600mm L DO patented with 5.6 max. aperture

[Don Haines]

The problem with your original point is that there's no evidence that the FF dSLR market is 'dying'. MILC sales aren't growing, dSLR sales have been falling, and both Canon and Nikon have stated sales of FF models remain strong. You're not the only one in these forums – or in this thread – to believe that their own opinions trump reality.

As for your other points, if you're happy with the reach from EF-S lenses, the IQ from a crop sensor, and find the ISO difference 'negligible', good for you. Everyone has different needs and standards – for many people, an iPhone camera delivers all the quality them want.

I frequently shoot in low light with distant subjects requiring a fast shutter speed. Can you recommend a small, light crop body kit that will give me a negligible difference in quality when shooting at 840mm f/5.6 at 1/2000 s and ISO 6400? I'd be happy to carry something lighter...

reminds me of an incident last year when I stopped on the way home to take pictures of a snowy owl.... shooting with a 7D2 and a 150-600 lens zoomed out to the max and the bird in about a quarter of the width of the frame, a car stops behind me, passenger gets out, asks what's up, and takes an iPhone picture of the owl and explains to me how my big heavy camera is obsolete and phones are the future of photography... sigh!

As to reach on a budget, try an SX-60, but good luck at ISO6400

 

[Nininini]

If you crop a 1.6x crop sensor to the central 3.0x crop of that, it totals a 4.8x crop. That results in using an area of the projected image the same as a 1/1.8" sensor compact camera. The lens might be letting in more light than a typical compact, but far from all of that is being captured. If you do want to quote it in terms of FF equivalence, it's like a 1200/27 lens.

That's not right at all. Pixel pitch between APS-C and compact cameras is very different. If it wasn't, ISO would be similar, it's not. An APS-C with 20MP has around 6µm pixel pitch, a compact camera has about 2µm pixel pitch.

It's those differences that determine ISO, the larger your sensor, the larger your light gathered per pixel.

When the 3X digital crop happens during 1080P video, the amount of light per pixel is still EXACTLY THE SAME (christopher frost has a nice video about it). You don't need to adjust anything, you receive exactly the same amount of light per pixel from your viewing frustum.

What doesn't happen, and what some thought happened, is that at 0X digital lossless zoom, the camera gathers light from all pixels and averages, it doesn't, it simply "skips" pixels, there's no fancy algorithm taking place reducing a 20MP sensor data to full HD video data.

So when I turn on 3X digital crop, I have the full pixel pitch of APS-C sized pixels, and the amount of light I'm receiving is much much greater than a compact camera. I can shoot fine in low light, not the case on my Lumix compact camera.



In short, when I turn on 3X lossless digital video zoom on my 70D, the amount of light gathered per pixel, is exactly that same as when I didn't. There is no noticeable drop of light, the only thing you see, is a free, 3 times zoom, at no cost at all. I tend to actually see a slight increase in quality, it might be because the center portion of the lens, in general, tends to give you the sharpest image.

 

[AlanF]

An APS-C with 20MP has around 6µm pixel pitch,

An APS-C with 20MP has 4.1 µm pixel pitch.

 

[Nininini]

An APS-C with 20MP has around 6µm pixel pitch,

An APS-C with 20MP has 4.1 µm pixel pitch.

It's possible, I don't know the exact numbers.

 

[Nininini]

The difference between a 1" sensor and APS-C is very very noticeable. The difference between full frame and APS-C is hard to tell under most conditions.

Proportionally, the difference is pretty much identical.

FF is 36x24mm, totalling 864mm2.
Canon APS-C is 22.3x14.9, totalling 332mm2. That's 38% of FF area.
A 1" sensor is 13.2x8.8mm, totalling 116mm2. That's 35% of Canon APS-C.

If you can't appreciate the difference between FF and APS-C, I struggle to see how the difference between APS-C and 1" is so very very noticeable to you.

let me use a car analogy

"I can't appreciate the difference between 60 miles per hour .. and 100 miles per hour .. if I almost never need to drive 100 miles per hour. But I would notice the difference between a car that can do 30 and 60 miles per hour. It would annoy me constantly wanting to do 60 and being limited to 30."


Well, there is an upper limit of light needed to have proper exposure, when enough light from your viewing frustum hits your sensor, it doesn't matter how much more light you could gather. Your camera will actively block light by increasing shutter speed or aperture, it's no longer about potential.

