Before anyone's head explodes from my assertion (that is tricky to understand, granted) that larger sensors let in more light so improve image quality, but that exposure is not affected by sensor size, I'll explain it here, as the video was getting long. Consider the analogy that photons of light are like raindrops (they are in many ways). If you have two empty pools in your backyard, one adult-sized and a kiddy pool, after a rainstorm you will notice two things. One, that the larger pool collected more water in total and that two, the depth of the water is the same regardless of pool (sensor) size. In camera sensors, low light noise performance is a function of total light (photons, raindrops) collected while exposure is a function of light intensity (the depth of the water in the pool). Hope that helps.

@dogpadogpa

Ай бұрын

If you do a 20MP full frame shot and crop a quarter sized 5MP shot nothing has changed BUT making the 5MP shot bigger (to match the size of the 20MP) you'll notice more noise. That's the same as zooming into a 20MP full frame shot vs a 20MP m4/3 shot (as it's equal to a crop of an 80MP full frame zoomed in). i.e. the benefit of a larger sensor is you're viewing it with less magnification. By not zooming in, you'll notice less noise. It's got nothing to do with more 'total light'. e.g. if you stitch 4x m4/3 5MP same-sensor shoots using the same lens you used on the full frame and compared the two photos, they'll be exactly the same (even though the 4x shots are taken separately). It's hard to compare as most electronic sensors are made differently. If you could, try this with the same film (like Kodak Porta 400). Take 4x small frames vs 1x full frame and you'll see no difference.

@simon_dentremont

Ай бұрын

@@dogpadogpaYou’re right, but they’re two sides of the same coin. The wider viewing distance is indeed minimizing the noise in the Signal/noise equation while the amount of light increases, and is included in the calculation of « noise » in the equation, as noise is minimized by wider viewing distance as it gets smaller/has less variation. It can be described as both « more light » or « less noise » and mathematically they both do the same. But, the standard in the sensor design industry and physics is to describe noise impact by the amount of light, rather that the viewing distance to the noise, even if they do the same thing in this case.

@Thirsty_Fox

Ай бұрын

@@simon_dentremont The amount of light that reaches the sensor is determined by the total light coming from the field of view, the size of the objective lens, and the light transmittance of the lens. The exposure doesn't change because when you zoom out by the crop factor (say 35mm to 23mm), the wider lens lets in the same amount of light again as the 35mm on the FF. In your pool/bucket example, imagine there is a giant funnel above them that captures all of the incoming water to fill the pools -- this is what the lens does. You will get the same volume of water (exposure) but different depths when using the same funnel size. Think also of a magnifying glass focusing in the sun -- you can move it back and forth to have a smaller or larger focused light circle, but the total light is unaffected unless you change the size or clarity of the magnifying glass (objective lens size).

@dogpadogpa

Ай бұрын

@@simon_dentremont Ah, let me rephrase this. You're taking a panorama photo of three 24x36 photos or have a larger sensor camera of 24x108 that larger format won't create less noise because it's... larger. If you joined the three 24x36 and compare it to the 24x108 they all should be exactly the same. Now if you bring that to comparing a cropped photo vs a full frame photo you'll notice it's the cropping/zooming/magnifying that's showing more noise NOT that the full frame captures more 'total light'. The intensity is what's important. (imagine a photo of the moon on a cropped sensor vs a full frame using the same lens, same sensor build, the full frame captures more... empty dark area?)

@vincentli2090

Ай бұрын

this explanation is the best I've seen, maybe high MP camera's high ISO performance can also be explained with tiny walls(pixel edges) inside the pool that takes up a little space.

I always watch videos of people trying to explain crop factor. Often they are over simplified, over complicated, missing key points, have wrong information, and/or overly opinionated. But this video is probably the best explanation I have seen in years.

@simon_dentremont

Ай бұрын

Thanks very much!

@dalloiselle7274

Ай бұрын

Clear and and concise explanation of a complex topic. Only someone with a comprehensive understanding of a subject can explain it simply. Well done and much appreciated.

@gregsullivan7408

Ай бұрын

Agreed. I think Tony Northrup did an EXCELLENT job, but this one just pips it. I'm going to start referring people to this one from now on. Edit: I've changed my mind. I'm going to refer people to BOTH, because Tony goes into more detail, and it's good to be able to see two experts agree & support each other's assertions. (I have no idea whether our host has ever watched the Northrup's presentations on this topic or not, though)

@NoSuRReNDeR001

Ай бұрын

Agreed but I personally would add or clarify that the "telephoto effect" of pulling Backgrounds towards camera is why say 400mm@f8 for example... you can still get JUST as blurry BG same as say an 85mmlens at f2 - the bokeh in the telephoto shot is the same as it would be at 85mm f5.6 it only APPEARS blurrier because the telephoto glass enlarges the background which is blurred to some extent beyond the hyperfocal distance... the 400mm isnt achieving a shallower DOF its simply magnifies its hyperfocal area beyond the subject. Compression is the word I was looking for I think.

@ShrekSwag

Ай бұрын

Simon is the goat

The respectful way you communicate information makes you the best photographer/educator on KZread in my opinion. Thank you for helping lots of people and doing what you love for a living, Simon!

@simon_dentremont

Ай бұрын

Wow, thank you!

I’m always frustrated when KZread photographers explain crop factor and depth of field. First time I see it done right, and in a beginner-friendly format on top of that. Congrats!

This is another video that shows how fundamental your knowledge is and how good Simon is able to explain things, that so many other people have already explained - Simon explains is best! He really does. Not only in words, but in illustrations too.

@simon_dentremont

Ай бұрын

Thanks. I’m relieved. In order to be comprehensive enough for the comments section not to to be full of « but you forgot… » I feared that I had made it too complex to follow.

@mariposa.2507

Ай бұрын

@@simon_dentremont it depends on the knowledge of the viewers here, but I think it was perfectly explained even for beginners who understand the basic terms.

@rammix1

Ай бұрын

@@mariposa.2507 Yep. I'm a beginner and this video is very helpful to me.

You said it right. Don’t fuss about what gear you wish you had but rather learn and master how to get the best pictures with the gear you do have. I used to fuss about MegaPixels a lot until I watched so many of your videos. Same gear but I’ve upped my photography.

I've just gone from Micro Four Thirds to medium format. But! Most of the reason for that is because I wanted a specific camera and its shooting experience, *not* because MFT isn't "good enough". Yes, to nobody's surprise, medium format runs rings around MFT in detail and dynamic range. That doesn't actually make the photos better, because a hyper-detailed image with an uninteresting composition is still uninteresting. What *does* make the photos better is that I love using this camera, the experience suits me, and I'm composing more thoughtfully as a result. The vast majority of modern cameras take photos with more than enough resolution and detail for the vast majority of use cases. I have 60x40cm prints from my MFT camera on my wall, and they look fantastic. I have some images blown up bigger than that, and they still look great. Not pinpoint sharp, no, but there's still loads of detail and they're still reasonably crisp at a reasonable viewing distance. Features, UI/UX, and the lens ecosystem are vastly more important than the sensor for most people. Pros will need specific features. For people who aren't shooting on commercial jobs, I think the single most important thing is having a camera that you *enjoy using.* I'd still be shooting MFT if I didn't have gripes with the user experience - problems shared by most cameras, with clumsy menus, crappy rear screens (in both size and quality), and awful phone companion apps.

It’s good to learn that different sensor sizes don’t allow the same amount of light in even at the same maximum aperture. I use a crop sensor XT30ii

Thanks, Simon. For the small amount of paid work I do now that I am retired, depth of field is king. As a retired EE, I kind of backed into a second career photographing electrical equipment failures due to my connections in the industry. As such, I find micro 4/3 the easiest way to get the deep depth of field which is desirable in these cases. No artistic interpretation wanted in this use case! I use different sensor sizes for personal work, so as always, match the tool to the end goal. Really enjoy your videos.

Finally, a short and 100% accurate walk-through of the key differences. Tony Northrup did this years ago, with the same information, but not as short and on point as this. Most tend to misunderstand how things work. I've had so many discussions with people refusing to come to terms with the fact that applying the crop factor to the aperture make sense.

