Full Frame and Bigger Pixels vs. APS-C and Smaller Pixels - The Reach War

[jrista]

Jon
I am using the same source of information that you quoted for number of pixels on target - Clark.

http://www.clarkvision.com/articles/does.pixel.size.matter/

Quote: "The images in Figures 10 and 11 illustrate that combining pixels does not equal a single image. The concept of a camera with many small pixels that are averaged to simulate a camera with larger pixels with the same sensor size simply does not work for very low light/high ISO conditions. This is due to the contribution of read and electronics noise to the image. Again this points to sensors with larger pixels to deliver better image quality in high ISO and low light situations."

I think your misinterpreting what he is saying. He isn't saying that read noise increases as pixels get smaller. He is saying that read noise represents a larger percentage of the image signal at higher ISO than at lower ISO, and the higher SNR of larger pixels offsets that. That is a true statement.

There are other factors to consider about high ISO, though. I think it was Lee Jay who stated it earlier in the thread, but read noise is lower with smaller pixels. Look at Sensorgen.info, which is empirical data, and look at the read noise levels (that is ALL read noise...dark current contribution as well as downstream electronics contributions). The 7D has ~8e- RN @ ISO 100, while the 5D III has ~33e- RN @ ISO 100. Since you can fit 2.1 7D pixels into the space of a single 5D III pixel, the "equivalent RN" of binned pixels would be ~16.8e- RN, still half what the 5D III has (I really don't understand why Canon's newer sensors have such high read noise...their RN levels are REALLY bad...but maybe it's a tradeoff they make for their high frame rates for the pixel count or something. I can't wait till Canon moves to an on-die CP-ADC design...) I used the word binned there, because it's important. If you average pixels together in post, the random component of read noise drops. Only the non-random component of read noise will strengthen. Canon in general has a handicap there...they have some strong pattern noise at low ISO on the 7D, and even some still on the 5D III. At least it only really shows up at lower ISO settings.

From a read noise standpoint, the 7D is actually very good. Some of the BEST ultra low noise CCD astro sensors on the market, one of which is the Sony ICX694, have ~5e- RN. At 5e- RN, that is one of the lowest read noise levels on the planet. There is a table of read noise levels on an astro site somewhere (I don't have the link handy now), and the lowest standard-gain RN I've ever seen was 4.5e-. Most DSLRs seem to bottom out at around ~3e- at high ISO (at least, according to Sensorgen.info...Clark's results are a little more linear, and his results indicate RN levels drop to as little as ~2e- at their lowest). Regardless of whether RN is 3e- or 2e-, it's EXTREMELY LOW, and a minor contributor to overall high ISO noise in general.

Larger sensors perform better at high ISO because they have the potential to gather more light in total. This thread is all about the reach limitation, in which case, framing identically is not an option. When framing identically is not an option, ** assuming all else is equal ** (I'm REALLY trying to emphasis this point, because the 7D and 5D III are not "all else equal"...the 70D and 5D III would be on more equal technological footing), then pixel size does very little to nothing to improve IQ. There is the fill factor issue to consider...at some point, you reach a small pixel size where, even with a small transistor/wire size, the sheer number of pixels necessitates contributing a meaningful amount of sensor space to that wiring unless you use a BSI design. If the small pixels are small enough that fill factor reduces total photodiode area by a meaningful amount, then averaging pixels is not going to be completely capable of normalizing noise.

The primary reason full frame cameras do better in low light is because they can gather more light in total. If I frame my subject identically with an APS-C and FF camera, then the FF camera is gathering more light in total for my subject. Once normalized, the noise will be lower with the full frame sensor. Because the subject is relative to the frame, instead of absolute within the frame. I could use two full frame cameras, one with larger pixels and one with smaller pixels. So long as I frame identically, all else being equal, the normalized results will exhibit the same noise. The only difference would be that one image is crisper and sharper than the other...and that would be the FF sensor with more, smaller pixels.

I kind of wish I had a 70D at my disposal now, so I could demonstrate with equipment of equivalent technology generation. The 70D has about 6000e- more FWC than the 7D, which is significant, considering the 7D only had about 20ke- to start with. (It's a 30% increase.) Averaging a 70D image to the same size as a 5D III image should have the effect of reducing noise to very similar levels...close enough that you would have to scrutinize to identify any differences.

