Does sensor size affect aperture? The TRUTH about CROP FACTOR.
ฝัง
- เผยแพร่เมื่อ 10 เม.ย. 2024
- Head to squarespace.com/simon to save 10% off your first purchase of a website or domain using code SIMON
Sign up for my email list and get a free e-book on How to Shoot Backlit.
www.simondentremont.com/freeb...
Want to take amazing wildlife photos? Check out my new course with 20 modules and over 5 hours of content, no fluff!
journalofwildlifephotography....
My name is Simon d'Entremont and I'm a professional wildlife and nature photographer from Eastern Canada. This video will show you how and when to (and not to) apply the sensor size crop factor to aperture settings.
I use Topaz Labs software for noise reduction, sharpening and upscaling:
topazlabs.com/ref/1943/Simon/...
Music in intro: "Nicer", by Houses on the Hill. Find that, and other sound effects at Epidemic Sounds
share.epidemicsound.com/0fbndn
My equipment:
Canon R5 body amzn.to/3S5jtBf
Canon R6 body amzn.to/3ZYu6HC
Canon R8 body amzn.to/3M0Xoj7
Canon R5 battery grip amzn.to/3PVg8Sy
Canon RF 600mm f4 amzn.to/494Zd8S
Canon 100-400 EF II amzn.to/3FhWrPP
Canon RF 70-200 f2.8 amzn.to/45zDP8F
Canon 17-40 L lens amzn.to/3y71MGt
Canon RF 16mm f2.8 amzn.to/3M3i0HI
FLM Tripod (CP 34 L4 II) and Levelling Head (HB 75)
flmcanada.com?aff=sdentrem
Sigma Art 50mm f1.4 lens amzn.to/3FjGkkW
Sigma Art 20mm f1.4 lens amzn.to/3Fhj7zD
Rokinon 135mm f2 lens amzn.to/3QfqIFi
Sirui x-k40 ball head amzn.to/3rRzIHf
Sirui lightweight Traveler 7C tripod with head amzn.to/3M0XDe1
Manfrotto Video Head amzn.to/3tpUzBO
Wimberley Gimbal Head amzn.to/3rSijhC
Hollyland Mars M1 field monitor amzn.to/3rQCRaa
Jackery portable 240 lithium-ion battery amzn.to/3QgBmvg
ProGrade Gold 128 GB CF Express amzn.to/46wv40g
ProGrade Cobalt 325 GB CF Express amzn.to/3RSUtNo
ProGrade Gold 256 GB SD amzn.to/48R3CMq
Zoom H1n field recorder amzn.to/3tAoJCE
Comica shotgun mic amzn.to/3REWN73
Rode Videomic NTG shotgun mic amzn.to/3tCeAW8
Rode Wireless GO II mic set amzn.to/45vsIxw
Lenscoat neoprene camera bags amzn.to/3SNiqmz
Lencoat rain cover for 500mm F4 amzn.to/3SGtyl2
Falconeyes F7 LCD panel amzn.to/3y75z6F
Lowepro 450 AW large backpack amzn.to/3xZOHyL
Lowepro Flipside 300 small backpack amzn.to/3SOTWt7
Mindshift 36L (closest available) backpack amzn.to/3ZXIiAH
GuraGear 30L bag for 600mm f4, use Code Simon for 10@% off
guragear.com/?ref=fKL1R1coS7su99
DJI Mavic Air 2S drone (flymore combo) amzn.to/3M3ijSS
B&W circular polarizer, 77mm amzn.to/3SKc6Mx
B&W 2 stop ND Filter amzn.to/3URyIN6
B&W 6 stop ND filter amzn.to/3y6gs8G
B&W 10 stop ND filter amzn.to/3fwRIjs
Nikon Monarch 5 8x42 binoculars amzn.to/3rXt2qX
Blackrapid retro-classic shoulder strap amzn.to/3y0wUHt
FjallRaven trekking pants amzn.to/3rSisSc
Heat 3 gloves (shell only) www.theheatcompany.com/en-us/...
Heat Company Merino Wool liners www.theheatcompany.com/en-us/...
HP Omen 17.3" performance laptop amzn.to/3S1vd7O
Synology NAS storage amzn.to/3RVfFSX
16 TB hard drives for NAS amzn.to/3S03Hrk
Follow me on:
Facebook / sdentrem
Instagram / simon.dentremont
Website www.simondentremont.com/
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.
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.
@@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.
@@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).
@@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?)
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.
Thanks very much!
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.
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)
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.
Simon is the goat
The respectful way you communicate information makes you the best photographer/educator on TH-cam in my opinion.