The kind of explanation i was looking for! Thank you so much for being so clear ❤

Once again, he takes a very complicated and convoluted subject and simplifies it so that anyone can understand it. Great job, Simon.

Finally the missing piece. I was so confused when I always heard in videos etc: "I use xy mm at x f" and when I used the x2 equivalent lenses on my M43 the DOF was always different. The corelation with aperture should be voiced lauder than it currently is. Thank you for this video Simon!

I love when people explain this topic correctly

You sir are a true photographer educator. Thank you for providing this knowledge free of charge. You provide some of the best internet content bar none.

For the first time I’ve heard a KZreadr explain it 100% correct. Any opinion is just an opinion you stated 100% fatcts.

You are a good man Simon .. and our enthusiasm, positivity, and deep wisdom are priceless

Got into photography as a hobby in 2018 by getting a Panasonic lumix g85. I primarily went for it because of the price point and small size which are quite nice, however at the time I was a complete novice and didn't really understand the differences between the different camera types. I would take it out with me on drives in the mountains or into work for my job's social media stuff but nothing more complex. Now thanks to you I'm learning a whole lot about photography and how to use my camera to its fullest. It's a fun journey, so thank you!

I recently upgraded my 1Ds Mk3 to an R8 - Being honest, my only reason for sticking with Full Frame was the lenses I already owned! And I'm used to it :D

Wow wow wow!! What a breakdown Simon. You really have a talent for teaching complex concepts simply, concisely, and with great detail for us beginners. I can’t thank you enough man. Keep up the good work

The best lesson here is the equivalency formula of multiplying the crop factor to aperture and lens size. Thanks for that! Pixel pitch and crop factor make a difference in noise levels in low light. Bigger area is better on collecting light. Bigger pixel pitch usually has less noise, as 24mp will have less noise over 45mp in FF due to larger size of pixels on sensors. In very bright light digital noise is less of an issue.

Some guy tried telling me today that if the numbers arent the same then its not a standard...basically saying that iso 6400 on a full frame is the same as iso 6400 on an apsc....all i could do is shake my head in disbelief...some people just cant figure this stuff out and they wont accept an explanation if it doesnt match their narrative

I just tried researching this topic a couple of days ago and could not find the right info. Thank you for making this easy to understand. I have been binge watching your channel and have learnt so much 🙏🏼

Thanks, Simon. This is a great starting point for explaining the difference between full-frame and DX lenses and changing the image size on cameras that have that feature.

I love my 61 megapixels full frame Cameras, I can make large photos in very high quality and I can crop to APSC format in 26 megapixels and still get really good photos, it is like having two Cameras in one Camera ! So for me full frame Cameras are the best and most versatile Cameras.

@jamestonbellajo

15 күн бұрын

Wait til you try medium format then.

@cameraprepper7938

15 күн бұрын

@@jamestonbellajo No surprises there for me, I am a former professional photographer where I used 6x6cm 6x9cm, 4x5" and 5x7". Today I love small, compact and light weight camera gear !

Note that at 7:28, the depth of field remains consistent only if you shoot from the same distance. Doubling the distance and cropping the image would yield an equivalent depth of field without altering the aperture. I just think its important to mention that there are two methods of achieving the same result.

@ElMundoDuro

Ай бұрын

Yes, those wanting more shallow depth of field from a smaller sensor can use a higher mm lens and take a few steps back.

@bukso8888

Ай бұрын

Indeed, there is an advantage to this approach. It allows photographers who may not have access to very fast lenses (with apertures like f/1.4) to achieve a shallower depth of field without needing to open up the aperture as much. By doubling the distance between the camera and the subject, which may not always be practical depending on the space available, the effect can be achieved. However, Simon's point about using a faster lens is also valid. One drawback of this method is that cropping the image to achieve the desired framing can reduce overall image quality, so the choice depends on the specific application.

@athmaid

Ай бұрын

It wouldn't be the same result though since you're not in the same position. That's probably why he didn't mention it. You might end up losing elements of your composition if they get obstructed by you having to move backwards for example

@bukso8888

Ай бұрын

@@athmaid Achieve identical results in field of view and depth of field after cropping, albeit with reduced brightness. Give it a try!

@ElMundoDuro

Ай бұрын

@athmaid You may lose some elements, but you might also want to lose some elements. It is different, and we work with the tools we have. That is why I carry a full frame camera and an MFT camera. Each has their strengths.

Simply wow.. you made things easier to understand..

@simon_dentremont

8 күн бұрын

Glad to hear that

masterfully done. this video should be a requirement before anyone can post on any message forum

Great video! I find that people usually lose the plot when it comes to ISO and "total light gathered" with crop factors. This is because: 1- ISO is standardized across sensors of different sizes in terms of brightness (exposure), but won't have the same noise levels. It's as simple as: crop sensor cameras need to amplify the signal further, for the same ISO to give the same brightness. And that's exactly what goes on! Companies do this for the sake of convenience, but it created massive confusion for many people because of it. 2- People mistakenly conclude from that, that a shot taken at F4 on FF will gather the same amount of light as F4 on APSC, and only DOF is affected. Supposedly because the exposure settings are the same. You litteraly hear this false argument all the time on the internet. "Therefore, crop factor only needs to be multiplied to the focal length for equivalency" is the false conclusion they land at. In reality, applying the crop factor to the aperture does give you an estimate on equivalency for not only DOF, but also noise levels (or in other words, total light gathered). In practical terms, people usually understand the concept of "losing a stop of light" when it comes to optical cropping (ie teleconverters). And while the physics are very different when it comes to digital cropping (shrinking sensors), the end result is more or less the same. Crop factors can in fact be conceptualized more or less the same way, in practical terms, whether they are optical (TCs) or digital (sensor size) in nature. I absolutely hate crop sensor companies who will market their lenses by applying the crop factor to the focal length, but not the aperture. Even Apple does it on their iPhones... If you make the conscious decision to use a FF frame of reference of equivalency, you need to apply it to both aperture and focal length for the numbers to make any sense. This leads people to make very real mistakes when comparing systems. Here are two examples of such falsehoods: 1- an R7 with the RF100-500 will gather more light and be "brighter" than an R6 + 200-800, under the assumption that the R7 system is "800mm f7.1 equivalent" and the R6 system is 800mm f9. This is simply not true. For the numbers to make any sense in the sake of comparison of the low light capabilities, the R7 system HAS to be considered "800mm f11" equivalent, with crop factor applied to aperture as well. In fact, when cropping down to 800mm (no matter how you crop), the 100-500 does gather about 2/3rds less stops than the 200-800 at its native 800 f9. This should be obvious just by looking at the sheer size difference of their front elements! In fact, if you do the actual math in reverse, one might say that on FF, the 200-800 performs extremely similarly, as a 500mm f5.6 would on APSC! And you'd be pretty much correct, both in DOF and light gathering! That is wildly different from the original false claim indeed! 2- An olympus with their new 600 f6.3 zoom is "like a 1200mm f6.3" in terms of low light performance. This is even more ridiculous of a claim when you see just how massive the rf1200mm f8 needs to be for FF. Saying a 600mm f6.3 on MFT can outperform it in low light is ridiculous. If such claims were true, us astronomers would all use half inch sensors on shorter faster telescopes for deep space imaging and rival actual observatories, for "free ridiculous reach at no cost of light gathered". There's a reason why those are not the right tool for those jobs... It just doesn't work that way. I feel like these concepts come much easier to astronomers because we're used to a wider variety of optics+sensor combos, and the fact that on big scopes, just looking at the front element diameter immediately tells you about the total light gathering abilities. Our front diameter is the funnel, and the sensor is the bucket that collects from it, that's it! Like I said, after reading many many people make these false assumptions on the internet, it really seems like where people lose the plot, is due to the fact that ISO is standardized for brightness, not signal amplification or noise, and therefore that exposure settings are the same, so "they must be gathering the same amount of light". I applaud you for explaining all the concepts in a very clear and concise manner. Perhaps some practical examples like the ones I mentioned would've made it clearer to people who still dont quite get it yet! This is certainly a topic I encourage you to follow up on as I've never seen anyone really explain it so well. It's funny, I've also used the "kiddie pool in the rain" metaphor myself when trying to explain this 😅! One way you can then follow it up with is that, if you consider aperture to be the intensity of the rain, well, to gather the same amount of water on the smaller kiddie pool, you need to increase the rain! Meaning, let more light in, and use an aperture on the smaller sensor that is 1/crop factor times smaller. Your pinned comment kinda hinted at the last piece of the puzzle to finally "get it", but in my opinion this would be worth its own video, if you have the courage to go even more in depth on these convoluted concepts. If someone can do it's you lol. In fact, there is even one step deeper down this theoretical rabbit hole, which is how *pixel size* affects all of this even further. All of these calculations technically apply to any sensor tech, and could apply just the same if you were shooting with film! All of these have nothing to do with pixel size (despite what people sometimes say), and moreso just with the total area of the sensor. But pixel size *also* matters, just in a different way! In the real world with the current physical tech of manufacturing sensors, FF usually performs EVEN better than these calculations would predict, both because of pixel size and their inherent properties, and also simply because the best RND is usually invested in FF, because they are the high end products. The exact numbers do vary and there is a lot of debate around them, but one can in fact expect 1-2/3rds stop beyond even what the theory of applying crop factor to aperture suggests! Best regards Simon, this video is a gem!

