Yeah, I edited my comment after reading that back and realising how ridiculous it sounded. I still think a FF with crop mode will be the way forwards, best of both worlds.
The R and RP do that now. attach an EF-S lens, and it auto-crops.
Upvote
0
Yeah, I edited my comment after reading that back and realising how ridiculous it sounded. I still think a FF with crop mode will be the way forwards, best of both worlds.
Yes but I am predicting a crop mode will eventually replace high end crop cameras like the 7D line. Not just auto cropping for EF-S lenses but letting the user have both selectable options for all lenses (do the R & RP allow this? I don’t know). We’re seeing this already in mirrorless cameras. Also with it being a crop of a FF sensor, maybe future technology can improve the crop performance over what crop sensors currently achieve?The R and RP do that now. attach an EF-S lens, and it auto-crops.
If you are using the full area of FF and APS-C crop and viewing the output of both at the same size, the FF at higher isos will always beat out a crop. And current sensors are so good that their efficiencies can't be improved enough for a future APS-C to have lower noise than a current FF. Which is not to say that current APS-Cs are not good, they are darned good and more than capable for most situations.Yes but I am predicting a crop mode will eventually replace high end crop cameras like the 7D line. Not just auto cropping for EF-S lenses but letting the user have both selectable options for all lenses (do the R & RP allow this? I don’t know). We’re seeing this already in mirrorless cameras. Also with it being a crop of a FF sensor, maybe future technology can improve the crop performance over what crop sensors currently achieve?
It all depends on how you look at it.
Essentialy, the quantum efficiency of all the latest cameras is the same within a few percent. The days of big differences between models and manufacturers is over. Everyone is within a half stop.
With the same amount of photons hitting the sensor, pixel size becomes very important. The smaller the pixel, the less light hits it, and the lower the DR you get. As an extreme example, look at a 10Mpixel and a 40Mpixel sensor.... The 10M sensor will have 4 times the light hitting each pixel, and as a result will have 2 stops better DR. HOWEVER, you can take the 40M image and resample it to 10M and end up with the same DR.
More pixels is a tradeoff between resolution and pixel quality, except with the greater resolution you can decide in post production if you want to keep the resolution, resample for quality, or a combination of the two. You have more total information.
The attraction of the 7D series was also the extra shooting range for motorsports, sports, airshows, birders etc. Also the high frame rate for capturing action.
With some of the RF rumours promising much longer reach lenses, the need for smaller sensors to get the reach goes away if the lenses are not too expensive.
And keeping the MegaPixels low means todays achievable frame rates can easily rise to capture the action.
The sum of 4 pixels has about the same effective full well capacity as one pixel 2x2 times bigger.You've got it backwards. The reason the 10 MP sensor has better dynamic range is because each photosite (a/k/a sensel or pixel well) with 4X the area also has 4X the full well capacity compared to a 40 MP sensor with photosites 1/4 as large. You can increase exposure so that the same number of photons are hitting a smaller sensel, but you can't increase the full well capacity so that it takes four times as many photons to reach full well capacity.
If areas in the higher resolution sensor with smaller sensels are fully saturated, resampling will not increase the DR.
Never said otherwise but she grew button/dials under her top. I wonder their function, is it a dual AF joystick?And yet extremely hot at the same time...
At any aperture, the density of the light is the same regardless of what camera, sensor, or format is used.You've got it backwards. The reason the 10 MP sensor has better dynamic range is because each photosite (a/k/a sensel or pixel well) with 4X the area also has 4X the full well capacity compared to a 40 MP sensor with photosites 1/4 as large. You can increase exposure so that the same number of photons are hitting a smaller sensel, but you can't increase the full well capacity so that it takes four times as many photons to reach full well capacity.
If areas in the higher resolution sensor with smaller sensels are fully saturated, resampling will not increase the DR.
Doesn't this also mean that a FF crop as opposed to a crop sensor will have better low light performance? Because of the larger photo sites? Less sampling density, but greater light capturing ability? Of course, less megapixels.At any aperture, the density of the light is the same regardless of what camera, sensor, or format is used.
For the same scene, At F4 and 1/1000th second, the same number of photons will hit a square mm on any camera from any manufacture.
large photo sites will capture more photons than a smaller photo site . Smaller ones will have a greater sampling density. You have more total information in the denser sampling
But on a FF crop, you are only using part of the sensor.Doesn't this also mean that a FF crop as opposed to a crop sensor will have better low light performance? Because of the larger photo sites? Less sampling density, but greater light capturing ability? Of course, less megapixels.