+1 My biggest mistakes are when my camera is set for point exposure for birds against a normal background and one flies by against the sky and I don't have time to dial in +2 ev to compensate or vice versa. Two more stops of DR would solve those problems.

This is a case where you want more DR to eliminate the need for the photographer to make the necessary exposure change. If you encounter this situation a lot, I highly recommend reading Art Morris' blog, and maybe buy his book "The Art of Bird Photography". He has an amazing technique for setting exposure quickly and accurately, such that making the necessary change quickly to handle this situation properly would not be a major issue.

Personally, I wouldn't consider this a situation where more DR is necessary. It might be a situation where more DR solves a problem presented by a lack of certain skills...but it is not actually a situation where more DR is really necessary.

Autofocus is not necessary, automatic metering is not necessary, IS is not necessary. The fact is that having those features makes it a lot easier, and having an extra couple of stops of DR would also make it easier. It is not a question of lack of skill but having a camera that eliminates one more variable.

Well, I think were getting into semantics now, so I won't really press the issue. Yes, having more DR can certainly make things easier, but good technique can totally eliminate the need, and can be just as easy in practice. That's what I was trying to say.

 

[MichaelHodges]

Yeah but we are not talking about the entire frame on target, we are talking reach limited. Sure, if you are close enough to frame the animal as you like on a FF then sure that does much better, but we are talking reach limited, so the animal fills the same amount of sensor areas on either sensor and in that case it does work exactly that way.

I shoot for months at a time with FF and APS-C in the wilderness. "Pixels on target" does not matter if the noise is too high. The APS-C simply has to be set aside in these instances.

Depends upon what you mean by these cases. If you simply mean near sunset and just after sunrise in general, than that is not true. A 7D always does at least a trace better than a 5D2 for instance even then WHEN FULLY REACH LIMITED, and since that is a scenario that exists and is not even all that rare, it is definitly not true in general that the FF always does better than the 7D even under crepuscular creeping time for animals.

As someone who has spent countless hours using both formats side by side in the same conditions, I can tell you the full frame images will be superior to 7D images in crepuscular hours for big game. ISO 3200 on the 6D or 5DIII is significantly better than ISO 3200 on the 7D.

 

[MichaelHodges]

Yes, having more DR can certainly make things easier, but good technique can totally eliminate the need

It can't, unfortunately. Actual wildlife chooses the light. The photog has to adapt to this.

We can do our best to maintain desired angles and minimize the requirement for dynamic range, bu there will always be situations when shooting wild animals where increased dynamic range is beneficial.

And I agree that technique is important. But nature doesn't care what your camera settings are. If you are in the field long enough, she's going to throw you surprises. These are almost always the more interesting photos, IMHO. Yeah I can spend days filming a hawk's face up close while it perches, or film animals feeding.

But what I really want to capture are those magic moments out of nowhere, the moments that tell a vivid story in one, simple frame. Here, we need all the tools in the tool box, and increased dynamic range can mean the difference between a wall hanger and the delete button.

 

[MichaelHodges]

Also, many more wildlife shots, in my, are taken beyond ISO400 and that is when the DR differences start to lessen between brands. Once you are shooting at ISO1600 it's really not much between them, yeah the sony still does a trace better but it's nothing to bother about then and even at ISO800 while definitely there it's no longer night and day.

This is a good point. I have not shot the FF Nikons at higher ISO's, nor tested the shadow lifting capability there. If the lifting abilities are similar at ISO's above 400, there's not much point unless you're doing landscape.

 

[MichaelHodges]

Autofocus is not necessary, automatic metering is not necessary, IS is not necessary. The fact is that having those features makes it a lot easier, and having an extra couple of stops of DR would also make it easier. It is not a question of lack of skill but having a camera that eliminates one more variable.

Yep.

 

[jrista]

Yes, having more DR can certainly make things easier, but good technique can totally eliminate the need

It can't, unfortunately. Actual wildlife chooses the light. The photog has to adapt to this.

We can do our best to maintain desired angles and minimize the requirement for dynamic range, bu there will always be situations when shooting wild animals where increased dynamic range is beneficial.

And I agree that technique is important. But nature doesn't care what your camera settings are. If you are in the field long enough, she's going to throw you surprises. These are almost always the more interesting photos, IMHO. Yeah I can spend days filming a hawk's face up close while it perches, or film animals feeding.