@melaniezette886

Ай бұрын

In astrophotography what matters is the aperture diameter of the lens. The bigger the better. There are excellent small size sensors for astrophoto.

@simonthibodeau7082

Ай бұрын

​​@@melaniezette886Of course there are great small sensors for astrophotography, just like there are great capable small sensors for regular photography as well. You can take great images nowadays even with something like a seestar 50. And especially for bright objects like planets, tiny sensors are actually great tools. That does not mean that you can't benefit from gathering more light with a bigger sensor for astrophotography as well. You don't "need it", but you can benefit from it. What I was saying is, there is a reason why Hubble's camera sensor is 5 feet across: it is purely due to the fact that bigger sensors can gather more total light more rapidly (meaning in shorter exposure times), as was explained in Simon's video. Reitirating my point, it was that following the false logics described in my previous comments, one might argue that slapping a tiny smartphone sensor (say 1/3.2" with 7.61 crop factor), on a cheap 600mm f6.3 zoom, would give you a whopping "4566mm at f6.3", which is beyond misleading. You'd need a 29 inch diameter scope for that kind of performance! Hopefully you see the point I am trying to make: that "it just doesn't work that way". Yes, even high end dedicated prosumer sensors for astro aren't that big, because we use hours and hours of exposure anyway, so perhaps it wasn't the best example to illustrate the point. Hopefully it's clearer now 🙂

@gregsullivan7408

Ай бұрын

ISO behaved differently for different film sizes too, just as it does for digital. E.g, photos using the same ISO taken on 35mm & large format will look very different when the photos are viewed at the same size & viewing distance - the large format one will be much cleaner (less grain), because the number of grains per unit area IN THE PHOTO will be higher for the large format.

@simonthibodeau7082

Ай бұрын

@@gregsullivan7408 Yes of course, like I said, it applies no matter what you are projecting onto.

I shoot m43 and this is one of the best explanations I seen so far. Always enjoy your content.

Okay, I've bookmarked this video for further review just to ensure I get this right. Man, Simon you have the gift for explaining even the more complicated subjects. I'll let this new info rattle around in my brain for a while, in the hope I can generalize the knowledge you shared. Heeding your warning I read your pinned comment before watching the video. Very helpful. Thank you for the mental workout, it's much appreciated.

Let me add to all of the compliments below. What was amusing to me is that as you continued, my mind started to spin, asking how we are expected to crank all these numbers and calculations out while taking the photo at the same time!!! (Horrors!) It was about that time when you started focusing (no pun intended) that much of this discussion is things you think about BEFORE you buy your equipment. At that point, you can go back to worrying about the normal stuff like settings, composition, etc. 😅

At about the 5:10 mark, you say using the shorter focal length makes depth of field (DoF) deeper. However, later you accurately describe applying the crop factor to the f-stop to allow the shorter lens to deliver an image having the same DoF. If you were to mention that this outcome occurs because both lenses have the same 8mm entrance pupil diameter and this quality - not focal length - determines DoF, that would clear up some potential misunderstanding.

@MegaNardman

Ай бұрын

Everybody neglects the entrance pupil!

Wow, really nice video! I bought myself my first real camera this month and I am sucking up as much knowledge as possible right now. Since I really like wide angle and night photography I picked up a full frame camera, the Canon Eos RP, used with a 35mm f1.8 lens for 1200€ (approx. $1280) in total. So far I am absolutely loving it, although in the beginning I had some slight buyers remorse since most videos and tutorials used sony cameras and many "best cameras for beginners" focused heavily on the a6 series, disregarding most canon and Nikon cameras altogether. A few reviewers also had a more negative opinion on the RP. However once I started shooting more and more, most of my worries went away and I can confidently say that I love what I bought and love the pictures I get out of it. Since I only have one camera, I can't really say if I would have been as happy as I am with an apsc sensor, or even m4/3, but my way of shooting pictures fits very well and I hope I can get to the point of earning money with photography at one point. In that regard: thank you for providing so much free information, not just on photography in and of itself, but to the business side as well!

@JGNoPlanetB

19 күн бұрын

I hope you keep on loving that choice. I bought an RP about 8 months ago. I too had a bit of buyers remorse after seeing some of the reviews on KZread (after I made my purchase, of course. If I could have afforded an R5 and a full suite of L-Series RF lenses I guess I would have bought that setup. But budget ultimately dictated my selection. I'm really happy with what I purchased. I just returned from a week in Southern Utah among the magnificent desert scenery there. I am delighted with what I captured, although I wish I had taken the time to study more of the tips from Simon before I headed out. Now I guess I'll need to study hard and go back! 😂 I hope you keep on getting out there and capturing what you see.

Thank you so much Simon! This put things into to place for me. There’s a lot of people confusing it, and misleading us, by fx. Only talking about the depth of field equivalency.

As a fan of longer focal length, I really like how cropped sensors can achieve telephoto distances with standard or even smaller size lenses (and I love small lenses). In the mirrorless age there's hardly such a thing as a pancake 40mm or 50mm lens for full frame, but there will be an equivalent one when you have a crop sensor camera.

I own both full frame and APSC! I use the full frame for portraits and landscapes, APSC for sports and birds for the reach.

@mikebarker9187

12 күн бұрын

apparent reach

Great video. Each sensor format has its pros and cons, but all are sufficient for nearly all use cases when operated according to their strengths.

@simon_dentremont

Ай бұрын

Very true!

I've recently discovered this channel and Simon just gives the useful information in such a natural way without over complicating or dumbing it down. I've been watching these and even my other half who isn't interested in photography has been watching and commented on the beautiful shots used in the videos. i know its not on topic but this man deserves to be told what a great job he's doing. I'm only an in and out hobby photographer and he makes me want to grab my gear and go out and see what i can shoot! thanks Simon.

@simon_dentremont

Ай бұрын

Very kind!

