A initially learned photography as a kid shooting black & white then developing the photos in a dark room, that was a magical time and sparked my interest in photography. As I got older I dabbled in digital photography but wasn't until my kids were born that i really started to get an active interest back in it all.
hmm. So if I have a completely enclosed room and I install a 1inch X 1 inch window I will have the same amount of light in the room as if I install a 5 feetX 5feet window? I think you are confusing things. A larger sensor gathers more light than a small sensor just as a lake will catch more rain water than a bucket. You are wrong. I'm right. case closed, period, end of story.
Hi Ken. Great vid again. How about another video on the differences between m43, APSC and FF (or MF) sensors for us knuckle draggers? Like why go medium format at all? What are the advantages of larger sensors. All in one epic video, sensor size explained 🙂
Hello Ken, I think you are wrong,……And this i way!!
The sensor of a camera does not determine the amount of light. That is what the light meter does. Every light meter of a camera measures the amount of light. Dependent on the chosen way of measuring (spot, matrix or intergral meeting). And that does not matter for the sensor. The larger the senor, the more light he receives. And then it is up to the manufacturer what he will do with it. Example, Sony A7 24 megapixel camera, or the sony A7s with 12 megapixel camera. On the senor more pixels that are smaller, or less pixel on the same size sensor that are larger, … That is a consideration what a manufacturer makes. I think that's why you are not right about this topic. Of course I would like to hear from you, what you think of this. Greetings!!! Stefan my writing is a bit poor, i know…..
Can I say that, the reason why people see FF cameras producing better images is because an APSC sensor and an FF sensor were not made equal?
I mean for example, say an A7iii vs a6500. The sensor in A7iii is just better quality and the one in a6500 is old. If a6500 were to have a similar quality sensor as to A7iii's, just cropped, then the image quality will be exactly the same, just, cropped?
I think what the " big camera " channel is saying is that the smaller sensor gathers the amount of light in the area that it occupies and that the larger sensor gathers more light as in more area or a larger scene. Anyway that's how I heard it.
If you crop picture where goes all the light that was exposing cropped out part? Because you're saying it stays there after the crop? Every time I was cropping picture the light from cut out part was lost. Therefore total amount of light was different. Where does this light hides then? The light that was exposing cut out part of picture?
And in one point you say that bigger solar panel gathers more light but bigger sensor doesn't. What changes in the laws of physics for those two things. Both of them exchange light to electricity (yes, all sensors exchange light to electricity, amplify it and convert to digital) but according to you physics works differently for them. Why and how?
One questions to all the "smart guys" here with "open eyes". If you add pixels to sensor (let's say you have apsc sensor, full frame lens, composition that covers full frame with equal exposure over whole sensor and add 5 pixels to sensor in total), do those pixels collect any light? If they do collect light, is it light taken from the other pixels lowering the exposure (the same light would be spread over bigger area) or is it light that was wasted before? If it's light that was wasted before, other pixels still get same amount of light, and those new 5 pixels get this light, how do you add it up to still have same total volume?
It is simple: in photography we are interested in the performance of an each single, smallest photosensitive UNIT: crystal (film), or pixel (digital). But, in energy production, we are interested in the sum total production of energy of all units, not in each unit per se. Therefore the size of film, or sensor, does not matter – what matters is the (1) size and (2) performance of each individual UNIT, because we are interested in how each UNIT sees the light, what exact UNIQUE information EACH UNIT has gathered. As the technology changes rapidly, UNITS (pixels) in newer cameras are more efficient, so that even their individual size matters less and less.
A larger sensor with the same amount of pixels as its smaller counterpart does, indeed, "capture more light" per pixel. Camera sensors use a color array filter to get intensity information for red, green, and blue for each pixel. And since the "density" of photons hitting the sensor is constant, the intensity of light is proportional to the square of the area of impact. Therefore, with pixels being bigger and covering a larger area, each individual pixel is gathering more energy from photons, therefore "capturing more light." Please study up on your physics before taking the time to go bash people on the internet, especially people who happen to be "brighter" than you are – pun intended.
EXPOSURE IS MEASURED PER UNIT AREA AND SO IT DOESN'T CHANGE WITH BIGGER SENSOR. TOTAL AMOUNT OF LIGHT GATHERED DOES. If exposure is optimal for 1 J/m^2, it will be the same for sensor 0.5 m^2 and 1 m^2 but 1m^2 sensor will gather twice as much light (1 J vs 0.5 J). But on both of them exposure will be 1J/m^2 – THE SAME. Please stop making those stupid videos
It would be great to have sensor with variable eyeball size. See, in areas of picture with fine detail, more pixels are engaged and collect all that fine detail. In areas with less detail, not as many eyeball are required. I beleive a patent is coming like in 50 or 100 years from now.
