Might wanna drop the images taken in a Dropbox and post on here so we can see. Also (with the risk of sounding dumb) I think when people say “let’s in more light” is when dealing with low light shots, which I personally would have been more interested in. That said, glad you chose the R7 cause it’s a really good camera that everyone ignores cause apsc
You are absolutely right, the myth that larger sensors collect more light needs to be debunked. However, I believe that your experiment is one of the several situations where the full frame camera does collect more light: On the common part of the image (the part of the image covered by the crop sensor), the two are absolutely identical, which means that on the common part they collect the same amount of light. Since the full frame has a wider angle of view, it certainly collects more light. But anyway, the amount of light that the sensor collects is the amount of light delivered by the lens to the sensor. Perhaps, the more meaningful question is: how to produce similar images with different size sensors?
Look at these comments. Look at all these people grumbling and pouting because of semantics. No, I don't think anyone thought Todd meant that crop sensors were defying physics and that the same gross volume of photons was falling on a smaller area. Go back and watch a Tony Northrup video to calm yourselves. Seriously.
Are considering equivalence? Aperture (F-Number): Defined as the ratio of the lens's focal length to the diameter of the entrance. At f/5.6, both sensors receive the same amount of light per unit area because the f-number controls this ratio, but since the FF is 1.5 bigger, it is gathering 1.5 more total light.
@@Todd_Kuhns Since aperture is a ratio, a f/5.6 aperture on a full-frame camera is roughly equivalent to an f/3.7 aperture on an APS-C camera. Relative to the sensor size a 5.6 aperture is a 1.5 times bigger. Just like the image is cropped 1.5 times, put the aperture at f4 on the APSC to have equivalence. I am a APSC shooter my self with FX30, 1.8 for me is similar look to 2.8 FF but much lighter and cheaper. 1.4 is 2.0 and so on. It's actually a good thing. My 23mm 1.4 is similar to 35mm 2.0 but it cost me 300€
@@Todd_Kuhns Yes you are completely right, aperture is the same. Think of it like having a large bottle (FF) and a small bottle (APS-C). The faucet represents the aperture, and the flow rate of water is the same for both (the same f-number). Both bottles are filled for the same amount of time (exposure). However, the large bottle (FF sensor) has a larger opening (sensor size) and collects more water overall (more total light). It's physics.
@@nyambe that's the theory, but the histogram seemed to prove otherwise. The amount of light captured is the same, higher pixel density just made APS-C (or even smaller sensors) process the lights more inefficiently; hence the noisier images at higher ISO.
I see the point your making and I think you proved it, and it got me curious about a separate question: can you do a demonstration that shows precisely which circumstances a full frame sensor would produce better value and performance than a crop sensor? For example, what kind of change to lighting conditions would necessitate a large ISO increase for a crop sensor but only a modest one for full frame? If you still have those cameras, maybe you could seek out various light conditions and then control camera conditions and see what happens in the dimmer versus brighter scenes (shoot each scene with identical settings and then on auto for a goof), because I suspect that's where the full frame sensor would produce a significant difference, but i'm pretty new to photography so i may have that wrong.
Good suggestion. However, from an exposure perspective I’d say there is never a difference. Ever. From a quality perspective there are a lot of situations that a full frame sensor will perform better. Not in exposure but in less noise, cleaner shadow detail and so on. But exposure should never vary due to the size of the sensor.
@andymadison7180 let's start with the question "How to get similar images across different size sensors?" and the answer is: use native lenses and apply the crop factor to both focal length and f-number, use auto ISO, and use the same shutter speed. This will give you the same angle of view, the same depth of field, the same quantity of light (but at different intensities, so different ISO), and the same motion blur. From there, the limiting factor is usually the base ISO on the smaller sensor (I'll skip the math). This leads to larger sensors typically having better performances **in good light**, with an advantage in dynamic range that might be noticeable if you have a good HDR monitor (you need at least 12 stops). In all other lighting situations, if there is an advantage, it is likely to be minor and in favor of the smaller sensor - possibly noticeable between micro four third and full frame (or medium format). That said, lens selection is overwhelmingly better for full frame because it costs a lot to design great lenses and manufacturers tend to put their best efforts in only one sensor size - usually full frame.
The total light gathered is more on full frame, the light intensity or exposure of course is not. You can view it from different perspectives. One way to view it is that the image taken with a full frame camera is magnified less.
If you consider the total amount of light, you lose it if you use a full-frame lens on a crop sensor. It's obvious, you lose all those photons that fall outside the sensor area, i.e. you lose around 2.3x light (not 1.5x). But if you use a lens for a crop sensor, you don't lose that much because that lens projects the image on a smaller area.
@Todd_Kuhns The camera manufacturers adjust the amplification of the signal from the sensor such that the image looks the same with the same ISO, shutter speed, equivalent focal length and the aperture whatever the crop factor is.
It's a good point to bring this up, and it relates to the concept of dynamic range where a huge part of the equasion is noise at a given SNR. Ultimately a larger sensor "lets in" more light, while the exposure may be more or less the same, either though having larger or a greater number of pixels, there will be more detail in the shadows at any given exposure. If you're in the business of shooting RAW either in photography or film, all that matters is your shutter and apeture, and ISO is merely metadata that can be changed. Thus, if you were to set the cameras to a point where they have the same dynamic range and noise level, you'd visually have a darker image on the crop sensor.
@@Todd_Kuhns While the brightness (exposure) may be the same, the full-frame sensor has a greater light-gathering capacity due to its larger surface area, which can affect factors like noise performance and dynamic range. So, while you’re correct that the exposure doesn’t change, this doesn’t mean that the APS-C sensor lets in the same amount of light.
