Now compare the DR of the R5II with the R5II in crop mode. The same, exact pixels but a smaller sensor area used to take the picture. The larger sensor area does offer a DR advantage.

Philnick said:

Leave the camera in the same place and let the framing change because of the smaller sensor and the depth of field and background blur are unchanged.

Click to expand...

No. But, if you ever find your way out of the circle of confusion that you are clearly trapped within, perhaps then you'll understand. That highlighted bit is a hint, you may want to google that (or not, if you'd prefer to continue in your mistaken belief that you fully understand what factors determine DoF).

Philnick said:

The increased depth of field is an artistic choice tied to the choice of framing, not an immutable scientific fact.

Click to expand...

You can frame how you want and set the DoF based on your artistic choice (within the limits of your lens). Artistic choice matters when comparing what one likes best. It's irrelevant when discussing equivalence.

Philnick said:

Telling folks just getting into photography, and are primarily concerned with whether the lens/camera combination they're looking at can capture enough light in low light situations that the f/2.8 lens they're looking at is really an f/4 lens is totally misleading to the ordinary photographer, and is primarily designed to steer them to buy more expensive full-frame gear.

Click to expand...

I'm sorry that you find factual information misleading. I prefer to educate people about the facts, not suggest that they ignore them...or worse, present them with misinformation. Granted, the latter is all too common these days but I choose to be part of the solution rather than part of the problem.

Philnick said:

If a blurred background is the paramount virtue you aim for in photography, go for it - but you're not talking the language of most photographers.

Click to expand...

Sure, sure. I mean, smartphones don't even offer Portrait Mode because no one wants a blurred background.


And those are for most photographers, those of us using ILCs are a small minority of people out there taking pictures.

Philnick said:

But leave the rest of us alone.

Click to expand...

If you post correct information, I'd be happy to thank you and move on. But if you continue to post misinformation and make asinine statements, I will continue to set the record straight.

AlanF said:

A pixel in a 40 Mpx sensor is only 10% smaller than in a 32.5 Mpx one of same size, as I replied to your post on wednesday. And the dynamic range of the whole image at high iso is unaffected as it depends on the area of the entire sensor, not individual pixels, and the noise is primarily due to statistical fluctuations in the number of photons at high iso.

Click to expand...

No, the pixel size does affect DR, I learned that from a Zeiss engineer involved in the development of smartphone camera lenses. To put it in a simple picture: you can imagine a pixel like a bucket that is filled not with water but photons. The smaller the pixel is, the earlier is the bucket full and therefore not able to collect more photons. Btw that's exactly the metaphor used by this engineer.

Another very nice series. I really like the choice of subjects in your photos.

I made my wife gift with a Nikon Z5 II and the Nikkor 600mm f/6.3 to give her a little, gentle push from the her Nikon DSLRs into the ML age . But it turned out that the Z5 II has a too long EVF blackout even with the fastest fps setting to really track flying birds - my wife is a very experienced photographer, so the problem is IN the camera, not behind it. Plus, Nikon's object detection isn't up to Canon's, despite they offer even a special bird mode. The problem: eye recognition can't be switched off separately like e.g. with the R7, and it get's easily distracted by bright spots within the frame which aren't eyes. Overall, the Z5 II is a nice camera with a big, very bright viewfinder given its price, but I wouldn't really recommend it for wildlife/birding, in particular for BIF.

I will post more tomorrow.