OMG just watched the first 4 minutes of the video mentioned. Is he saying that larger sensors magnify the density of photons??? (with that magnifying glass illustration). As if the sensor is projecting light? My apologies for sending out a negative comment but my head is hurting from trying to figure out his explanation.
BTW Ken if you are interested they are producing the solar panels that have cells made from cabonized (aka burnt) lin seed oil, and no this is not a joke.
This is beyond Tony’s brain dynamic range to understand this! 😆Exposure concept is similar to the physics law of friction which is does not depend on the area of contact! I advise all the FF fanboys to go back to schools and complete their educations.
Clearly the reason the image sensor has more wires is to improve quality. No one cares about the IQ of your solar panel if they did they would need to add a ton of wires to a sensor that big and it would cost a lot of money. So when they make the "image sensor" it is just the same thing with more wires and those wires are to make it work better. Therefore the fact that the solar panel only had one wire means nothing. Also the image sensor captures color light particles and the solar panel does not, thus the light sensor needs all those wires to tell us about the different colors.
When people want to believe something, nothing can stop them…
You're a moron 😂 Exposure doesn't change, but total amount of light does. Smaller 20mpix sensor has to boost signal for the same iso, bigger 20 mpix sensor doesn't because it gathers more light. Only smaller sensor with same relative size of pixels doesn't have to boost signal more but then the light is still being lost – try speed booster, all they do is focus lost light. The solar panel size doesn't change the light intensity and for solar panel it doesn't matter how big it is FOR EACH PART to still gather same amount of light but the size will matter for the total amount of light and wattage output. The same for the sensor, the size of whole will not matter for each individual pixel but the total size will matter for total light gathered which will impact quality. Bigger sensor WILL GATHER MORE LIGHT AND IT WILL IMPACT QUALITY BUT NOT THE EXPOSURE. Just like with solar panels.
I wholeheartedly agree with everything tech-related pointed out in this video; still, if any of you have seen Tony's videos on Crop Factor and the difference between 'f-stop' & 't-stop', uploaded in Feb 2019 and March 2014, you might recognize that the things he's pointing out go hand in hand with what Ken is showing here. Before anyone stops thinking and reading here: Don't get me wrong, I love Ken's channel, and I know where Tony has run into the trap of ambiguity when it comes to accurate terminology. Still, Tony repeatedly explains to his (seemingly mostly less experienced audience, and I mean that in a denotative way) audience how the 't-stop' won't change with sensor size, and also how the 'f-stop' doesn't actually change when using the same lens on diff. sensor sizes, but how we need to use diff. lenses & do some math if we want 'equivalent' results on diff. sensor sizes. He's actually showing how bigger sensors don't gather more light.
Yes, Tony has repeatedly said that bigger sensors perform better in low light – and when in comes to pure 'theory', this reduction of complexity drives me mad, too – but when we compare the same generation of a 24 megapixel 'APS-C' sensor and a 24 megapixel 'FF'-Sensor (which we then should do, as he has pointed out), the statement that a bigger sensor means better low light capabilities can't be falsified. Yeah, when we talk about pixel pitch in this comparison, we'd need to compare sth. like a 10 megapixel 'APS-C' sensor to a 24 megapixel 'FF'-sensor (both same generation), but who is building these? Do you know why an up-to-date 10mp APS-C sensor BEAST is not a real thing? Because of the majority of consumers craving for an absurd amount of megapixels. Honestly – how about not blaming each other, but the companies for their marketing and their incoherent, incomplete, insufficient and in the end incorrect statements on their products; they cause the vagueness and terminological issues that we all somehow have to work around.
So you're saying that as soon as you cut the sensor to smaller size the light magically stops falling at the other parts of the sensor and focuses on this smaller, cut out part. And speedboosters are somehow not focusing light from bigger frame to smaller but magically producing more light? Yes, the exposure doesn't change, in film the only payoff was quality with smaller frame but in digital to get same ISO on smaller frame with same amount of pixels you need to boost signal and introduce noise.
Dude…you have a Fuji tattoo?!