@@Todd_Kuhns Dude, you're litterally saying at 9:52 that a crop sensor camera does not take in less light then a full frame camera. Stop with the exposure bs.
@@ferquo I realize that I used the phrase "takes in less light" but I think I was pretty clear about what my point is here. The exposure was exactly the same and I show that. If you think "takes in less light" means something different than what I am showing in this video then I apologize for the confusion.
A sensor capture light, it doesn't not let in light. The lens lets in light. The greater the size of the front element the more light can enter the lens. The larger the sensor the larger the pixels can be. given each sensor has the same number of pixels. The more light hitting these pixels the better the image will be. The lager the pixel more light is captured per pixel.
I believe some information is still wrong. There will really be no difference in the exposure result if measured per pixel on full frame and crop cameras with the same pixel density. However, as the area of the full frame sensor is larger, it captures more light and thus manages to form a larger image. In your reasoning, if there was a sensor measuring just 1 millimeter it would also capture the same amount of light, the photo would have the same exposure if you did your test. We cannot confuse light capture per pixel and total light capture, the total light captured by the full frame sensor is greater because it has a larger area, but this does not change the exposure result because in the cropped sensor it is as if we were only capturing information of a small area of the full frame sensor. it's the same amount of light per square inch, but the full frame sensor has more square inches.
But in the video you confuse the concepts. At first you ask: Bigger sensor lets in more light? The correct answer is yes, a larger sensor receives more light than a smaller sensor if you use a lens compatible with the sensor size. But this light is spread over a larger area. Think of a glass with a small diameter and another with a large diameter exposed equally to rain. If exposed for the same time, you will have the same height of water in both glasses, but the larger glass will have more water. The exposure per square inch is the same on any sensor (under equal aperture and shutter speed conditions) but a larger sensor captures more light because it has a larger area
I think this rumour comes from a misunderstanding of something true. If you use the same lens of the same focal length and aperture on a larger sensor, there is more light on the sensor, but obviously, that light is shared out over a greater area, so it appears no brighter. This is why speed boosters exist: they take that same amount of light and compress it into a smaller area. So in fact this is an advantage which crop sensors can take better advantage of than full frame or larger. It's one of those times where, just because you "know" doesn't necessarily mean you understand.
Really the term "crop" should have been a clue against that thinking. If you take an image with a full frame camera, and crop it, does it become brighter? All a smaller sensor does is see less of the image. Though I wonder if most people who do believe that are having a "blindingly obvious" reaction, where just knowing "bigger area -> more light" (i.e. apertures) make brighter images? Not considering the larger image sensor is merely receiving that extra light... as larger image area.
just remember your iphone has a 26mm equivalent angle of view at F1/1.6. if you somehow think that 26mm equivalent angle of view at F1/1.6 in iphone somehow comparable to a FF 26mm F1/1.6 in term of total light hit the sensor, then i got a bridge to sell you. you don't even understand what ISO meant, you are confusing light within a unit area to a total mount of light.
I can make another video and speak slower if you need me to. All things equal, the size of the sensor DID NOT CHANGE the exposure. The crop sensor WAS NOT 1 1/2 stops darker. Let me know if you need another video.
@@Todd_Kuhns no one said you need to change exposure level. ISO is a measurement of light intensive within a unit area, it is useful number during film day where different chemistry is needed to expose at different level. BUT this is NOT a total light input, which is light hitting a unit area (lens aperture so to speak) TIMES the area. why does the total area matter you ask? because unlike the film days, the CMOS today utilize the entire sensor area to reduce noise. that's why full frame sensor noise at the same generation can be 2 stops better. that's why your cell phone picture with their 24mm F/1.6 cannot be as clean as a crop sensor 24mm F/1.6, which cannot be as clean as FF 24mm F/1.6 . your video tile is "does crop sensor camera let in less light" the answer , assuming the same spec lens, is ABSOLUTELY YES.
@@ghunterforever I think I proved that regardless of the sensor size, the exposure was the same. I was never talking about noise or the quality of the file. I was talking about exposure.
@@Todd_Kuhns maybe you should review the title of your video? "does a crop sensor camera let in less light?" and answer this question: does a cellphone camera let in less light than a full frame or large format camera with the same lens spec? sensor nowadays largely uses single native ISO (some better camera uses dual native ISO, some really high end stuff uses 3 native ISO, but let's ignore that for the time being), the so call ISO number of a given camera is just a amplification of the sensor signal. there isn't really a magic to it. the so called "expose level" means absolutely nothing other than a higher or lower number multiplied to the signal received. it is entirely artificial. if you shoot RAW, you can changes exposure level post processing, exactly like how you would do it at the time of taking the shoot, as long as it is within the dynamic range of the sensor. so i am not sure why anyone is so fixated by "exposure level". let along using that as any kind of scientific measurement of anything.
Nothing grinds my gears more than when people say we need to multiply the F-Stop number by the crop factor. No one is doing Depth of Field calculations for portraits. All you are doing is confusing beginners on what crop sensor really is.
I Think the Angry Photographer covered this 7 or 8 years ago and commented on it in his video "Don't see comments anymore about "larger sensors = more light" & other nonsense"
When you mount a 50mm f/1.8 lens on a crop sensor, it's still just 50mm focal length and f/1.8 aperture. IF YOU USE CROP FACTOR to talk about what full-frame lens it is like, it is like a (50 * 1.6 = 80mm) lens in terms of field of view, and f/(1.8 * 1.6 = 2.88) lens in terms of depth of field.