But what I really want to capture are those magic moments out of nowhere, the moments that tell a vivid story in one, simple frame. Here, we need all the tools in the tool box, and increased dynamic range can mean the difference between a wall hanger and the delete button.

I would say the results of many professional bird and wildlife photographers, who do exactly what you describe for a living, and use Canon cameras to create phenomenal works of art, would prove this post to be fundamentally wrong.

 

[AlanF]

I actually had at one stage a 5dIII, 70D and 7D (with 300mm f/2.8II+2xTCIII) and tested them in good light by photographing lapwings on a raft at extreme distance. All the following shots are 100% crops, processed identically in DxO and with PRIME noise reduction, that virtually eliminates noise. Top is the 70D, which is 671x711 pixels; middle 7D; middle 7D, which is 643x655 pixels; bottom is 5DII, which is 483x447 pixels. In the next post, the 70D is tested against the 5DIII. Under these reach limited conditions, there seems little, if any advantage of using the APS-C.

 

[AlanF]

Really pushing it to catch a bittern a couple of 100 yards away. Again 100% crops, where the bird is just a few hundred pixels. The 70D is at the top. 5DIII at the bottom. There is no dramatic difference added by the extra reach. I am happy equally using either the 5DIII or the 70D in good light. However, the 5DIII is more tolerant to poorer light and is more resistant to camera shake for my hand held shots at lower shutter speeds.

 

[MichaelHodges]

I would say the results of many professional bird and wildlife photographers, who do exactly what you describe for a living, and use Canon cameras to create phenomenal works of art, would prove this post to be fundamentally wrong.

Don't hide behind platitudes, Jrista. Make the case for yourself.

This is your quote:

Anyway, when it comes to bird and wildlife photography, dynamic range is just not an issue.

It's a huge issue. Unless you're shooting with flash, or baiting animals (two practices I find unethical), DR is going to play a huge role.

 

[MichaelHodges]

Really pushing it to catch a bittern a couple of 100 yards away. Again 100% crops, where the bird is just a few hundred pixels. The 70D is at the top. 5DIII at the bottom. There is no dramatic difference added by the extra reach. I am happy equally using either the 5DIII or the 70D in good light. However, the 5DIII is more tolerant to poorer light and is more resistant to camera shake for my hand held shots at lower shutter speeds.

My experience as well. But I will add that the 70D is a significant step up in IQ over the 7D.

 

[jrista]

I would say the results of many professional bird and wildlife photographers, who do exactly what you describe for a living, and use Canon cameras to create phenomenal works of art, would prove this post to be fundamentally wrong.

Don't hide behind platitudes, Jrista. Make the case for yourself.

This is your quote:

Anyway, when it comes to bird and wildlife photography, dynamic range is just not an issue.

It's a huge issue. Unless you're shooting with flash, or baiting animals (two practices I find unethical), DR is going to play a huge role.

We disagree here. It's as simple as that. I could point you to my own work, at http://jonrista.com (since you insist I make the case myself), as well as the work of numerous professional bird and wildlife photographers who have been using Canon gear for years, and never seem to complain about the lack of DR at the very high ISO settings they use. Not only that, their work is phenomenal.

You have to understand, unless you are talking about shooting wildlife at ISO 100 and 200, there is very little difference in DR at higher ISO settings, with the exception of the 1D X (which has a good stop and a half ADVANTAGE at VERY high ISO settings.) Did you miss my post where I shared the DR numbers from sensorgen for the D810, D800, 5D III, and 1D X? I thought that would have put the issue to rest. Are you talking about wildlife photography shot at ISO 100 or 200, or are we talking about your crepuscular light wildlife photography, at ISO 12800?

What camera out there, anywhere, offers any kind of significant advantage (and by that, I mean the 2+ stops DR improvement the Sony Exmor cameras get at ISO 100) in DR over any other camera, AT HIGH ISO? I mean, if such a thing exists...I'd like to know about it...but frankly, aside from the 1D X at ISO 12800, 25600, and 51200 (which is actually less than a 2-stop difference compared to any other camera), I don't think it does.

 

[jrista]

I actually had at one stage a 5dIII, 70D and 7D (with 300mm f/2.8II+2xTCIII) and tested them in good light by photographing lapwings on a raft at extreme distance. All the following shots are 100% crops, processed identically in DxO and with PRIME noise reduction, that virtually eliminates noise. Top is the 70D, which is 671x711 pixels; middle 7D; middle 7D, which is 643x655 pixels; bottom is 5DII, which is 483x447 pixels. In the next post, the 70D is tested against the 5DIII. Under these reach limited conditions, there seems little, if any advantage of using the APS-C.