Badass!
hmm. So if I have a completely enclosed room and I install a 1inch X 1 inch window I will have the same amount of light in the room as if I install a 5 feetX 5feet window? I think you are confusing things. A larger sensor gathers more light than a small sensor just as a lake will catch more rain water than a bucket. You are wrong. I'm right. case closed, period, end of story.
Hi Ken. Great vid again. How about another video on the differences between m43, APSC and FF (or MF) sensors for us knuckle draggers? Like why go medium format at all? What are the advantages of larger sensors. All in one epic video, sensor size explained 🙂
Hello Ken,
I think you are wrong,……And this i way!!
The sensor of a camera does not determine the amount of light. That is what the light meter does. Every light meter of a camera measures the amount of light. Dependent on the chosen way of measuring (spot, matrix or intergral meeting). And that does not matter for the sensor. The larger the senor, the more light he receives. And then it is up to the manufacturer what he will do with it. Example, Sony A7 24 megapixel camera, or the sony A7s with 12 megapixel camera. On the senor more pixels that are smaller, or less pixel on the same size sensor that are larger, … That is a consideration what a manufacturer makes.
I think that's why you are not right about this topic. Of course I would like to hear from you, what you think of this. Greetings!!!
Stefan
my writing is a bit poor, i know…..
Can I say that, the reason why people see FF cameras producing better images is because an APSC sensor and an FF sensor were not made equal?
I mean for example, say an A7iii vs a6500. The sensor in A7iii is just better quality and the one in a6500 is old. If a6500 were to have a similar quality sensor as to A7iii's, just cropped, then the image quality will be exactly the same, just, cropped?
I think what the " big camera " channel is saying is that the smaller sensor gathers the amount of light in the area that it occupies and that the larger sensor gathers more light as in more area or a larger scene. Anyway that's how I heard it.
If you crop picture where goes all the light that was exposing cropped out part? Because you're saying it stays there after the crop? Every time I was cropping picture the light from cut out part was lost. Therefore total amount of light was different. Where does this light hides then? The light that was exposing cut out part of picture?
And in one point you say that bigger solar panel gathers more light but bigger sensor doesn't. What changes in the laws of physics for those two things. Both of them exchange light to electricity (yes, all sensors exchange light to electricity, amplify it and convert to digital) but according to you physics works differently for them. Why and how?
One questions to all the "smart guys" here with "open eyes". If you add pixels to sensor (let's say you have apsc sensor, full frame lens, composition that covers full frame with equal exposure over whole sensor and add 5 pixels to sensor in total), do those pixels collect any light? If they do collect light, is it light taken from the other pixels lowering the exposure (the same light would be spread over bigger area) or is it light that was wasted before? If it's light that was wasted before, other pixels still get same amount of light, and those new 5 pixels get this light, how do you add it up to still have same total volume?
Thanks for the information. Amazing how "popular" channels can be so wrong on so much that they teach. Very frustrating………..
This is total BS.
It is simple: in photography we are interested in the performance of an each single, smallest photosensitive UNIT: crystal (film), or pixel (digital). But, in energy production, we are interested in the sum total production of energy of all units, not in each unit per se. Therefore the size of film, or sensor, does not matter – what matters is the (1) size and (2) performance of each individual UNIT, because we are interested in how each UNIT sees the light, what exact UNIQUE information EACH UNIT has gathered. As the technology changes rapidly, UNITS (pixels) in newer cameras are more efficient, so that even their individual size matters less and less.
A larger sensor with the same amount of pixels as its smaller counterpart does, indeed, "capture more light" per pixel. Camera sensors use a color array filter to get intensity information for red, green, and blue for each pixel. And since the "density" of photons hitting the sensor is constant, the intensity of light is proportional to the square of the area of impact. Therefore, with pixels being bigger and covering a larger area, each individual pixel is gathering more energy from photons, therefore "capturing more light." Please study up on your physics before taking the time to go bash people on the internet, especially people who happen to be "brighter" than you are – pun intended.
EXPOSURE IS MEASURED PER UNIT AREA AND SO IT DOESN'T CHANGE WITH BIGGER SENSOR. TOTAL AMOUNT OF LIGHT GATHERED DOES.
If exposure is optimal for 1 J/m^2, it will be the same for sensor 0.5 m^2 and 1 m^2 but 1m^2 sensor will gather twice as much light (1 J vs 0.5 J). But on both of them exposure will be 1J/m^2 – THE SAME.
Please stop making those stupid videos
It would be great to have sensor with variable eyeball size. See, in areas of picture with fine detail, more pixels are engaged and collect all that fine detail. In areas with less detail, not as many eyeball are required. I beleive a patent is coming like in 50 or 100 years from now.