I appreciate this video. I feel that the online photography (or gear?) community is letting newcomers down, pushing everyone to invest in gear they might need, instead of encouraging them to enjoy and improve their photography. I've been shooting with both APS-C, full frame, and now MFT, and I've tried out five different brands, starting with Canon (DSLRs, 800D and 80D), Fujifilm (XT3), Nikon (Z5), and now a Panasonic G9 and Olympus Om-D E-m5 III. I'm shooting documentary, architecture, and portraits. What I've learned is that the sensor size matters less, but for each of these genres other things have been much more crucial, from having a compact camera and lenses, to have something that is easy to bring with me (which offers flexibility), and lighting. Any of the cameras/brands I've been using would suffice for most of it, but I settled with MFT for the following reasons: It's compact. True, the G9 is the same size as most full frame cameras, but the lenses are smaller. And the G9 is one of the largest MFT cameras to be found. Most MFT cameras are small and compact, while offering great features, particularly when it comes to stabilization. It offers flexibility. Because it's so compact and less heavy, I am able to bring much more gear with me. Not only when it comes to lenses (I literally bring a 7.5mm lens, a 15mm lens, and a 45mm lens (15mm, 30mm, and 90mm respectively in full frame terms) with me not taking more space than my 35mm f1.8 Nikon lens did. When I'm out doing larger projects I can easily bring both my cameras with me, zoom lenses covering the 24mm to 600mm range, as well as tripod, filters and even my drone. I don't have to consider whether I want to cover this or that end of the focal range, or whether I should bring zooms or primes, in worst case scenario I just put one of the primes in my pocket. It's cheaper. I'm not professional so the budget is limited. When I sold my full frame gear I got rid of a Nikon Z5 and five lenses, which didn't cover all ranges. For that money I got two cameras, covering all my needs, as well as seven lenses covering focal lengths from 15mm to 600mm. Great features. Both cameras have amazing IBIS. There are a lot of features that I still haven't been able to use yet, but I have so much more options to be creative than I had with my Z5, which as new costs the same as the G9. I don't have to bring my tripod with me because the IBIS is so much better than the Z5 (even though the IBIS in the Z5 is good, just not as good). The IBIS is better because of the smaller sensor size, making it easier to stabilize the sensor. Video. The Panasonic G9 is an amazing video camera, even today. What I know that I had to give up: The "better image quality". Full frame sensors do offer better image quality, but not much and not so much as being an issue for me. Again, it really depends on what you are doing, but if you're not earning money from your photography and you know the technicalities, then you really don't get "better image quality" with a full frame camera to the extent that it's worth it. And since most newer MFT cameras have high resolution options the higher pixel count of full frame sensors aren't that crucial. To be honest, I have an easier time to edit my Nikon raw files than my Oly or Panasonic raw files, and I can push them further, but I rarely have to do so, and knowing that I can do multiple exposures or high resolution shots basically mean I end up being able to do the same with those files, I just have to take one extra step. I won't be able to reach the same depth of fields shot as I did with my full frame camera. This can be an issue in very rare cases, but I don't miss it. Whenever I do portraits, I would always stop down to f5.6 or f8 anyway, in order to make sure that everything is in focus. Sure, the beautiful artistic shots where the in focus smoothly runs out of focus is hard to obtain, but not impossible. I am going to invest in an f0.9 lens (Voigtlander, love them), which will allow this to be done, but it's very rare I do these kind of portraits. My focus is on the story telling via props and the lighting. Cases where I absolutely would reconsider MFT: If my style demanded very shallow depth of focus or if I shot professionally for high end clients, then I would go with full frame or even medium format. Particularly if I did studio work. If I did large printing, if I would have to do a lot of cropping (take one shot, get it all in there), then I would go with full frame or medium format. If I did a lot of low light photography I would go with full frame. Generally, if I did professional photography I would probably go with full frame, depending on where I lived. Not so much because of the sensor size, but because gear would be more available, and in these cases I would go with Canon, Nikon, or Sony. This would allow me the option to easily replace gear, to get it insured, to rent gear when needed, etc. When people make videos like this, which is a great and informative video, I wish there would be more emphasis on the "do you need this?" or "when and how do you need this". When I was new I had no clue. I wasn't aware that f4 on a full frame could give a nice out of focus background, depending on what I shot, and that f1.8 on APS-C would do the same - or the other way around. Or that it's more crucial to think about composition, that the background actually might be important for the story, etc. I don't want people to invest in MFT, unless that it's the right choice for them. I do miss my full frame camera, there is definitely miss the system. But the push for everything to be full frame and that being promoted as "the perfect sensor" or system is problematic. Most people can't afford to invest in the full frame system with all the lenses that often is being promoted. And most are not fully aware of the strengths and downfalls of the various systems and how it applies to their needs.

One of the most "putting people at ease" explanations about that "fizzics" laden topic I've seen yet, nicely done. Plus the obvious always, in my opinion, helpful "get out and shoot with what you have". Thank you ! 🥰

@nvrumi

Ай бұрын

Physics!!!!!! I went down the mathematical/physics rabbit hole several years and came away thinking that most "experts" didn't know what they were talking about. Thanks, Simon. Well done.

As a setup to your discussion of equivalence, ISO and noise, I will suggest mentioning that the light used to make the photo is the source of noise in the photo. Noise is determined by the total light delivered to the sensor. A smaller sensor working with the same exposure as as a larger sensor will, as you explained earlier in the video, capture less total light. Increasing exposure to f/2.5 allows the APS-C sensor camera to collect the same total light as the full-frame. Same total light equals the same noise. ISO's role is to set the image lightness of the photo. It's not a noise source. Since the full-frame camera is working with a weaker exposure, it needs a higher ISO to make an equivalent image. Thank you, again, for all the educational content you produce and the inspiration you provide.

@PaulMansfield

Ай бұрын

There's multiple sources of noise that make it into a photo. As well as the light from the scene, there's noise from the sensor itself, and noise from the electronics which read the sensor (these latter are affected by thermals).

@BillFerris

Ай бұрын

​@@PaulMansfieldread noise is much lower than shot noise in photos. It gets lower as ISO increases unless the camera has a dual-gain sensor. Starting somewhere between ISO 400 and 800 many Nikon and Sony cameras become invariant across a wide range of ISOs. The read noise at the dual gain setting is as low as at ISO 6400 (or higher). At very high ISOs (25600 or so) pattern read noise can become most obvious to the eye. But at lower ISOs, shot noise (determined by the total light used to make the photo) is what we see.

I recently moved to Alaska and was getting into photography again after not doing it for a while, I expected it to be easy but I was quickly overwhelmed as it was the first time I've had to shoot in very dark conditions. Your videos have helped me the most and allowed be to actually get the photos that I want so I can share the experiences that I have here with my friends and family in the lower 48, Thank you so much.

Simon I don t always share what you say but you have here probably the simpliest and best explanation about link between crop sensor size , aperture and OSO so big thx for this.

This is one of the best videos on this subject I’ve seen. I rarely see a concise explanation like this that maintains the necessary context and nuance. I often find people mention one or two of these points in passing with little context which leaves the audience to debate its importance. Great work as always!

@simon_dentremont

Ай бұрын

Glad it was helpful!

@vstev86

Ай бұрын

This is what he does. An absolute superstar.

@gregsullivan7408

Ай бұрын

@@vstev86 seconded. I've only recently discovered Simon, and it's almost criminal that I can get all this excellent material, presented so professionally, for free. I'm also amazed at how active he is in the comments. Don't burn yourself out Simon - you're IMPORTANT! 🤣🤣

Been shooting with APS-C for the past 12 years due to form factor and of course cheaper cost. I don't really care about the technicality compared to fullframe (although i understand the differences). The ultimate goal is the image we took, not the technical aspect of the camera

@gavinjenkins899

Ай бұрын

You don't need to care if you only shoot one format, but anyone shooting multiple formats very much needs to care, as unlike you they cannot just build up a set of intuitions for one format ("35mm looks like ___" works for you as a blanket understanding, but not for them). They must worry about this. I shoot APS-C, and also full frame, and also 6x6, and also 645, and also 4x5 large format... There's no way I can memorize separate intuitions for all 5 formats, I need to use crop factor to retain any sanity.

@marcp.1752

Ай бұрын

@@gavinjenkins899Sensor size (or film size) doesn't mean much, but composition does, into the end, after all. Just for the record, being used to 36x24mm small picture format (Kleinbildformat) since the 80s. I only shoot 35mm & DX/APS-C. And if you shoot 4x5, 6x7 or 8x10, etc. via film, it's even exactly the same - you care only about the quality of light, your final composition, the mood, the atmosphere, the emotion, which you want to capture, within an image - not which lens, how big (or small - depends) the "Sensor" or film surface is, whatever. This is not important, into the end. When you go to dinner, you also don't ask the cook, which brand or -size of pots he used - because that would being insanely stupid, as it doesn't matter. Albeit it doesn't matter, but when you shoot into great light with a phone, it wouldn't look really, if only negledigble different, compared to 35mm, MF, etc. when watching at small sizes, one does usually see onto the web. CAs, distortions, etc. isn't a big deal at way small online viewing picture sizes, but when you print them out big, or if one does "pixel-peep". (which is kinda boring - because those folks watching at 200-400% aren't looking at their composition as a whole -but trying to find lens imperfections - for exact the same reasons, many folks of HighEnd Hi-Fi gear don't want to -*-hear-*- music, for their enjoyment - instead, they want to hear their -*-gear-*- only. And i know exactly what i am saying, i was like that for decades. Been there, gone is that. Nowadays, its still all the same - gearheads want more MP, more video features, better AF speed (all photogs are true pro sports shooters - by default /sarcasm) etc...film is way more rewarding, a haptic medium, and does make a lot of more fun, than digital. I have 3 35mm setups from different brands, and digital -just- bores me to death...but film does make a lot of fun (also mistakes) since the 80's...ongoing. Its a much more rewarding process...and no chimping, no pixel poopers.