@@iaido01 Yes, the 50mm will always be 50mm regardless of the sensor size. And the aperture remains the same as well. The only reason DOF changes is because you might have to move back due to the field of view.
In your test, the crop camera did receive less light. It received roughly the same exposure but less total light. Exposure is light per unit area, and total area of the crop sensor is less than full frame. So the crop sensor received less light in total in your test.
You had the same exposure settings, so it would be expected to get the same exposure. However, the crop camera received less light in total, which results in more visible noise. It would be more evident in low light, and that's the main reason full frame cameras perform better in low light.
The correct answer to the question in the title of your video will be "yes", given the same field of view and exposure settings. But that doesn't mean the crop image will be darker, as you implied in the video, and as that rep implied.
Yes, one can think this about two vessels in a rain, one larger and one smaller. They both get the same amount of water in millimeters but nobody would have problem in saying that the larger gathers more water.
Straight off the bat, you’re not using equivalent because iso numbers are just made up. A better test is to use the same sensor and crop it in post. You need to compare the noise of the 2.
Maybe I wasn't clear but this had nothing to do with the quality of the file produced and everything to do with the exposure. I am saying that the sensor size does not change the amount of light, and therefore the exposure of the image.
ISO is a factor. ISO 250 on a Full Frame is as much Signal amplification and as much noise as ISO 100 on a APSC. That’s where the notion 1 1/2 stops more of light comes from.
But the screens on the cameras aren't the same, likely a difference in nits. I'd much rather rely on looking at the images on a monitor. What's more the camera's built-in software will adjust the screen brightness. Simple physics says that a larger lens should be feeing in much much more light, helped by larger photosites on the larger sensor.
@@Todd_Kuhns no, no, you're saying small window, large wndow, doesn't matter. it's all the same. funny how I owned your idiotic video with a comparison a 5yo would understand. TRUMP 2028
You're illuminating 10 by 10 wall and then you putting something in front of the projector to block some light so now only 5 by 5 region is illuminated. That 5x5 region will have the same brightness as before.
You could see the lens as funnel, or a magnifier, the lens focusses the light onto the sensor. Of course you need a different lens (funnel) for the same field of view but effectively the amount of light hitting the sensor is the same. Otherwise a light meter would not work, you don't get a different value whether you use 35mm film or 120 or 4x5. What changes is the amount of grain you see because the size of the grain is equal, or photosites for that matter (noise). The amount of light hitting the sensor is the same (shutterspeed and aperture being equal ofcourse), what changes is how large the photosites are or how many you can fit on a sensor and how good they are, (the bigger the sensor, the easier this gets), advancements in technology make for better images with less noise. You really cant compare two different sensors, better would be to use the same sensor, use it in ff mode and then in crop mode, different lens (funnel) for the same field of view same settings (of course you get a different depth of field but that is beside the point). what you get is two photos that look the same only one is more noisy at the same printed size (more magnification) (different megapixel count). The solution, do not print ridiculously large or zoom in that far to see the individual pixels, take a step back and enjoy the photo, it's not about the micro detail it's about the image, the emotion it evokes. Every sensor size has its advantages and disadvantages and they have nothing to do with image quality. Use the camera that suits your needs. tldr the physics does not change
You're wrong here. Physically, yes the bigger the sensor, the more light comes in. What you failed to understand is, what ISO means. ISO 100 is designed to be standardized across all camera systems, meaning that ISO 100 on a crop sensor and ISO 100 on a full-frame sensor should produce the same brightness in an image, given the same exposure settings (shutter speed, aperture, and light conditions). For your next test, please open up those photos, you will observe that the noise will be worse for the crop sensor
My test proves that what I am saying is right. All things the same produces the same exposure. I'm not saying the quality of the file or the noise will be the same. Megapixels will play a role in the files being different but the exposure is the same. Crop sensor cameras do not let in less light.
@@Todd_Kuhns The problem then is more due to low light performance. A crop sensor crams more pixels into a tighter space and camera manufacturers usually put higher resolution sensors in them than full-frame cameras, so this lead to poorer performance at the same ISOs. A more extreme example is smartphones where ISO 400 can look as bad as ISO 3200 on a full frame camera.
Your flawed test is only comparing image brightness Cu. ISO 100 means the sensor is at its base sensitivity, requiring a certain amount of light to produce a properly exposed image with minimal noise. While both the APS-C and full-frame sensors at ISO 100 and the same settings produce images of the same brightness, the total amount of light captured by a sensor depends on its size. A full-frame sensor captures more light overall than an APS-C sensor at the same settings because it has a larger surface area. This greater light collection results in better image quality, particularly in terms of dynamic range and noise ca, even though brightness looks identical. Image brightness alone doesn’t tell the full story-sensor size and total light gathering significantly impact the final image quality.