Do you think Fuji would ever consider selling a camera with an APS-H sized sensor (1.3x crop)?? They could keep the current mount…
OMG just watched the first 4 minutes of the video mentioned. Is he saying that larger sensors magnify the density of photons??? (with that magnifying glass illustration). As if the sensor is projecting light? My apologies for sending out a negative comment but my head is hurting from trying to figure out his explanation.
Elementary dear Watson… Love your style of presentation!
BTW Ken if you are interested they are producing the solar panels that have cells made from cabonized (aka burnt) lin seed oil, and no this is not a joke.
This is beyond Tony’s brain dynamic range to understand this! 😆Exposure concept is similar to the physics law of friction which is does not depend on the area of contact! I advise all the FF fanboys to go back to schools and complete their educations.
Yep it's simple, they lie about everything and the sheep believes
Clearly the reason the image sensor has more wires is to improve quality. No one cares about the IQ of your solar panel if they did they would need to add a ton of wires to a sensor that big and it would cost a lot of money. So when they make the "image sensor" it is just the same thing with more wires and those wires are to make it work better. Therefore the fact that the solar panel only had one wire means nothing. Also the image sensor captures color light particles and the solar panel does not, thus the light sensor needs all those wires to tell us about the different colors.
When people want to believe something, nothing can stop them…
My D700 aputure lever stuck in wide open positions, what is your advice? Can I buy a new or used one to replace it? Where can I buy it?
You're a moron 😂
Exposure doesn't change, but total amount of light does. Smaller 20mpix sensor has to boost signal for the same iso, bigger 20 mpix sensor doesn't because it gathers more light.
Only smaller sensor with same relative size of pixels doesn't have to boost signal more but then the light is still being lost – try speed booster, all they do is focus lost light.
The solar panel size doesn't change the light intensity and for solar panel it doesn't matter how big it is FOR EACH PART to still gather same amount of light but the size will matter for the total amount of light and wattage output. The same for the sensor, the size of whole will not matter for each individual pixel but the total size will matter for total light gathered which will impact quality. Bigger sensor WILL GATHER MORE LIGHT AND IT WILL IMPACT QUALITY BUT NOT THE EXPOSURE. Just like with solar panels.
I wholeheartedly agree with everything tech-related pointed out in this video; still, if any of you have seen Tony's videos on Crop Factor and the difference between 'f-stop' & 't-stop', uploaded in Feb 2019 and March 2014, you might recognize that the things he's pointing out go hand in hand with what Ken is showing here.
Before anyone stops thinking and reading here: Don't get me wrong, I love Ken's channel, and I know where Tony has run into the trap of ambiguity when it comes to accurate terminology. Still, Tony repeatedly explains to his (seemingly mostly less experienced audience, and I mean that in a denotative way) audience how the 't-stop' won't change with sensor size, and also how the 'f-stop' doesn't actually change when using the same lens on diff. sensor sizes, but how we need to use diff. lenses & do some math if we want 'equivalent' results on diff. sensor sizes. He's actually showing how bigger sensors don't gather more light.
Yes, Tony has repeatedly said that bigger sensors perform better in low light – and when in comes to pure 'theory', this reduction of complexity drives me mad, too – but when we compare the same generation of a 24 megapixel 'APS-C' sensor and a 24 megapixel 'FF'-Sensor (which we then should do, as he has pointed out), the statement that a bigger sensor means better low light capabilities can't be falsified. Yeah, when we talk about pixel pitch in this comparison, we'd need to compare sth. like a 10 megapixel 'APS-C' sensor to a 24 megapixel 'FF'-sensor (both same generation), but who is building these? Do you know why an up-to-date 10mp APS-C sensor BEAST is not a real thing? Because of the majority of consumers craving for an absurd amount of megapixels.
Honestly – how about not blaming each other, but the companies for their marketing and their incoherent, incomplete, insufficient and in the end incorrect statements on their products; they cause the vagueness and terminological issues that we all somehow have to work around.
So you're saying that as soon as you cut the sensor to smaller size the light magically stops falling at the other parts of the sensor and focuses on this smaller, cut out part. And speedboosters are somehow not focusing light from bigger frame to smaller but magically producing more light?
Yes, the exposure doesn't change, in film the only payoff was quality with smaller frame but in digital to get same ISO on smaller frame with same amount of pixels you need to boost signal and introduce noise.
Another top video
Does polarized light produce more or less watts