@gavinjenkins899

Ай бұрын

@@marcp.1752 Obviously, depth of field etc affects emotions, so this didn't really change the conversation. So do the pots cooks use. You may not know what pots they were as a diner, it still affected the cooking anyway... so it mattered...

I gotta say, I love your videos. I took a photography class in high school, and loved it so much I got another class changed to T.A. for the photo teacher. We used Nikon D60 and Nikon D3000. On the 5th of this month my wife bought me a Canon Rebel T7 DSLR, just in time to re-learn how to use it for the eclipse. I was able to get an amazing photo. I'm learning so much about this camera plus all of the other photography tech I've missed out on in the years thanks to your videos. For some subjects, it's just a refresher, but for something like crop factor it's nice to hear it explained concisely and easily to help me understand what's inside /my/ camera.

This is a really great explanation of a complex subject. Thank you for all the insights and congratulations for explaining it so well.

Man, i download almost all of your education videos for me to watch at work (I'm an engineer) , and on the rare occasion i don't learn something new or make a note of something you said , i almost definitely get entertained and encouraged to continue photography as my art project 📷

@markhusbands6132

Ай бұрын

Nice video

@nvrumi

Ай бұрын

I'm another engineer who watches Simon's videos. You're right. ;)

I’ve basically waited 20 years for this simple explanation. Merci Simon!

Exactly the vid I needed right now. I had a grasp of it sufficient to apply it, but now I understand well enough to be able to explain it - and the crop squared for iso isn't something I knew, I just adjusted till it looked ok. Fantastic work, probably the definitive clip on the subject on this platform.

@simon_dentremont

Ай бұрын

Glad it was helpful!

Excellent explanation. I learned this way back in the days of film when dealing with 35mm, 2 1/4, 5x4 and large formats. Using film, it can become critical when dealing with exposure values, focus fall off and vignetting that is difficult to correct or compensate for in a wet lab.

Have you got a video where you show your kit for landscape photography? That would be good to see! Sensor-wise I'm a massive m43 fan due to size, but do miss some of the benefits from FF!

@simon_dentremont

Ай бұрын

Not yet!

Best channel ever. thank you

@simon_dentremont

Ай бұрын

Wow, thanks!

This came up recently when I was talking to a buddy making this video perfectly timed.

Your channel has been such an invaluable source to me as a "newbie" learning on my first "real camera" setup. Thank you for all you do!

@simon_dentremont

Ай бұрын

Great to hear!

Good video. I think lots of beginner (and some experienced) photographers get very tangled up over equivalence. The thing to remember is that equivalence is something that photographers do in their head, it's not a thing cameras and lenses do. A 50mm f/1.2 is a 50mm f/1.2 on a camera with a 35mm sensor, APSC 1.5x (everyone but Canon), APSC 1.6x (Canon), or 2x (M43). But the result looks different. It's only when a photographer wants to recreate something from one sensor size to another sensor size - then that's when they get involved in equivalence. I've been shooting Fuji for so long (1.52x) that I know what a 50mm, 100m, or 10mm looks like on that sensor. It doesn't matter what it looks like on any other sizes - I don't shoot those. Equivalence plays no part in what I do.

@coolcat23

Ай бұрын

It isn't quite as simple as that. The problem is that many people see how focal length must be understand in terms of the format used. In other words, that sensor sizes impact on how images with a certain focal length look like. The same people, however, typically fail to understand that the same is true for f-ratios and ISO settings.

@europlatus

Ай бұрын

@@coolcat23 It is as simple as that for @grumpyrocker because he only uses one sensor size. You don't need to learn equivalencies to learn photography. If you start with a crop sensor and remain on a crop sensor for life, you have zero need to learn anything other than how that particular sensor size affects fov, depth of field, etc.

@coolcat23

Ай бұрын

@@europlatus Stating "A 50mm f/1.2 is a 50mm f/1.2" is as misleading as saying "100kg is a 100kg" and ignoring whether that weight has to be lifted by an ant or a human. Context matters. Of course, one can ignore equivalence when using a single format only, but a) stating "A 50mm f/1.2 is a 50mm f/1.2" remains misleading and, b) one would have to ignore notions such as "50mm is a normal focal length" and "an f/1.4 lens is a 'fast' lens".

@hellni79

Ай бұрын

@@europlatus so when you study photography and see the master using a 50 you don't need to know that you 50 on aps-c is not what they were using? or when you interact with photographers using FF you really think is not important to know the basic of equivalence? I use aps-c and ALWAYS think as I'm on full frame, I perfectly know my 35 1.2 is basically a 50 f2 and when I talk to others or study a photographer I always keep that in mind. I'm not shooting with a 35 1.4, I'm shooting at 50mm field of view with a f2 aperture.

I think a big problem is too many try to 'normalize' everything to ff. The different sensor sizes are, well, different which does affect depth of field because differentfocal lengths show a different magnification/field of view but focal length is focal length. Ditto aperture is aperture but the depth of field is differentbecauseof different focal length. Unfortunately this leads to all sorts of ideas, it's much better to work with focal length and aperture and work with your format rather than trying to think in ff.

"Not to make you lust after what you don't have but help you make the most of what you do have." That's wisdom. Given a choice between a great camera and mediocre skills vs mediocre camera in the hands of a skilled photographer, the results from the mediocre camera will be better for sure.

@halfsourlizard9319

Ай бұрын

100% ... It's all probability distributions -- with nature photography, especially, but with everything (Photographer has little control over when a portrait subject blinks, e.g.) -- and the technical side of photography is about knowing which variables your equipment can influence and adjusting those to increase the odds of the shots that you'd like. The kit sets the limits of the parameters; being a good photographer is about working within those limits.

"...just save some money for fast lenses..." Could not have said it better. That said, I sometimes wonder how diffraction plays into equivalency. Diffraction is an absolute-size thing (absolute size of lens opening to absolute size of Airy disc on sensor as opposed to f-number, which is relative to lens length - and lens width is relative to the image disc required to cover the sensor). It's fairly academic for me as I shoot a lot of low light so FF is a no-brainer. BTW, did I see a shot from Jon Sach's 'DOF'? I worked with him at Lotus Development (before he wrote Picture Window). Either way, it's a decent *free* app on Android, iOS, and Windows; let's you plug in your sensor size and focal length and interactive see what changing aperture does. Worth a look if you haven't seen it.

@gregsullivan7408

Ай бұрын

Yes, I've been wondering about diffraction too. I sent a suggestion to Tony Northrup to expand his presentations on equivalency to include diffraction (no response)

@BlazeFirereign

Күн бұрын

If you're stopping down when shooting to maintain a certain depth of field, the impact of diffraction - i.e. the size of the Airy disc - is the same when *viewing the image at the same size.* For example, let's say you take an MFT shot at F8. Then, to match the composition and depth of field, you take a FF shot at F16. The diameter of the Airy disk is doubled in the FF shot, and therefore the area of the disk is quadrupled. But the area of the FF sensor is also quadruple that of MFT. If you then printed the two shots *at the same print size* then the relative size of the Airy disk on that print is the same. Of course, this also means that the higher resolution shot - probably the FF sensor - has "lost" more to diffraction.