the more light the bigger the sensor is one of tony northups stupid inventions, including confusing equivelence calculations into it, that infected the internet. (equivilence is only for correcting angle of view between formats a 300mm lens is a 300 mm lens no matter what you put it on, put it one a microfour third and set it at f4 you get the angle of view of 600mm but its a 300mmm lens and you get the depth of feild of a 300mm lens.... if i want to create the same shot on full frame and get the same depth of feild, because i couldnt use a 300 mm lens on full frame to get the same angle of view...id need a 600mm lens at f8...thats it) love tony northup site, but hes one of the internets biggest bullshit merchants the t stop value of light is no diffrent occording to size if the light hitting a football field is 4 if i put a micro four sensor on there its still 4, if i put a 1 inch sensor on it its still 4, the same intensity no matter the size. that why spot meters are accurate, they dont get less accurate because the sensor light cell is tiny compared with a 35mm frame theyre mistaking the colleration that on average a smaller sensor at higher iso's is likely to generate more noise than a larger one as a limitation of light, where its a limitation on eletrical insulating circuits, the smaller you go the harder it is to illiminate noise and interferance and if you amplify...ie raise your iso, the smaller sensor gets noiser faster, because it suffers from higher level of electrical interferance. fovenon's suffers the same electrical problem because its taking 3 reading at the site instead of 1, so you can say it suffers from theoretical 3x the amplification of noise for every 1 step up in iso compared to the same size cmos sensor its an electrical problem that the real cause, not the percieved colleration with size, a sensor is only intrested in the wave length and intensity of whats hitting it not the quanity. the filling a bucket claim. if the filling the bucket idea was true....a shot at 1 sec at f2 would be very noticably superior on full frame than a shot at 1/8000 at f11 on full frame, because the duration would have ment far less quanity of light overall hitting the sensor for that duration, but we know that doesnt happen. if it was true a 1 sec shot more duration to fill that bucket would be crisp and clean with tons of dynamic range and a 1/8000 would be a noisey grainy mess, far less duration to fill that bucket theres been many examples where this northup stupidity is wrong, the canon eos 5 mk 1 compared to the olympus om-d 1, the om-d 1 had better dynamic range and similar noise as examine by dxo mark. which according to the smaller sensor gets less light theory, especially since omd-1 had 4 more mega pixel, so much smaller individual cells compared to the canon the olympus om-d-1 performance should be impossible also my 20 mega pixel cx format tiny sensor nikon j5 has far better noise control and dynamic range compared to the giant of a sensor by comparision in my Apsc 6 megapixel nikon d50 and the tiny sensor in your apple phone does as well. you can claim overall image circle, but a cameras sensor doesnt work like that, or you wouldnt be able to focus on anything. area doesnt matter, that its the same T stop across a cx sensor or on a medium format at any measurable point of focused light, just as like if you divided a football feild into tiny squares and measured the light it wouldnt be any diffrent to measuring the whole football feild what there saying is if i take a cm of a football feild at f4 and i use equivelance to guage the light value of the whole feild, problem is id end up with a value for the feild thats the brightest object in the known universe, so bright it would have to be emiting so much energy that it would swallow our whole solar system, its obviously nonsence
Wow! Thanks for all that. Well said. And truth be told, it was TN that first caught my attention as a TH-camr that didn’t know what they were talking about.
@@Todd_Kuhns i like some of the things he puts up on his channel and i think he means well. yeah, but he should calm down on the i've solved the misconspetions in photography, cause as someone thats studied photography at uni and enginnering....he really hasn't, he's just created confusion and angry people online attacking anyone that try's to correct his photographic myths
Put a one-square-foot and a two-square-foot vessel in the rain for an hour. Which one gathers more water? The water level is same on both. Of course a larger sensor gathers more total light.
@@okaro6595I think people are getting something fundamentally wrong, if you've a 20 megapixel sensor it doesn't care what area it is, it cares only about the intensity of wave length that's hitting each cell. That's the same if that cell is the size of a pin or a football field. It's getting the same value of light no matter it's size measured in t stops. More area doesn't mean more value Like a football field. If I take a cm of a football field and it has a t stop value of 4 if I times it by the area of the football field I'd have a football field brighter than the sun I'd have a nonsense value. On a piece of film I get the same exposure in medium format and 35 mm, I get the same light recorded in less grain......I don't get less light I get a better image in medium format because I have more grain to record. If what I'm saying is false, I'd have a different quality of result from the same area of negative between medium format and 35mm, I don't, they're identical, what's different in quality is I have to enlarge one more and I have less grain particles of recorded information, remember in film only way to increase resolution is increase size of film or reduce the grain structure of the film, resolution in digital is different, I don't need to increase area to increase resolution (but that doesn't increase the value of light, it increases the grain I can have in a sheet of film) Megapixels do the same as area did in film, except it's not bound by size photographically, it's bound by size electronically by signal interference. which is why my nikon j5 gives a better image than my nikon D50 and an image thats hard to tell apart from my D7100 unless i directly compare side by side or pixel peak at 100% 1/250 of a second at f4, the value is that value on a football pitch or a pin head from it's light source. It is not a pin head at that value timed by how many times that pin head can fit into the football field
Might wanna drop the images taken in a Dropbox and post on here so we can see.
Also (with the risk of sounding dumb) I think when people say “let’s in more light” is when dealing with low light shots, which I personally would have been more interested in. That said, glad you chose the R7 cause it’s a really good camera that everyone ignores cause apsc
Thanks for the comment.
You are absolutely right, the myth that larger sensors collect more light needs to be debunked. However, I believe that your experiment is one of the several situations where the full frame camera does collect more light: On the common part of the image (the part of the image covered by the crop sensor), the two are absolutely identical, which means that on the common part they collect the same amount of light. Since the full frame has a wider angle of view, it certainly collects more light. But anyway, the amount of light that the sensor collects is the amount of light delivered by the lens to the sensor. Perhaps, the more meaningful question is: how to produce similar images with different size sensors?
Ultimately, my point is that the exposure is not changed based on the size of the sensor. Which was the misinformation I was hearing.
Look at these comments. Look at all these people grumbling and pouting because of semantics. No, I don't think anyone thought Todd meant that crop sensors were defying physics and that the same gross volume of photons was falling on a smaller area. Go back and watch a Tony Northrup video to calm yourselves.
Seriously.
Thanks for that!!!
Are considering equivalence? Aperture (F-Number): Defined as the ratio of the lens's focal length to the diameter of the entrance. At f/5.6, both sensors receive the same amount of light per unit area because the f-number controls this ratio, but since the FF is 1.5 bigger, it is gathering 1.5 more total light.