Just off a cursory glance, it looks like the 5D III is better lit. If you don't mind, I'm going to downsample the middle 7D bird to the same size as the 5D III bird, so we can compare properly normalized results.

 

[AlanF]

I actually had at one stage a 5dIII, 70D and 7D (with 300mm f/2.8II+2xTCIII) and tested them in good light by photographing lapwings on a raft at extreme distance. All the following shots are 100% crops, processed identically in DxO and with PRIME noise reduction, that virtually eliminates noise. Top is the 70D, which is 671x711 pixels; middle 7D; middle 7D, which is 643x655 pixels; bottom is 5DII, which is 483x447 pixels. In the next post, the 70D is tested against the 5DIII. Under these reach limited conditions, there seems little, if any advantage of using the APS-C.

Just off a cursory glance, it looks like the 5D III is better lit. If you don't mind, I'm going to downsample the middle 7D bird to the same size as the 5D III bird, so we can compare properly normalized results.

Please do so - I posted them to be used.

 

[RustyTheGeek]

My experience as well. But I will add that the 70D is a significant step up in IQ over the 7D.

Which is why my 60D (same sensor as the 7D) doesn't see much use any more for swimming pictures after I got my 5D3. And why I've decided to not buy a less expensive 7D now even though it's a great camera. I'm going to wait to see what the 7D2 has to offer and how stupid the price is. Then I'll probably just get a 70D anyway.

 

[jrista]

Here is a normalized comparison of Alan's lapwing images:

I think the IQ of the 7D image has improved to the same level as the 5D III image for the subject. There is still more background noise, however I averaged the background with a median filter and measured the levels. The 7D image has an average level of 99-101 (RGB channels), while the 5D III image has an average level of 106/125/150 (RGB Channels). The brighter background level is helping the 5D III image a bit from a noise standpoint.

(Note, noise is worth in both images here due to GIF format.)

 

[MichaelHodges]

What camera out there, anywhere, offers any kind of significant advantage (and by that, I mean the 2+ stops DR improvement the Sony Exmor cameras get at ISO 100) in DR over any other camera, AT HIGH ISO? I mean, if such a thing exists...I'd like to know about it...but frankly, aside from the 1D X at ISO 12800, 25600, and 51200 (which is actually less than a 2-stop difference compared to any other camera), I don't think it does.

The goal posts seem to be shifting. The discussion above was about dynamic range in general for wildlife. Not specific brands.

I think developing this tech is just as important (regardless of who develops it at higher ISO's) as IS and other improvements within the context of wildlife photography.

 

[jrista]

What camera out there, anywhere, offers any kind of significant advantage (and by that, I mean the 2+ stops DR improvement the Sony Exmor cameras get at ISO 100) in DR over any other camera, AT HIGH ISO? I mean, if such a thing exists...I'd like to know about it...but frankly, aside from the 1D X at ISO 12800, 25600, and 51200 (which is actually less than a 2-stop difference compared to any other camera), I don't think it does.

The goal posts seem to be shifting. The discussion above was about dynamic range in general for wildlife. Not specific brands.

I think developing this tech is just as important (regardless of who develops it at higher ISO's) as IS and other improvements within the context of wildlife photography.

Well, DR discussions usually involve just two or three specific brands, and the tone of the conversation is always the same. I guess I assumed, apologies.

However, you handily skipped past the FAR more important part of the post you quoted. I think it's an important discussion, and I believe your answers are important, because fundamentally, at high ISO, the available dynamic range is ultimately bound by physics, not technology. So, if you don't mind:

We disagree here. It's as simple as that. I could point you to my own work, at http://jonrista.com (since you insist I make the case myself), as well as the work of numerous professional bird and wildlife photographers who have been using Canon gear for years, and never seem to complain about the lack of DR at the very high ISO settings they use. Not only that, their work is phenomenal.

You have to understand, unless you are talking about shooting wildlife at ISO 100 and 200, there is very little difference in DR at higher ISO settings, with the exception of the 1D X (which has a good stop and a half ADVANTAGE at VERY high ISO settings.) Did you miss my post where I shared the DR numbers from sensorgen for the D810, D800, 5D III, and 1D X? I thought that would have put the issue to rest. Are you talking about wildlife photography shot at ISO 100 or 200, or are we talking about your crepuscular light wildlife photography, at ISO 12800?