@gregsullivan7408

Күн бұрын

​@@BlazeFirereignfascinating - thankyou! I'd never even heard that term before. I'm beginning to understand why experienced lens reviewers (e.g Christopher Frost) seem to know intuitively when diffraction will start to kick in - it's largely determined by the aperture, NOT the individual characteristics of the lens, at least for reasonably high quality lenses. (if my understanding is correct)

@BlazeFirereign

Күн бұрын

@@gregsullivan7408 If you had a perfect lens on an infinite resolution sensor, it would be "diffraction limited" at *all* apertures. Of course, perfect lenses and infinite resolution sensors don't exist. Lenses improve when stopped down, *until* they hit the diffraction bound. That's true of all lenses, but a "better" lens will hit that bound at a brighter aperture. But whether or not that limitation is *visible* depends on how large the Airy disc is compared to the pixel pitch of the sensor. Then you also need to consider that, for almost all lenses, edges and corners perform "worse" than the centre. That means the centre will hit the limit "sooner" and start to decline while the corners might still be improving from stopping down. Speaking from experience with Micro Four Thirds, most quality Oly/OM lenses "perform best" (i.e. hit the diffraction bound) at around F4 to F5.6. That's where "peak sharpness" can be measured. However, the effect is tiny until F8, very hard to see until F11, and only really "a problem" when stopping down further than that. And those numbers are the same on almost all lenses *for that sensor,* because almost all lenses are diffraction limited at the point where it's visible. It's the aforementioned pixel pitch that determines when it's visible. 20MP MFT, for example, has slightly smaller pixels than the 61MP full frame sensors, so it's visible "sooner". But "visible" here means "zoomed to 100% on a screen". As mentioned previously, if you're printing, it's the print size that matters. If I take a shot at F13 on MFT, then at F32 on medium format - the "crop factor" between the two is about 2.5 - then print both images at, say, 60x40cm, they'll probably look very similar. (Which would be more disappointing for the medium format camera!)

One of the best on the subject. I'm an electronics engineer. And I look at this from a purely physical angle that makes it much easier to understand for me. A lens is a lens and it does not care what sensor is behind it. It always does the same. The thing that makes the difference is pixel density and with that pixel size on the sensor. That makes all the difference. And most photographers are more artist than scientist, so it is normal they forget about that. Simon is clearly both artist and scientist🙂. But, Simon, tell about pixel size. That is what makes the difference. Your total light argument is correct, the real reason why a FF has less noise though is pixel size. As in your analogy: each pixel on a FF is a liitle pool in its own right and the little pools are usually larger on a FF. The crop sensor only uses a smaller piece of the image circle, there is nothing else to it. So *_everything_* is the same, really. Things get complicated when you are starting to mess with the lens settings to get an equivalent image. People, that is optics, not sensor size, don't forget that. Your Full Frame sensor can be put in crop mode so it only uses the centre piece of the sensor to make the image. Do you think that changes lens behavior? See how simple this is? If you have 24 Mpix on a 24 x 36 mm sensor, the quick and dirty statement is that each pixel can have a maximum size of 24.10^-3 * 36.10^-3 / 24. 10^6 = 36.10^-12 (sorry, I don't know how to put formulae in a youtube comment) so the surface of a pixel can be "36 square microns". Do the same calc for an APS-C sensor. Now you have "16 square microns". That is less than half the pixel size. Less than half surface to collect light. For the proper image exposure, equivalent to full frame, the amplifier behind the sensor needs to be turned up a notch. Do this with your audio amplifier and you'll see what I mean. More noise. And that is the difference. A higher pixel density means - at equivalent state of technology - more noise on the APS-C sensor. Another maybe easier approach. My 24 Mpix R8 uses 9 Mpix in APS-C mode. My R7 has a sensor that packs 32.5 Mpix on the same surface. No wonder the R8 has better noise perfomance. No wonder full frame is better in low light. No wonder the FF image is sharper, the lens with the same identical resolution will be much more exposed to the scrutiny of those tiny pixels on the APS-C sensor, seeing lens defects much enlarged on the image frame. Comparing a 24 Mpix FF to a 32.5 MPix APS-C is bonkers. You must compare a 83.2 Mpix FF with a 32.5 Mpix APS-C. That is the fair comparison. My EF 24-105 f/4 L looked really good on my 10 Mpix APS-C Canon 40D. On the R7, this lens is pretty poor. On the R8 I'm back to the 40D's pixel density. And behold! It's good again! For an APS-C's sensor like the R7's, the lens must be ultra sharp and ultra good. The simple truth is Canon has difficulty making such lenses. Competition is better at it. That is probably why Canon avoids high-end APS-C and is not opening RF AF to competition, it is weakness, really. The only Canon lens I know that can keep up with the R7 sensor is the RF 28mm f/2.8 pancake. A full frame lens.

@dogpadogpa

Ай бұрын

Spot on, also one last thing that most people don't get told: the size of your photo (on screen or printed). To compare a full frame photo vs a crop photo (at the same size) would show the full frame to be cleaner. But the true size comparison shows that a big full frame photo next to a smaller crop photo would be almost exactly the same in noise etc. i.e. a full frame printed at a2 vs a m4/3 printed at a4 would show the same levels of noise. (assuming all other aspects like pixel size, technology, lens are the same) That single comparison of only viewing 'at the same size' is what makes full frame seem hugely better in noise (also without talking about weight, size, cost). I go on to say 'larger sensors give you bigger pictures'. Most people say 'larger sensors give you cleaner pictures'.

@gregsullivan7408

Ай бұрын

Sorry dogpa - I still disagree with you here too. 😉 Larger sensors DO produce cleaner photos, but only if they are using more light energy for the exposure than the smaller sensor. If the two sensors have the same base ISO (e.g 100), and the larger sensor is operating at that base ISO, the simple fact is that the larger sensor will be using more light than the smaller sensor, and it will produce less noise. The only way the smaller sensor could match it would be if it was capable of a lower ISO than the larger sensor. It's important to note, however, that if the two cameras are using the same ISO, they will be taking different photos. (e.g, different DoF, or different motion blur).

@dogpadogpa

Ай бұрын

@@gregsullivan7408 OK, try this to understand what I'm saying. Take a normal photo. Now make a copy of that photo and crop it down to a quarter the size (crop a 25% size frame, throw out 75%). Now magnify the cropped photo next to the normal photo so they come out at the same size. Notice the cropped photo has more noise? Why is that? (remember: the photo hasn't changed in light collection or camera).

@gregsullivan7408

Ай бұрын

​@@dogpadogpait HAS changed in total light energy. I think you are confusing light intensity, and brightness. Yes - that cropped image was exposed with the same BRIGHTNESS, but the light ENERGY (brightness X area X time) is four times less. The "equivalence" relationship is that if the same light ENERGY is the same, the noise will be the same. So, if the two sensors have the same resolution, DESPITE the fact that the brightness experienced by the larger sensor will be less (higher f-stop, thus higher ISO), the noise will be the same, because the signal to noise ratio of the larger photosites is proportionally better than those in the smaller sensor. And, if the resolutions are different, it's still the same, due to the fact that noise is reduced when down sampling, & increased (visually) when up sampling. As I've said elsewhere - when we have different resolutions, we have a choice as to how to proceed - keep the resolution until final rendering, or resample up front etc etc

@dogpadogpa

Ай бұрын

@@gregsullivan7408 What I'm saying is you're not changing the original file. The light hasn't changed in anyway, but your viewing has. Or this is the same: print a photo at a4, print the exact same photo at a2. The bigger you print the more noise you'll 'see' because you're magnifying your view. Or this too: view an image. Zoom in to the same image. The zoom is noisier (even though NOTHING has changed in the image).

When I first started playing around with photography about a year and a half ago the whole “crop factor” thing really threw me for a loop. Lenses kept bringing crop factor up all the time as did sensor size discussions. As my genre was astrophotography diving deep into this whole mess was ultimately very useful for me as I was also building raspberry pi astro cams mated to my Nikon lenses so figuring the math out on all this helped me quite a bit. This winter has been a complete astro bust for me so I recently started shooting random things on my daily walks which has forced me to become way more fluent in “normal” photography skills and talking points. I understand have come understand why my brother, who is a photographer, kept telling me to forget about crop factor as the only camera I’m shooting with is APS-C and therefore crop factor is irrelevant. This was initially irritating because I couldn’t see the truth of it. This topic only matters when you are using different sensor sizes as I do on my astrophotography AND you are trying to keep as much stuff the same across your lens/sensor combinations. If you aren’t swapping your lens to different sensor sizes then don’t worry about it … just figure out the lenses and sensors you are using. But … if you are switching it up across lenses and sensors and want the same framing, exposure, depth of field, etc., then this video is super helpful to clarify stuff if you don’t want to crawl into the math. Super clear and helpful.