Yet the exposure doesn't change based on the size of the sensor. That is my point.
@@Todd_Kuhns Since aperture is a ratio, a f/5.6 aperture on a full-frame camera is roughly equivalent to an f/3.7 aperture on an APS-C camera. Relative to the sensor size a 5.6 aperture is a 1.5 times bigger. Just like the image is cropped 1.5 times, put the aperture at f4 on the APSC to have equivalence. I am a APSC shooter my self with FX30, 1.8 for me is similar look to 2.8 FF but much lighter and cheaper. 1.4 is 2.0 and so on. It's actually a good thing. My 23mm 1.4 is similar to 35mm 2.0 but it cost me 300€
@@nyambe I disagree with that. aperture doesn't change. f4 is f4 and the size of the sensor doesn't change that.
@@Todd_Kuhns Yes you are completely right, aperture is the same. Think of it like having a large bottle (FF) and a small bottle (APS-C). The faucet represents the aperture, and the flow rate of water is the same for both (the same f-number). Both bottles are filled for the same amount of time (exposure). However, the large bottle (FF sensor) has a larger opening (sensor size) and collects more water overall (more total light). It's physics.
@@nyambe that's the theory, but the histogram seemed to prove otherwise. The amount of light captured is the same, higher pixel density just made APS-C (or even smaller sensors) process the lights more inefficiently; hence the noisier images at higher ISO.
I see the point your making and I think you proved it, and it got me curious about a separate question: can you do a demonstration that shows precisely which circumstances a full frame sensor would produce better value and performance than a crop sensor? For example, what kind of change to lighting conditions would necessitate a large ISO increase for a crop sensor but only a modest one for full frame?
If you still have those cameras, maybe you could seek out various light conditions and then control camera conditions and see what happens in the dimmer versus brighter scenes (shoot each scene with identical settings and then on auto for a goof), because I suspect that's where the full frame sensor would produce a significant difference, but i'm pretty new to photography so i may have that wrong.
Good suggestion. However, from an exposure perspective I’d say there is never a difference. Ever. From a quality perspective there are a lot of situations that a full frame sensor will perform better. Not in exposure but in less noise, cleaner shadow detail and so on. But exposure should never vary due to the size of the sensor.
@@Todd_Kuhns this is an interesting distinction, thanks.
@@andymadison7180 Thanks for your input!
@andymadison7180 let's start with the question "How to get similar images across different size sensors?" and the answer is: use native lenses and apply the crop factor to both focal length and f-number, use auto ISO, and use the same shutter speed. This will give you the same angle of view, the same depth of field, the same quantity of light (but at different intensities, so different ISO), and the same motion blur.
From there, the limiting factor is usually the base ISO on the smaller sensor (I'll skip the math). This leads to larger sensors typically having better performances **in good light**, with an advantage in dynamic range that might be noticeable if you have a good HDR monitor (you need at least 12 stops). In all other lighting situations, if there is an advantage, it is likely to be minor and in favor of the smaller sensor - possibly noticeable between micro four third and full frame (or medium format).
That said, lens selection is overwhelmingly better for full frame because it costs a lot to design great lenses and manufacturers tend to put their best efforts in only one sensor size - usually full frame.
The total light gathered is more on full frame, the light intensity or exposure of course is not. You can view it from different perspectives. One way to view it is that the image taken with a full frame camera is magnified less.
Yes, but would you agree that it is wrong to say that a crop sensor will be 1 1/2 stops darker at the same settings because the sensor is smaller?
If you consider the total amount of light, you lose it if you use a full-frame lens on a crop sensor. It's obvious, you lose all those photons that fall outside the sensor area, i.e. you lose around 2.3x light (not 1.5x). But if you use a lens for a crop sensor, you don't lose that much because that lens projects the image on a smaller area.
Well, that’s not what I’m saying but thanks. You lose no exposure by going to a smaller sensor.
@Todd_Kuhns The camera manufacturers adjust the amplification of the signal from the sensor such that the image looks the same with the same ISO, shutter speed, equivalent focal length and the aperture whatever the crop factor is.
It's a good point to bring this up, and it relates to the concept of dynamic range where a huge part of the equasion is noise at a given SNR. Ultimately a larger sensor "lets in" more light, while the exposure may be more or less the same, either though having larger or a greater number of pixels, there will be more detail in the shadows at any given exposure. If you're in the business of shooting RAW either in photography or film, all that matters is your shutter and apeture, and ISO is merely metadata that can be changed. Thus, if you were to set the cameras to a point where they have the same dynamic range and noise level, you'd visually have a darker image on the crop sensor.
Thanks for the input. Ultimately, I think I still make the point that exposure doesn't change based on the size of the sensor.
@@Todd_Kuhns While the brightness (exposure) may be the same, the full-frame sensor has a greater light-gathering capacity due to its larger surface area, which can affect factors like noise performance and dynamic range. So, while you’re correct that the exposure doesn’t change, this doesn’t mean that the APS-C sensor lets in the same amount of light.
@@thebeatles1548 Fair enough. My point was the exposure will not be less due to the size of the sensor.
@@Todd_Kuhns Dude, you're litterally saying at 9:52 that a crop sensor camera does not take in less light then a full frame camera. Stop with the exposure bs.
@@ferquo I realize that I used the phrase "takes in less light" but I think I was pretty clear about what my point is here. The exposure was exactly the same and I show that. If you think "takes in less light" means something different than what I am showing in this video then I apologize for the confusion.