Thank you for helping lots of people and doing what you love for a living, Simon!
Wow, thank you!
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.
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.
@@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.
@@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’m always frustrated when TH-cam 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!
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.
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.
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.
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).
right!
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.
This is by far the best most accurate and complete video on the subject!
Wow, thanks!
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.
I love when people explain this topic correctly
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 !
🥰
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.
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!
You are a good man Simon .. and our enthusiasm, positivity, and deep wisdom are priceless
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.
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.
Very true!
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.
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!
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.
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.
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 📷
Nice video
I'm another engineer who watches Simon's videos. You're right. ;)
I shoot m43 and this is one of the best explanations I seen so far. Always enjoy your content.
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.
Very kind!
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.
Best channel ever. thank you
Wow, thanks!
Doing deep night bar and club photography I've never had to go above iso 3200 on m43, chose to go to 6400 or 12800 a couple times for specific effects, but 90% of images shot were at 800 iso on f0.95 lenses. First time I used my full frame s5iiX my iso never dropped beneath 3200
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.
Greatest explanation ever, thank you Simon . Im a Nikon crop and full frame user but not a math wizard so I just go out and shoot just for the fun and art of it. 😄📷
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.
Yes, those wanting more shallow depth of field from a smaller sensor can use a higher mm lens and take a few steps back.
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.
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
@@athmaid Achieve identical results in field of view and depth of field after cropping, albeit with reduced brightness. Give it a try!
@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.
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.
Wait til you try medium format then.
@@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 !
Excellent, concise explanation. Thanks for sharing.
This is a really great explanation of a complex subject. Thank you for all the insights and congratulations for explaining it so well.
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!
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 TH-cam (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.
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.
Glad it was helpful!
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
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!
Glad it was helpful!
This is what he does. An absolute superstar.
@@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! 🤣🤣
I own both full frame and APSC! I use the full frame for portraits and landscapes, APSC for sports and birds for the reach.
apparent reach
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 :)
Thank you very much! Very helpful video!
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!
In astrophotography what matters is the aperture diameter of the lens. The bigger the better. There are excellent small size sensors for astrophoto.
@@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 🙂
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.
@@gregsullivan7408 Yes of course, like I said, it applies no matter what you are projecting onto.
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.
Everybody neglects the entrance pupil!
This came up recently when I was talking to a buddy making this video perfectly timed.
Very clear and logical explanation. Thanks a lot.
"...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.
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)
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.
@@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)
@@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!)
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.
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.
@@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.
@@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".
@@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.
Another great educational video, thanks!
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.
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
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.
@@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.
@@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...
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!
Not yet!
Wow wow wow. I think this is so far the most understood on the differences between full & crop frame in terms of photography.
Go for full frame when you want to add videos but the best advice I had from SIMON is "invest in quality lenses" thanks Senior❤
Guess you don't know about how good the panny's are for video.
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!
This is the best summary I’ve seen on this topic.
I went from a Sony A7II (fullframe) to a OMSystem OM-5 and love photography even more now. I can't put a word to it really, but I just find it more enjoyable with the OM5.
That’s a great camera!
OM System is the best for me since so many years. Its so portable and the IS is amazing. You can easily hold the 150-400 f/4.5 with the internal optional 1.25 TC by hand. This is my lens to go. Afraid of ISO? Try Topaz or so. Full frame is so 1980, but it has a great lobby and the lobby did a really great job with manipulating the people.
PS: @simon_dentremont - 2 card slots? Ever had a look at these cameras? Every professional mFT camera has 2 card slots.
Anything is better than Sony.. no just kidding ! I just couldn’t resist. Enjoy your OM1. I’ll stick with my system. Been happy with it for 15 years . Still able to use all the lenses and bodies no matter what combination and I like the way it works.
@@gerhardbotha7336 yeah it's finally a really emotional thing to so many users. Most of the people act and thing emotionally and not rationally. This also includes price, weight, size, quality.
@@Xairoo He mentions that at the very end without really going into detail. He said you can find professional bodies in m 4/3 and showed an OM-1 with the new 150-600mm
Thanks as always for an excellent video.
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 🙏🏼
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.
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
Excellent comment, really nailed it.
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.
@@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.
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.
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).
@@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.
The kind of explanation i was looking for! Thank you so much for being so clear ❤
Nice and detailed video. Straight to the point! Probably one of the best videos on this topic! 👌
So if I'm understanding correctly, a full frame sensor is going to have less noise than a crop sensor at the same ISO value? Your example showed comparable noise with full frame at 1000 ISO and crop sensor at 400 ISO. So if the full frame sensor was at the same 400 ISO as the crop sensor, the image would be less noisy than the crop sensor.