In a perfect world, I could afford a Canon R6II. I'm finding myself looking to the R7 and R8. I'm focused on the benefits of the fully featured R7, such as IBIS; vs the full frame of the R8. I'm mostly still feeling lost, but your videos are helping me learn about the new products. My needs range from indoor pictures of my toddler and family, to nature (wild flowers, the coast and ocean waves, landscapes), and also motorsport (and car show) photography. I will be coming from a 6D which I bought used many years ago. My biggest apprehension with the R7 at the moment is being able to get wide enough angles for family pictures, as well as up close on flowers such as trillium, or interesting bugs.

@gregsullivan7408

Ай бұрын

I'm in a similar situation, except that I'm also considering very old cameras, such as 2nd generation A7 & A7R. The one I have my heart most set on is the A7C (1st gen) though

@minesaver

Ай бұрын

@@gregsullivan7408 I'm leaning toward the R8 at this point. I was almost considering going up to a used R6, but I really want the most modern software, focusing, and sensor. Good luck on your journey

1:11 My OCD cannot handle the measurements of the sensors on the wrong axis.

@StephenStrangways

Ай бұрын

The APS-C measurements he says are for his Canon cameras are also completely wrong.

@simon_dentremont

Ай бұрын

True!

This is the best summary I’ve seen on this topic.

Excellent description of this difficult topic!

In a bell of a word - perfect, dear Simon!💯

You are spot on when saying equivalence is often misunderstood, Unfortunately, some folks see equivalence as a method for determining which format is best - often arriving at the conclusion that full-frame is best. In fact, equivalence is simply a method for determining the settings needed for different format cameras to make the same photo. Rather than making the case that one format is better than another, equivalence sheds light on how different formats can deliver the same output.

@gregsullivan7408

Ай бұрын

And it also sheds light on the types of situations where equivalence will be impossible, which will guide one to the most appropriate equipment for a particular situation

@joestrahl6980

Ай бұрын

Excellent comment, really nailed it.

@coolcat23

Ай бұрын

Make no mistake, though, for certain scenarios and applications, larger formats are better in practice. Note that the main difference between the IMAX format and regular cinema formats is the size of the negative. Theoretically, one could achieve the same quality with a smaller format (especially when using a digital format), but it becomes increasingly more difficult and expensive to match the quality of a large format with a smaller format, the higher the crop factor is.

@BillFerris

Ай бұрын

@@coolcat23 Yes, there are scenarios in which a larger format camera will be the better choice. However, equivalence doesn't get you to that conclusion. Consideration of a combination of factors including the demands of the photo and the needs & interests of the photographer will.

Finally, a correct explanation of crop factor and focal length and aperture. The "equivalent image" will be slightly different....physics does not change with "crop factor".

The best explanation I heard so far. Thank you very much. 🙂👍

@simon_dentremont

Ай бұрын

Glad it was helpful!

Excellent, concise explanation. Thanks for sharing.

Spot on. They’re tools. They have their advantages and disadvantages… pick the tool for the job. M4/3 can be helpful for travel and landscape since they’re often lighter and you can stabilize a smaller sensor easier , plus f/4 is f/8 DOF. However for portraits, the compression of a 50mm lens is just different than a 25mm lens (m4/3). Not to mention, like you said, there is no equivalent to a 50mm f/1.4 on m4/3

@gregsullivan7408

Ай бұрын

Incorrect - if there WAS an F0.7 25mm lens available, the photos would then look identical (or very very similar).

Finally someone who has some common sense. Each time I try to explain these nuances on the comment section (looking at Tony and Chelsea Northrup channel) I get swarmed and murdered 😂

@gregsullivan7408

Ай бұрын

I stumbled on an old email where I explained all this equivalence stuff to a photographer friend (an actual real life friend 😉) - I was expecting thanks & gratitude, but their response was "it's clear that your interest in photography is at the opposite end of the spectrum to mine". So I rushed back to the internet where I'm more at home. 🤣🤣

If you look at the actual mathematical formula for DOF, you will see the DOF is directly related to c, the circle of confusion, which does vary with sensor size (not pixel density). Smaller sensors have smaller c, which if why sites like f-stoppers claim that smaller sensors actually give you less DOF. However the DOF equation also includes an inverse relation with focal length SQUARED, so with smaller sensors using a shorter focal length to get the same field of view, this had more effect on DOF than the smaller c, which is why smaller sensors have a more DOF than larger sensors, when everything else is comparable.

There is no other youtube channel, where I can get so much knowledge conveyed in a simple way. Thank you so much for sharing this with us. Greetings from Poland, mr Simon ;)

@JeffreyHauser

Ай бұрын

Hi Simon. Great explanation on a most controversial subject. I shoot on an APSC sensor (Fujifilm). What is most important to me is letting in the most light to my smaller sensor. Hence, fast glass with large apertures, f1.2, f1.4 etc. are important to me & being able to shoot at a lower ISO is a side benefit of fast glass. Your videos & teaching style is exemplary. Best wishes & safe travels.😊

Finally a proper video that puts this debate to rest. Because you are right, it is all about equivalency! Saying that the aperture is always depending on the crop factor would basically mean that the size of the sensor somehow has a direct influence on the size of the physical hole the light shines through as it passes through the lens. Which makes zero sense! And about the exposure, of course it stays the same, independant from the sensor size. I've seen some people making a crucial mistake when they compared this between APS-C and 35mm cameras. They used different lenses. Like an APS-C 35mm f/1.8 and a full frame 35mm f/1.8. Naturally this does have an effect on the exposure because even though focal length and aperture are the same, those two lenses can have different light transmission...

Very insightful indeed. At 1:50 you said people have misconception that crop sensor lenses shrink images to fit a smaller sensor. Wondering if that is indeed the case. Specialized crop sensor lenses do create images (circular) that can only fit the area of a crop/APS-S sensor size and when used on full-frame they do not cover the entire sensor (36mm x 24 mm). So, in a way, crop sensor lenses do shrink the images to cover crop sensor or smaller area.

@simon_dentremont

Ай бұрын

No, the image circle is smaller, but the subject within the circle doesn’t change in size.

@sumansen1807

Ай бұрын

@@simon_dentremont Got it. Thanks for clarifying this.

Man, I just love your content! The way you speak is so pleasing

@simon_dentremont

Ай бұрын

Glad you enjoy it!

New to photography I was a bit lost on the overall effects of my APS-C and how to compensate until seeing this video. Thank you!

Finally a video that explains the differences perfectly. I shoot FF and M 4/3. There are features on my OM-1 that just cannot be found in the full frame world. I also prefer it for wild life and nature photography.

Here's where terminology can trip you up again. You say that to get the same (shallow) DOF in a smaller sensor you need a 'wider' aperture. Actually you need the same aperture (aperture is the size of the 'hole' through which the light passes - the entrance pupil) but since the focal length is smaller to get the same framing, the same aperture means a smaller f-number, since f-number is focal length divided by aperture. Yes, I know we all say 'aperture' when we really mean 'f-number', but the two terms aren't synonymous - and it's this tyre of discussion where you can trip over this. Anyhow, apart from that point, great video. Think about if your camera was a black box - you don't know what is going on inside. All your photography is controlled by what is happening in front of the lens - the camera to subject distance, the angle of view, the size of the aperture and the exposure time. It's only because our standard camera controls insist on you knowing what's going on inside that we have these issues.

@simon_dentremont

Ай бұрын

True!

the way I see things is that an f2.8 on full frame corresponds to an f2.8 on crop sensors because they give the same exposure, the consequences on depth of field and noise are just features of one format or the other, for example one may even prefer a deeper depth of field, or even a more grainy photo. the real indisputable advantage of full frame for me is mode detail, more resolution....even for the same nominal resolution and with comparable quality lenses.....anyway, your explanation is impeccable!