Could you answer the questions posed? Are you shooting wildlife at ISO 100 and 200 on a regular basis? If so, how do you reconcile that with your prior comments about crepuscular light and ISO 12800? Is there a camera out there that gets 14 stops of DR at ISO 12800? Is there a camera out there that gets more than 10 stops of DR at ISO 12800?

At high ISO, with the exception of one or two VERY expensive cameras, there is little to no difference in dynamic range! It doesn't matter if your using a D810, an A7r, a or a 5D III. There is less than a stop difference between the lot at ISO 12800. They are all full frame cameras, and in a normalized context, they will all perform roughly the same in crepuscular light for wildlife. You can eek a bit more performance out of a 1D X or a D4, but were still very far from the 2+ stop advantage an Exmor has over most other sensors at ISO 100.

If high ISO DR is critical to your shooting style, I still think Canon has the advantage because of ML. I found the thread that discusses their high ISO DR improvements (which, on the 6D, bring you to 1D X/D4 levels of DR):

http://www.magiclantern.fm/forum/index.php?topic=10111.0

According to this thread, the high ISO DR tweak does NOT use the dual ISO technique that reduces vertical resolution...it uses a tweak of the downstream amplifier to avoid clipping the signal, thereby preserving about 1/2 a stop additional DR at all ISO levels.

 

[MichaelHodges]

Could you answer the questions posed? Are you shooting wildlife at ISO 100 and 200 on a regular basis?

If I can pull off the shutter speed, I always try to shoot at the lowest ISO. Sometimes it's ISO 6400, sometimes 100.

If so, how do you reconcile that with your prior comments about crepuscular light and ISO 12800? Is there a camera out there that gets 14 stops of DR at ISO 12800? Is there a camera out there that gets more than 10 stops of DR at ISO 12800?

At high ISO, with the exception of one or two VERY expensive cameras, there is little to no difference in dynamic range! It doesn't matter if your using a D810, an A7r, a or a 5D III. There is less than a stop difference between the lot at ISO 12800. They are all full frame cameras, and in a normalized context, they will all perform roughly the same in crepuscular light for wildlife. You can eek a bit more performance out of a 1D X or a D4, but were still very far from the 2+ stop advantage an Exmor has over most other sensors at ISO 100.

You seem to be viewing the discussion through a "brand lens". My comments about dynamic range are within the context of shooting wildlife regardless of brand. If someone can figure out how to get the dynamic range of the Sony sensors into higher ISO's, I'll be the first in line.

 

[scyrene]

You seem to be viewing the discussion through a "brand lens". My comments about dynamic range are within the context of shooting wildlife regardless of brand. If someone can figure out how to get the dynamic range of the Sony sensors into higher ISO's, I'll be the first in line.

Hey, can you post some high DR wildlife images, please? I'd like to be able to visualise what you're talking about Like I said way back in this thread, I assume it's partly cos you're going for big mammals rather than tiny songbirds, but I may be wrong.

And jrista, I forgot to post that moon crop when I said I would. Not that it really matters, but I'll stick it here anyway

 

[MichaelHodges]

Hey, can you post some high DR wildlife images, please? I'd like to be able to visualise what you're talking about Like I said way back in this thread, I assume it's partly cos you're going for big mammals rather than tiny songbirds, but I may be wrong.

I'd be happy to. This image just got picked up for a textbook run:

One of the first things I look for, above all else in wildlife photography is "animal-scapes". I find them far more interesting than nostril or "trophy" shots. This often involves using shorter telephoto lenses. And it often involves shooting in less than ideal light, and in conditions like this (eight below zero). The bison were happy as could be, though.

This was one of the rare instances when my 7D did okay. The shot is ISO 200, and obviously I'm trying to get the sunset exposure nailed perfectly while bringing up the bison shadows later in post. You can't fix a blown sky, but you can lift shadows. Well, sort of. When lifting the shadows, the 7D annihilated detail with severe banding and noise. I was able to fix much of it with tedious post processing, but a superior sensor would have delivered a cleaner image capable of printing much larger. I had my 6D with me, but it was attached to a 300mm.

Don't get me wrong, I'm happy, but it could have been cleaner.