It doesn't matter anymore how much more light full frame could potentially gather for APS-C users, just like it doesn't matter for full frame users how much more light a medium format camera could gather.

 

[Don Haines]

An APS-C with 20MP has around 6µm pixel pitch,

An APS-C with 20MP has 4.1 µm pixel pitch.

It's possible, I don't know the exact numbers.

According to Canon, the 7D2 with a 20.2Mpixel sensor has a 4.1 µm pixel pitch.....

 

[Don Haines]

The difference between a 1" sensor and APS-C is very very noticeable. The difference between full frame and APS-C is hard to tell under most conditions.

Proportionally, the difference is pretty much identical.

FF is 36x24mm, totalling 864mm2.
Canon APS-C is 22.3x14.9, totalling 332mm2. That's 38% of FF area.
A 1" sensor is 13.2x8.8mm, totalling 116mm2. That's 35% of Canon APS-C.

If you can't appreciate the difference between FF and APS-C, I struggle to see how the difference between APS-C and 1" is so very very noticeable to you.

let me use a car analogy

"I can't appreciate the difference between 60 miles per hour .. and 100 miles per hour .. if I almost never need to drive 100 miles per hour. But I would notice the difference between a car that can do 30 and 60 miles per hour. It would annoy me constantly wanting to do 60 and being limited to 30."


Well, there is an upper limit of light needed to have proper exposure, when enough light from your viewing frustum hits your sensor, it doesn't matter how much more light you could gather. Your camera will actively block light by increasing shutter speed or aperture, it's no longer about potential.

It doesn't matter anymore how much more light full frame could potentially gather for APS-C users, just like it doesn't matter for full frame users how much more light a medium format camera could gather.

Let me use a car analogy....

The speed limit on the road is 100KPH....
The FF car can do 200KPH.... lots of power to pass.... (most cars)
The APSC car can do 125Kph... more than enough for everyday driving.... (economy car)
The micro 4/3 car flat out can hit the speed limit as long as there isn't a head wind.... (quadrunner)
The 1" car can hit 44KPH.... (golf cart)
Your brand new iPhone 6S does 11KPH (ride-on mower)

oh yes, my 4X5 does 2,896KPH (fighter jet)

 

[Don Haines]

there is an upper limit of light needed to have proper exposure, when enough light from your viewing frustum hits your sensor, it doesn't matter how much more light you could gather. Your camera will actively block light by increasing shutter speed or aperture, it's no longer about potential.

The problem is, for a great many photographers, most of the time there is not enough light.

 

[Loswr]

That's not right at all. Pixel pitch between APS-C and compact cameras is very different. If it wasn't, ISO would be similar, it's not. An APS-C with 20MP has around 6µm pixel pitch, a compact camera has about 2µm pixel pitch.

It's those differences that determine ISO, the larger your sensor, the larger your light gathered per pixel.

When the 3X digital crop happens during 1080P video, the amount of light per pixel is still EXACTLY THE SAME (christopher frost has a nice video about it). You don't need to adjust anything, you receive exactly the same amount of light per pixel from your viewing frustum.

There seems to be a serious gap in your understanding. Pixel pitch does not determine ISO, it's 'determined' by light per unit area (real area, regardless of the number/size of pixels) falling on the sensor. That means an exposure of 1/60 s, f/4, ISO 200 will have approximately the same brightness whether on a 12 MP 'big' FF sensor with 8.2 micron pixels or a 41 MP 'small' Nokia cell phone camera sensor with 1.1 micron pixels. Exposure is determined by light per unit area, so at a fixed aperture and shutter speed, a 'metered' exposure will yield the same ISO setting regardless of sensor or pixel size.

However, image noise is determined by total light gathered...and under the same conditions a larger sensor will gather more total light. Thus, for a fixed aperture, shutter speed and ISO, although images captured with different sensor sizes will have the same brightness, the resulting image noise is inversely proportional to sensor size.

If you want similar noise with a smaller sensor, that means you need more light – a wider aperture (if you have that capability and provided you can tolerate narrower DoF) or a slower shutter speed (provided your subject won't give unwanted motion blur).

If you're shooting in bright light, you can use a low ISO setting and the differences between large and small sensors aren't too significant in terms of noise. We don't all shoot in situations that allow us to stay at ISO 800 and lower.