A sensor capture light, it doesn't not let in light. The lens lets in light. The greater the size of the front element the more light can enter the lens. The larger the sensor the larger the pixels can be. given each sensor has the same number of pixels. The more light hitting these pixels the better the image will be. The lager the pixel more light is captured per pixel.
I don't disagree with this. It doesn't really relate to what I'm saying in this video, does it?! Thanks for watching.
I believe some information is still wrong. There will really be no difference in the exposure result if measured per pixel on full frame and crop cameras with the same pixel density. However, as the area of the full frame sensor is larger, it captures more light and thus manages to form a larger image. In your reasoning, if there was a sensor measuring just 1 millimeter it would also capture the same amount of light, the photo would have the same exposure if you did your test. We cannot confuse light capture per pixel and total light capture, the total light captured by the full frame sensor is greater because it has a larger area, but this does not change the exposure result because in the cropped sensor it is as if we were only capturing information of a small area of the full frame sensor. it's the same amount of light per square inch, but the full frame sensor has more square inches.
You still make my point. Exposure doesn’t change based on sensor size.
But in the video you confuse the concepts. At first you ask: Bigger sensor lets in more light? The correct answer is yes, a larger sensor receives more light than a smaller sensor if you use a lens compatible with the sensor size. But this light is spread over a larger area. Think of a glass with a small diameter and another with a large diameter exposed equally to rain. If exposed for the same time, you will have the same height of water in both glasses, but the larger glass will have more water. The exposure per square inch is the same on any sensor (under equal aperture and shutter speed conditions) but a larger sensor captures more light because it has a larger area
I think this rumour comes from a misunderstanding of something true. If you use the same lens of the same focal length and aperture on a larger sensor, there is more light on the sensor, but obviously, that light is shared out over a greater area, so it appears no brighter. This is why speed boosters exist: they take that same amount of light and compress it into a smaller area. So in fact this is an advantage which crop sensors can take better advantage of than full frame or larger.
It's one of those times where, just because you "know" doesn't necessarily mean you understand.
Thanks for the comment
The aperture is the factor that controls the amount of light getting into the lens. The sensor only processes that light.
Good point.
Really the term "crop" should have been a clue against that thinking. If you take an image with a full frame camera, and crop it, does it become brighter? All a smaller sensor does is see less of the image. Though I wonder if most people who do believe that are having a "blindingly obvious" reaction, where just knowing "bigger area -> more light" (i.e. apertures) make brighter images? Not considering the larger image sensor is merely receiving that extra light... as larger image area.
Thanks for the comment! Well said.
just remember your iphone has a 26mm equivalent angle of view at F1/1.6.
if you somehow think that 26mm equivalent angle of view at F1/1.6 in iphone somehow comparable to a FF 26mm F1/1.6 in term of total light hit the sensor, then i got a bridge to sell you.
you don't even understand what ISO meant, you are confusing light within a unit area to a total mount of light.
I can make another video and speak slower if you need me to. All things equal, the size of the sensor DID NOT CHANGE the exposure. The crop sensor WAS NOT 1 1/2 stops darker. Let me know if you need another video.
@@Todd_Kuhns no one said you need to change exposure level. ISO is a measurement of light intensive within a unit area, it is useful number during film day where different chemistry is needed to expose at different level. BUT this is NOT a total light input, which is light hitting a unit area (lens aperture so to speak) TIMES the area.
why does the total area matter you ask? because unlike the film days, the CMOS today utilize the entire sensor area to reduce noise. that's why full frame sensor noise at the same generation can be 2 stops better. that's why your cell phone picture with their 24mm F/1.6 cannot be as clean as a crop sensor 24mm F/1.6, which cannot be as clean as FF 24mm F/1.6 .
your video tile is "does crop sensor camera let in less light" the answer , assuming the same spec lens, is ABSOLUTELY YES.
@@ghunterforever I think I proved that regardless of the sensor size, the exposure was the same. I was never talking about noise or the quality of the file. I was talking about exposure.
@@Todd_Kuhns maybe you should review the title of your video? "does a crop sensor camera let in less light?"
and answer this question: does a cellphone camera let in less light than a full frame or large format camera with the same lens spec?
sensor nowadays largely uses single native ISO (some better camera uses dual native ISO, some really high end stuff uses 3 native ISO, but let's ignore that for the time being), the so call ISO number of a given camera is just a amplification of the sensor signal. there isn't really a magic to it. the so called "expose level" means absolutely nothing other than a higher or lower number multiplied to the signal received. it is entirely artificial. if you shoot RAW, you can changes exposure level post processing, exactly like how you would do it at the time of taking the shoot, as long as it is within the dynamic range of the sensor. so i am not sure why anyone is so fixated by "exposure level". let along using that as any kind of scientific measurement of anything.
Nothing grinds my gears more than when people say we need to multiply the F-Stop number by the crop factor. No one is doing Depth of Field calculations for portraits. All you are doing is confusing beginners on what crop sensor really is.
I agree. Thanks for watching and for the comment.
I Think the Angry Photographer covered this 7 or 8 years ago and commented on it in his video "Don't see comments anymore about "larger sensors = more light" & other nonsense"
Thanks for watching.
Aperture is aperture.
Yes.
When you mount a 50mm f/1.8 lens on a crop sensor, it's still just 50mm focal length and f/1.8 aperture. IF YOU USE CROP FACTOR to talk about what full-frame lens it is like, it is like a (50 * 1.6 = 80mm) lens in terms of field of view, and f/(1.8 * 1.6 = 2.88) lens in terms of depth of field.
@@iaido01 Yes, the 50mm will always be 50mm regardless of the sensor size. And the aperture remains the same as well. The only reason DOF changes is because you might have to move back due to the field of view.