You've got it backwards. The reason the 10 MP sensor has better dynamic range is because each photosite (a/k/a sensel or pixel well) with 4X the area also has 4X the full well capacity compared to a 40 MP sensor with photosites 1/4 as large. You can increase exposure so that the same number of photons are hitting a smaller sensel, but you can't increase the full well capacity so that it takes four times as many photons to reach full well capacity.
If areas in the higher resolution sensor with smaller sensels are fully saturated, resampling will not increase the DR.
What you say is quite correct. However, misunderstandings occur because dynamic range is measured for a print or a screen output of the sensor image enlarged to a defined size. For example, photonstophotos.net defines PDR as the dynamic range you would expect in an 8x10" print viewed at a distance of about arms length. Now, a 40 Mpx FF and a 10 Mpx FF sensor enlarged that way would indeed as you say have the same DR as argued by Kit as well. But, an APS-C sensor with the same number of photons per unit area from the same f-number and shutter speed needs to be enlarged by 1.6x1.6 times more so the noise is amplified more and the DR decreases accordingly.At any aperture, the density of the light is the same regardless of what camera, sensor, or format is used.
For the same scene, At F4 and 1/1000th second, the same number of photons will hit a square mm on any camera from any manufacture.
large photo sites will capture more photons than a smaller photo site . Smaller ones will have a greater sampling density. You have more total information in the denser sampling
case 1: You are correct until the last sentence. If you resample the crop sensor 20MP into 8MP (as you seem to indicate) you will result in an image that is slightly worse than the 8MP from the FF. If, instead, you resample the 8MP from the FF into 20MP then you will result in an image that is slightly worse than the 20MP from the crop sensor.let’s say we have a crop camera and a FF sensor with a crop mode, same tech level for both
case 1, they both have the same total megapixel count, same lens, same camera settings, and lets say 20 megapixels (easy math)
on the two cameras, the same amount of light hits the 20Mpixels of the crop sensor as hits the central 8Mpixels of the FF sensor in crop mode. Each individual pixel in the FF sensor gets 2.5 times as many photons striking it, and it has a stop better DR..... but the crop sensor image can be resampled to get the same image as the FF sensor. The FF image has better pixels, but the crop has more. In this case the crop sensor is superior
case 2, the FF sensor is 50Mpixels and the crop is 20.
in this example, the results should be identical. The pixels are the same size, get hit by the same amount of photons, and all should be indistinguishabl.
case 3, (and the reason FF sensors are better), both cameras are the same pixel count.
you use the FF sensor in FF mode. You use a lens that is 1.6 times as long On the FF body.
the field of view is the same on both, but 2.5 times as many photons hit the FF sensor As the crop sensor. The FF sensor captures more information, the image is better.
If you are using the full area of FF and APS-C crop and viewing the output of both at the same size, the FF at higher isos will always beat out a crop. And current sensors are so good that their efficiencies can't be improved enough for a future APS-C to have lower noise than a current FF. Which is not to say that current APS-Cs are not good, they are darned good and more than capable for most situations.
OR......…...………… You can buy a mirrorless body and continue to use your EF lenses on it(with increased functionality and performance) until you are ready to buy into the RF lens lineup. Canon has given you (as they once said) a very elegant solution as far as transitioning goes.I am in a bit of same situation. I have a well functioning but also well used 6D, two top-of-line EF (L) Zooms and a handfull of good EF primes. My photography is a bit of everything - so I am glad for the size of the 6D. However - should i by a new camera now, I would go for the 5D mkIV. It will serve me for the next 5-7+ years, and by that time, the landscape for RF lenses and bodies would be clear and mature. I know that the reselling price for my old EF gear at that time will be lower - but I am not a "buy and sell" person. I buy my gear, an use it as long as i last.
For travel however - I see and idea for the future of R and RF - a bigger high-end pro body with large zooms and a smaller RP size body that can be used with an RF 24-105 f/4 and a 35mm for travel or street photography.
But for now, and for the next 10 years i think - I stay with EF cameras and lenses
The sum of 4 pixels has about the same effective full well capacity as one pixel 2x2 times bigger.
At any aperture, the density of the light is the same regardless of what camera, sensor, or format is used.
For the same scene, At F4 and 1/1000th second, the same number of photons will hit a square mm on any camera from any manufacture.
large photo sites will capture more photons than a smaller photo site . Smaller ones will have a greater sampling density. You have more total information in the denser sampling
Doesn't that produce a "good" kind of nonlinearity, though? Looks like it should very slightly increase detail in highlights.Yep. But all four smaller sensels do not necessarily all receive the same number of photons. Poisson distribution and all, not to mention edges between objects in the scene with different brightnesses.
Doesn't that produce a "good" kind of nonlinearity, though? Looks like it should very slightly increase detail in highlights.
Have you ever heard of dithering?Randomness due to Poisson distribution is noise, not details.