 

[Nininini]

That's not right at all. Pixel pitch between APS-C and compact cameras is very different. If it wasn't, ISO would be similar, it's not. An APS-C with 20MP has around 6µm pixel pitch, a compact camera has about 2µm pixel pitch.

It's those differences that determine ISO, the larger your sensor, the larger your light gathered per pixel.

When the 3X digital crop happens during 1080P video, the amount of light per pixel is still EXACTLY THE SAME (christopher frost has a nice video about it). You don't need to adjust anything, you receive exactly the same amount of light per pixel from your viewing frustum.

Pixel pitch does not determine ISO

Pixel pitch greatly affects ISO performance. If you somehow don't believe this, then there's no point in reading the rest of your post, because your disagreement is not with me, but with physics.

 

[Loswr]

That's not right at all. Pixel pitch between APS-C and compact cameras is very different. If it wasn't, ISO would be similar, it's not. An APS-C with 20MP has around 6µm pixel pitch, a compact camera has about 2µm pixel pitch.

It's those differences that determine ISO, the larger your sensor, the larger your light gathered per pixel.

When the 3X digital crop happens during 1080P video, the amount of light per pixel is still EXACTLY THE SAME (christopher frost has a nice video about it). You don't need to adjust anything, you receive exactly the same amount of light per pixel from your viewing frustum.

Pixel pitch does not determine ISO

Pixel pitch affects ISO performance. If you somehow don't believe this, then there's no point in reading the rest of your post, because your disagreement is not with me, but with physics.

You seem to have left something out your previous post. A rather important something that you included in your subsequent post. Something that makes a significant difference in meaning. It's difficult to have a cogent discussion with someone who fails to say what they mean.

 

[Nininini]

That's not right at all. Pixel pitch between APS-C and compact cameras is very different. If it wasn't, ISO would be similar, it's not. An APS-C with 20MP has around 6µm pixel pitch, a compact camera has about 2µm pixel pitch.

It's those differences that determine ISO, the larger your sensor, the larger your light gathered per pixel.

When the 3X digital crop happens during 1080P video, the amount of light per pixel is still EXACTLY THE SAME (christopher frost has a nice video about it). You don't need to adjust anything, you receive exactly the same amount of light per pixel from your viewing frustum.

Pixel pitch does not determine ISO

Pixel pitch affects ISO performance. If you somehow don't believe this, then there's no point in reading the rest of your post, because your disagreement is not with me, but with physics.

You seem to have left something out your previous post. A rather important something that you included in your subsequent post. Something that makes a significant difference in meaning. It's difficult to have a cogent discussion with someone who fails to say what they mean.

Yes, I added performance to make sure we didn't start a semantics altercation. I know the difference between ISO determined in the camera after metering, and the signal-to-noise ratio determined by sensor size and signal quality. It's my fault for not being more clear.

 

[Loswr]

Yes, I added performance to make sure we didn't start a semantics altercation. I know the difference between ISO determined in the camera after metering, and the signal-to-noise ratio determined by sensor size and signal quality. It's my fault for not being more clear.

I see. Perhaps if you'd read the rest of my post, discussing ISO as exposure vs. ISO-dependent image noise, things would have been clearer earlier.

Incidentally, for people who look at pictures, sensor area is what primarily determines image noise, not pixel pitch. The pixel pitch which you describe as such an important factor determines noise (or ISO performance, if you prefer) only for those who look at pixels, not pictures. Compare a high ISO image (the same ISO, obviously) between the 5DII and 30D, or the 5Ds and 7DII – in both cases the same pixel pitch but different sensor sizes, and you'll easily see that the larger sensor delivers lower noise.

If you compare sensors with the same area but different pixel sizes, e.g. the 5DIII vs. the 5Ds, you'll see more apparent noise with the smaller pixels if you view the resulting images at 100% (one camera pixel = one monitor pixel), but if you compare the pictures (same final viewing size, so the image with the higher pixel density is downsampled to a greater extent), you'll see almost no difference in the image noise.

There's a rather disappointing tendency of people on 'photography' forums to fail to see the forest for the trees, or the picture for the pixels in this case.

 

[bdunbar79]

Yep. There are even some MF sensors with equal pixel pitch as some FF sensors and whip them quite handedly in noise and DR.