Correct, but only if using roughly the same sensor/processing technology, you should get about 1 to 1.5 stops of extra ISO bump for the same noise. But older full-frames can be about as noisy as some newer crop sensors so it isn't a guarantee.
Of the same generation, yes, larger sensors have lower noise at the same iso, with slight adjustments up and down for tech.
Full frames shoot DRASTICALLY cleaner, than crop sensors, whenever you go above 100 ISO. Crop sensors are great for bright, sunny days. When you need ISO, because you can't take a longer shutter for whatever reason, then Crop sensor will have grain, where the full frame, can take a lot of ISO before you see the grain. As you can see in his video, even the 1,000 ISO photo is still cleaner than the 400 ISO crop sensor. There's simply no comparison, in low light, the full frame WILL mop the floor with the crop sensor.... EVEN with an older gen full frame, vs a modern crop. I know, because I stepped back 2 gens of full frame, due to cost and it still blew the doors off the modern crop. If you're planning on low light photography, get old older full frame over a new crop and put your $ in fast glass.
@@Warrior_Resisting_Colonialism It's about 1.5 stops, that's it -- and you must accept the loss of depth of field. Go on dxo or dpreview and compare say a6600 to A7iii, and 2 stops more ISO is noiser, but 1 stop is cleaner.. it's about 1 1/3 or 1.5 stops.
Also, compare that a6600/a6700 to the older full-frame Canon 5D mk2 or A7i and the a6600 is much cleaner despite being 1.5 APSC crop. Less noise, higher DR. Both dxo and dpreview demonstrate this.
Now, 1.5 stops of iso can really make a big difference in certain situations, so it may well be worth the added size, expense, and reduced depth of field.
Bigger pixels collect more light and bigger sensors generally have bigger pixels. If a Canon crop sensor and FF sensor both have the same number of pixels the FF pixels will be about 2.5 times as big.
Remember that ISO doesn't increase the amount of light collected, but controls how that light is processed/amplified. The reason ISO 1000 on the FF has similar noise to ISO 400 on the crop sensor is because (this isn't a perfectly accurate way to say it) that ISO 1000 is basically ISO 400 in terms of the processing/amplification of the collected light, but the number is adjusted so the exposure settings remain equivalent even though the pixels are gathering 2.56 times as much light. ISO on different sensors is kind of analogous to F-stops on lenses. F/4 is the same exposure on all lenses, but the area of the F/4 aperture on a 160mm lens is 2.56 times as big as the area of the F/4 aperture on a 100mm lens. Hope that helps it make sense.
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".
This is an excellent video that will be helpful to a lot of people!
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.
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.
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'.
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).
@@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).
@@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
@@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).
1:11 My OCD cannot handle the measurements of the sensors on the wrong axis.
The APS-C measurements he says are for his Canon cameras are also completely wrong.
True!
Simon dankjewel voor de mooie uitleg 👍🏻
The best explanation I heard so far. Thank you very much. 🙂👍
Glad it was helpful!
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
Incorrect - if there WAS an F0.7 25mm lens available, the photos would then look identical (or very very similar).
Hi Simon…this video has my head spinning! Will need to watch more than once! Thanks
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!
Great to hear!
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 😂
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. 🤣🤣
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 really like your materials. They are really informative and presented in so simple way :)
Excellent video, Simon. Well explained and (needless to say) spot on.
In a bell of a word - perfect, dear Simon!💯
Excellent description of this difficult topic!
Simply wow.. you made things easier to understand..
Glad to hear that
appreciated. Really solve a problem that bother me so long. Thank you.
Nicely explained.
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.
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 ;)
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.😊
Man, I just love your content! The way you speak is so pleasing
Glad you enjoy it!
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!
Great, sensible explanation!
This is what a genuine pro looks like, great video as always Simon!
Thanks a ton!
I’ll watch it for the algorithm but glad you made this for all the misconceptions out there
Extremely well presented!
Follow-up maybe could be on “speed boosters” and super 35 sensor sizes. Cheers
Great explanation of some very complicated concepts
I never really thought much about it, other than magnification.
Thanks for a great lesson
Glad it was helpful!
Just noticed this amazing channel and I immediately subscribed. right video lenght, an "around12(average)minutes" of really useful tips. thank you Simon.
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!
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!
Well done, thank you.
i love simon - no intro now is better
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.
No, the image circle is smaller, but the subject within the circle doesn’t change in size.
@@simon_dentremont Got it. Thanks for clarifying this.
Excellent! I recommend both your fellow TH-cam creators as well as other groups to watch this excellent video 😊
excellent review and examples