Either this is not true, or a FF 105mm f4 on a S35 camera at 175mm f6.6 equivalent produces some nice bokah and lets in more light than it should
The crop sensor literally crops out 50% of the image circle ie the light. The exposure per pixel is the same if you wanted that win.
Yes, that is what I am saying. Your exposure does not change because the sensor is smaller.
In your test, the crop camera did receive less light. It received roughly the same exposure but less total light. Exposure is light per unit area, and total area of the crop sensor is less than full frame. So the crop sensor received less light in total in your test.
The exposure was identical in each camera. That was my point.
You had the same exposure settings, so it would be expected to get the same exposure. However, the crop camera received less light in total, which results in more visible noise. It would be more evident in low light, and that's the main reason full frame cameras perform better in low light.
@@QuarkCharmed You didn't really understand my point in this video, did you?
The correct answer to the question in the title of your video will be "yes", given the same field of view and exposure settings.
But that doesn't mean the crop image will be darker, as you implied in the video, and as that rep implied.
Yes, one can think this about two vessels in a rain, one larger and one smaller. They both get the same amount of water in millimeters but nobody would have problem in saying that the larger gathers more water.
Straight off the bat, you’re not using equivalent because iso numbers are just made up. A better test is to use the same sensor and crop it in post. You need to compare the noise of the 2.
Maybe I wasn't clear but this had nothing to do with the quality of the file produced and everything to do with the exposure. I am saying that the sensor size does not change the amount of light, and therefore the exposure of the image.
ISO is a factor. ISO 250 on a Full Frame is as much Signal amplification and as much noise as ISO 100 on a APSC. That’s where the notion 1 1/2 stops more of light comes from.
Exactly. ISO numbers are just made up by the manufacturers
I'll have to agree to disagree. My test had the same ISO and got the same results regardless of the sensor size. Thanks for the comment.
But the screens on the cameras aren't the same, likely a difference in nits.
I'd much rather rely on looking at the images on a monitor. What's more the camera's built-in software will adjust the screen brightness.
Simple physics says that a larger lens should be feeing in much much more light, helped by larger photosites on the larger sensor.
I set both screens at the same brightness level and the histogram doesn’t lie.
No need for big windows then. Small windows will light the room just the same!
The windows in your comment would be the lens not the sensor. Did you not understand what I was saying?
@@Todd_Kuhns no, no, you're saying small window, large wndow, doesn't matter. it's all the same. funny how I owned your idiotic video with a comparison a 5yo would understand. TRUMP 2028
@@recreationalplutonium Hey, thanks for the comments. You don't understand what I am saying.
Are you telling me that I can illuminate a wall of 10 by 10 with the same amount of light that I need to barely illuminate a square of 5 by 5? 🤔
Well that’s not the same thing so…..
You're illuminating 10 by 10 wall and then you putting something in front of the projector to block some light so now only 5 by 5 region is illuminated. That 5x5 region will have the same brightness as before.
@@EugeneLazin Absolutely
You could see the lens as funnel, or a magnifier, the lens focusses the light onto the sensor. Of course you need a different lens (funnel) for the same field of view but effectively the amount of light hitting the sensor is the same. Otherwise a light meter would not work, you don't get a different value whether you use 35mm film or 120 or 4x5. What changes is the amount of grain you see because the size of the grain is equal, or photosites for that matter (noise). The amount of light hitting the sensor is the same (shutterspeed and aperture being equal ofcourse), what changes is how large the photosites are or how many you can fit on a sensor and how good they are, (the bigger the sensor, the easier this gets), advancements in technology make for better images with less noise. You really cant compare two different sensors, better would be to use the same sensor, use it in ff mode and then in crop mode, different lens (funnel) for the same field of view same settings (of course you get a different depth of field but that is beside the point). what you get is two photos that look the same only one is more noisy at the same printed size (more magnification) (different megapixel count). The solution, do not print ridiculously large or zoom in that far to see the individual pixels, take a step back and enjoy the photo, it's not about the micro detail it's about the image, the emotion it evokes.
Every sensor size has its advantages and disadvantages and they have nothing to do with image quality. Use the camera that suits your needs.
tldr the physics does not change
@@Cody21041 agree, thanks for the comment.
You're wrong here. Physically, yes the bigger the sensor, the more light comes in. What you failed to understand is, what ISO means.
ISO 100 is designed to be standardized across all camera systems, meaning that ISO 100 on a crop sensor and ISO 100 on a full-frame sensor should produce the same brightness in an image, given the same exposure settings (shutter speed, aperture, and light conditions).
For your next test, please open up those photos, you will observe that the noise will be worse for the crop sensor
You're right though, in "their flashy and they sound great, but do your research"
My test proves that what I am saying is right. All things the same produces the same exposure. I'm not saying the quality of the file or the noise will be the same. Megapixels will play a role in the files being different but the exposure is the same. Crop sensor cameras do not let in less light.
Again, I'm right in what I said. I did the research. Did the test. Thanks for your comments!
@@Todd_Kuhns The problem then is more due to low light performance. A crop sensor crams more pixels into a tighter space and camera manufacturers usually put higher resolution sensors in them than full-frame cameras, so this lead to poorer performance at the same ISOs. A more extreme example is smartphones where ISO 400 can look as bad as ISO 3200 on a full frame camera.
Your flawed test is only comparing image brightness Cu. ISO 100 means the sensor is at its base sensitivity, requiring a certain amount of light to produce a properly exposed image with minimal noise. While both the APS-C and full-frame sensors at ISO 100 and the same settings produce images of the same brightness, the total amount of light captured by a sensor depends on its size.