Thank you for this EXCELLENT explanation. I've been thinking about this a lot recently, and that I rarely hear it explained well. I even thought about making a video, but no one would see it, so thanks again for doing it :)

Thanks Simon! Great video as usual. I started photography a little over a year ago with a little canon t100, and now I have a R8 that I absolutely love. But I still carry that little t100 to work with me every day and some of my favorite pictures were taken on it. Both have strong points and are great. My point is that it doesn't matter if you're shooting on a 300 dollar camera or a 1500 dollar camera, if you learn the process of how to take a picture, you can usually get something great 👍 keep up the great videos!

Thank you very much! Very helpful video!

Definitely sounds like if you’re lacking reach because you don’t have the budget for an 800mm with a 1.4x extender, crop sensors are probably a better option for you. Thanks for the video!!!

@simon_dentremont

Ай бұрын

They are, and as such, a great way to get into wildlife photography

I moved to full frame and it is a better format. I only have two lenses and they may be all I need. The low light capabilities are good. I can also use the video side. Mainly used for wildlife and landscape. Yes cost may be higher but quality is something you pay for. And it make me appreciate what I have. So it is better value at the end of the day.

A rule of thumb is all lenses are a similar size when depth of field is the principal metric, whatever the sensor dimensions.

@gregsullivan7408

Ай бұрын

Yes! I have a related question: is it more difficult to make, say, a MFT 25mm F1 lens, than a FF 50mm F2 lens? (I'm guessing yes)

Nice and detailed video. Straight to the point! Probably one of the best videos on this topic! 👌

One point you didn’t mention is metering. Metering while in crop mode in camera will be more accurate vs cropping in post.

maybe two concepts i would like to see discussed more often to improve my understanding: 1) depth of field as a mathematical representation of acceptable sharpness versus overall background blur/separation/bokeh quality - equal mathematical DOF can yield differently looking images with different perceived quality of separation (I would even say the comparison you made between FF and APSC is correctly labeled as "similar" - I can still see different quality to the backgrounds) 2) in regards to the above - the "optical depth of field" (a simplified term for my understanding) is produced by the lens depending on its opening size and focal length. These 2 variables gather and bend the light coming in and generate the DOF. This way you can also simply compare various lenses regardless the format of the sensor you project onto - eg a 600 f6.3 is gonna have less DOF than a 300 f4, regardless if you project the 300f4's image circle onto a m43 (==600mm) or a smartphone sensor (6000mm xD) 3) which has to do with the role of `circle of confusion` in DOF calculators , what i call a "calculated depth of field" . The DOF calculations assume format-dependent COC, which imply that a greater image enlargement (eg using a smaller crop sensor) blurs the image - it decreased DOF, as it makes previously sharp points appear blurred due to enlargement. Since we enlarge cropped sensors more than fullframe to achieve the same output size - the DOF calculators give them a certain boost. this matters , because shots made with 400 f4.5 on m43 do not offer the visual quality of subject separation of shots made with 400 2.8 on FF over the same subject distance. I used this example because such comparison can be found on ytb. Mathematically speaking, the m43 setup provides even shallower DOF than fullframe due to larger cropping. With that logic, this lens mounted onto a smartphone will yield the absolutely ultimate DOF experience. Will it, though. Lastly - as image enlargement due to crop sensors enhances blurred areas via magnification, it also decreases sharpness of the previously sharp areas (thats the mechanism of how the DOF gets shallower). So it would be good to point out the difference in lens design - a) older versus newer lenses which are built with high res bodies in mind b)Dedicated FF lenses used on crop bodies and the negative impact on quality of output c) And contrary to that - m43 lenses which are actually designed for higher pixel density smaller sensors. (I could speak about my 300 f4 killing every other FF lenses I used on DX body previously, no big fast primes though, but that's a different category really)

I've been shooting FF and crop side by side for ... 2 weeks. LOL I just took possession of a crop sensor R7 to go along with my EOS-R. My "real world" swapping has told me a couple of things - 1) the R7 seems to lose out only in being a bit noisier in final image quality - but it's manageable. 2) the two cameras get very different things out of lenses - the crop sensor cuts out distortion and vignetting, but exaggerates chromatic aberration in full frame lenses. 3) a lens of marginal sharpness (like some of my vintage lenses) is going to REALLY struggle on a crop sensor. 4) I can use that extra depth of field from the crop sensor to help me with my macro photography. and 5) I love using smaller, shorter, lenses! Having both available is a luxury, but, in the end, I find the value for money of the R7 mind blowing.

@ElMundoDuro

Ай бұрын

Crop sensors lenses often must be sharper than full frame lenses, and are designed with that in mind. Higher end full frame lenses usually do pretty good on small sensors because they were designed better. Crop sensors with full frame lenses only use the center part of the image and therefore cut off the soft corners, which can be a plus. APS-C has often been considered a budget option so manufacturers with APS-C and full frame options may not offer great glass or features, whereas micro four thirds manufacturers have decided their platform is also a professional platform and offer lots of features and lens options not available for APS-C.

@raulal00

Ай бұрын

little sensors are better for easy macro. Problably less quality, but 1/8 (1" vs ff) photos needed to full capture a perfect bug, jewel, or something like that

Tiny correction: at 1:26 Simon gives the dimensions of a Canon APS-C sensor, and says “a bit smaller on other brands”. It's actually a bit bigger on other brands, which is why Canon APS-C's crop factor is 1.6 and other brands are closer to 1.5 (exact numbers vary in the sources I found: I’ve seen 1.52 and 1.53 given for Fujifilm X, 1.53 for Nikon and Sony APS-C, and 1.62 for Canon APS-C).

@simon_dentremont

Ай бұрын

right!

I love the explanation with the science/math behind it.... its how my brain works so its much easier for me to understand even when i think i already know the stuff!

Thanks as always for an excellent video.

Excellent. Just a freakin' excellent presentation. Crop sensors don't affect exposure. Ever. Never has, never will. But as you explain, it does affect equivalency in other artistic parts of a photograph. Your video won't stop the debate commentary, but it is spot on and it will answer questions for those that want the true answers, and desire to move on. Well done.

Very clear and logical explanation. Thanks a lot.

Thanks a lot Simon, your channel is really informative as well as fun to watch! With respect to shutter speed and ISO, however, I found your explanations somehow confusing. When you are compensating the smaller size of a cropped sensor by decreasing the focal length, then, in the end, the viewing angle is preserved. The associated lower f-value can be understood as a consequence of the fact the the f-value is the ratio of focal length and the diameter of the aperture. However, when viewing angle and aperture diameter remains the same, so does the total amount of light and therefore, the shutter speed does not have to be adjusted! If this means that ISO has to be adjusted since ISO is somehow defined in terms of f-value, so be it. This only means that ISO values cannot be compared across different sensor size and ISO 100 on a cropped sensor corresponds to ISO 200 on a full frame WITHOUT any loss of image quality! So, by definition, with a larger sensor, you get more quality per ISO. The mentioned benefits such as higher dynamic range comes on top of that! Or is it me who got something wrong?

I did a direct comparison using the same lens on both an APS-C and FF Sony camera. I found if you pixel peep or crop a photo a lot say 2-3-4x, the difference was clear. But most people don't do that. Only in direct comparison, that it seems like the FF image looked overall a bit better - but again that was shooting the exact same shot under the same conditions. Frankly, it was kind of hard to tell the difference.

@gregsullivan7408

Ай бұрын

Others have made similar comments. The way I look at it is that this presentation only (or mainly) talks about equivalence as it pertains to the photographic result in the digital file. I think this knowledge is incredibly useful, both from the DoF/framing aspect, and noise aspect. However, I agree that we have to sensibly incorporate this into how we intend to display the photos. For example, I completely agree that if we're going to print 6x4s, (or often, even much larger) any difference between the noise will usually be obliterated - we can focus on other aspects of the images. We have to apply a bit of common sense in interpreting this "equivalence" issue.

G'day Simon, your vids are always super interesting delivered in the 'havin a chat with a mate from way back style' instead of ' I am an expert and what I say goes' please never change! Can't wait for the next one!