A full-frame sensor captures more light overall than an APS-C sensor at the same settings because it has a larger surface area. This greater light collection results in better image quality, particularly in terms of dynamic range and noise ca, even though brightness looks identical. Image brightness alone doesn’t tell the full story-sensor size and total light gathering significantly impact the final image quality.
the more light the bigger the sensor is one of tony northups stupid inventions, including confusing equivelence calculations into it, that infected the internet.
(equivilence is only for correcting angle of view between formats a 300mm lens is a 300 mm lens no matter what you put it on, put it one a microfour third and set it at f4 you get the angle of view of 600mm but its a 300mmm lens and you get the depth of feild of a 300mm lens.... if i want to create the same shot on full frame and get the same depth of feild, because i couldnt use a 300 mm lens on full frame to get the same angle of view...id need a 600mm lens at f8...thats it)
love tony northup site, but hes one of the internets biggest bullshit merchants
the t stop value of light is no diffrent occording to size if the light hitting a football field is 4 if i put a micro four sensor on there its still 4, if i put a 1 inch sensor on it its still 4, the same intensity no matter the size.
that why spot meters are accurate, they dont get less accurate because the sensor light cell is tiny compared with a 35mm frame
theyre mistaking the colleration that on average a smaller sensor at higher iso's is likely to generate more noise than a larger one as a limitation of light, where its a limitation on eletrical insulating circuits, the smaller you go the harder it is to illiminate noise and interferance and if you amplify...ie raise your iso, the smaller sensor gets noiser faster, because it suffers from higher level of electrical interferance.
fovenon's suffers the same electrical problem because its taking 3 reading at the site instead of 1, so you can say it suffers from theoretical 3x the amplification of noise for every 1 step up in iso compared to the same size cmos sensor
its an electrical problem that the real cause, not the percieved colleration with size, a sensor is only intrested in the wave length and intensity of whats hitting it not the quanity. the filling a bucket claim.
if the filling the bucket idea was true....a shot at 1 sec at f2 would be very noticably superior on full frame than a shot at 1/8000 at f11 on full frame, because the duration would have ment far less quanity of light overall hitting the sensor for that duration, but we know that doesnt happen.
if it was true a 1 sec shot more duration to fill that bucket would be crisp and clean with tons of dynamic range and a 1/8000 would be a noisey grainy mess, far less duration to fill that bucket
theres been many examples where this northup stupidity is wrong, the canon eos 5 mk 1 compared to the olympus om-d 1, the om-d 1 had better dynamic range and similar noise as examine by dxo mark.
which according to the smaller sensor gets less light theory, especially since omd-1 had 4 more mega pixel, so much smaller individual cells compared to the canon the olympus om-d-1 performance should be impossible
also my 20 mega pixel cx format tiny sensor nikon j5 has far better noise control and dynamic range compared to the giant of a sensor by comparision in my Apsc 6 megapixel nikon d50 and the tiny sensor in your apple phone does as well.
you can claim overall image circle, but a cameras sensor doesnt work like that, or you wouldnt be able to focus on anything. area doesnt matter, that its the same T stop across a cx sensor or on a medium format at any measurable point of focused light, just as like if you divided a football feild into tiny squares and measured the light it wouldnt be any diffrent to measuring the whole football feild
what there saying is if i take a cm of a football feild at f4 and i use equivelance to guage the light value of the whole feild, problem is id end up with a value for the feild thats the brightest object in the known universe, so bright it would have to be emiting so much energy that it would swallow our whole solar system, its obviously nonsence
Wow! Thanks for all that. Well said. And truth be told, it was TN that first caught my attention as a TH-camr that didn’t know what they were talking about.
@@Todd_Kuhns i like some of the things he puts up on his channel and i think he means well.
yeah, but he should calm down on the i've solved the misconspetions in photography, cause as someone thats studied photography at uni and enginnering....he really hasn't, he's just created confusion and angry people online attacking anyone that try's to correct his photographic myths
Put a one-square-foot and a two-square-foot vessel in the rain for an hour. Which one gathers more water? The water level is same on both. Of course a larger sensor gathers more total light.
@@okaro6595I think people are getting something fundamentally wrong, if you've a 20 megapixel sensor it doesn't care what area it is, it cares only about the intensity of wave length that's hitting each cell.
That's the same if that cell is the size of a pin or a football field.
It's getting the same value of light no matter it's size measured in t stops.
More area doesn't mean more value
Like a football field.
If I take a cm of a football field and it has a t stop value of 4 if I times it by the area of the football field I'd have a football field brighter than the sun
I'd have a nonsense value.
On a piece of film I get the same exposure in medium format and 35 mm, I get the same light recorded in less grain......I don't get less light
I get a better image in medium format because I have more grain to record.
If what I'm saying is false, I'd have a different quality of result from the same area of negative between medium format and 35mm, I don't, they're identical, what's different in quality is I have to enlarge one more and I have less grain particles of recorded information, remember in film only way to increase resolution is increase size of film or reduce the grain structure of the film, resolution in digital is different, I don't need to increase area to increase resolution (but that doesn't increase the value of light, it increases the grain I can have in a sheet of film)
Megapixels do the same as area did in film, except it's not bound by size photographically, it's bound by size electronically by signal interference. which is why my nikon j5 gives a better image than my nikon D50 and an image thats hard to tell apart from my D7100 unless i directly compare side by side or pixel peak at 100%
1/250 of a second at f4, the value is that value on a football pitch or a pin head from it's light source.
It is not a pin head at that value timed by how many times that pin head can fit into the football field