Do full frame cameras indeed have lower noise?

Head to squarespace.co... to save 10% off your first purchase of a website or domain using code simon
Join me in Botswana in 2024!
www.simondentr...
Want to take amazing wildlife photos? Check out my new course with 20 modules and over 5 hours of content, no fluff!
journalofwildl...
My name is Simon d'Entremont and I'm a professional wildlife and nature photographer from Eastern Canada. This video will show you how the different size sensors affect noise performance and image quality.
I use Topaz Labs software for noise reduction, sharpening and upscaling:
topazlabs.com/...
Music in intro: "Nicer", by Houses on the Hill. Find that, and other sound effects at Epidemic Sounds
share.epidemic...
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) www.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
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.theheatcom...
Heat Company Merino Wool liners www.theheatcom...
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.simondentr...

[@simon_dentremont]

What’s your experience with noise compared to sensor size?

[@FlatWaterFilms]

I'm thinking many people feel smaller sensor cameras are just as good as FF. Maybe a justification for them due to the affordability? The OM-1 looks pretty nice for wildlife photography though. Personally, I'm willing to lug around the R5 with battery pack while out in the forests. Glass is important too, with FF normally getting the highest quality lens. Crop sensors have lot's of reach, but going wide is a problem. In the old day's 800 ISO was pushing it. Modern cameras, no problem. Heard with the R5, if you can't shoot at ISO 100, go directly to ISO 400 for the best DR. Simon actually provides excellent information, while so many others just push gear.

[@cityproofdad]

its more about focus sharpness

[@Eikenhorst]

I think noise becomes less and less of an issue with AI tools being able to remove noise now without removing the details in your photo, unlike previously where software smudges out the noise, but also the detail. There are still advantages to going for a FF setup in many situations, but noise becomes less of a factor in that decision.

[@FlatWaterFilms]

@@Eikenhorst Not a good idea to reduce noise in post production in my opinion.

[@RG-rm9jt]

Having shot both Fuji and Sony, the Fuji did cause more noise but that's because of their lens selection. At the time they had a 400mm f5.6, so equivalent to a ~600mm f8, which of course will cause more noise due to the small aperture. To be frank though, I never worry about noise, that's what Topaz is for these days.

[@oli8200]

I feel like squabbles over the relationship between sensor size and noise are almost redundant for wildlife photographers because we're just so used to what others might think of as "high" ISOs. If I can get down to 1600 ISO I'm ecstatic, but my landscape and portrait photographer buddies are horrified by anything over 400!

[@simon_dentremont]

Agree.

[@robertleeimages]

I do nightscape, landscape, day & night street, some sport and now and then like last Friday i do a bit of bird photography but only ever in our front garden(Live on a farm) But because of the nightscape etc i am use to noise so except for the nightscapes and landscape where I'm in full manual, everything else my camera(200d) is set to auto iso max 1600 and shutter priority

[@RG-rm9jt]

Agreed man. ISO 12800 is not too uncommon for me, and I find that smoothing the noise isn't too bad with modern software and sensors.

[@umfilmmaker8253]

Very good point 👍

[@SekiLapse]

Hahahaha, that's so true!

[@user-sx2vr5wf3q]

I love the way you explain things in simple, user-friendly terms! Thank you for sharing your advice and knowledge with us Simon! So much appreciated!

[@simon_dentremont]

Glad you like them!

[@Aranimda]

I upgraded from a 1/2.3" sensor bridge camera to an 1" sensor bridge camera. While this is still a very small sensor in the eye of professional photographers, it made a big difference to me. With the versatility of giving a lot of sharpness and versatility when zooming.

[@kedrednael]

Let me guess. From Sony HX400v to RX10 IV? I am going to try to do that transition next week.

[@Aranimda]

@@kedrednael From a Canon SX20 IS to a Sony RX10 III.

[@mightygame9944]

This was the perfect explanation that i was looking for, compare to many youtubers that couldn't explain the proper reasons on low light between full frame and crop sensors.

[@drtod]

I simply use DxO to clean up the noise, its a great equalizer against sensor size.

[@JohnDoe-xm1ir]

I haven't tried DxO, but Lightroom's AI denoise has been absolutely fantastic for me personally. It's slow, but it can really revive photos that just had a bit too much noise.

[@phrozenoddity995]

I am a brand new photographer. The photos i have taken so far are well above average because of everything I've learned from you in these videos. Your content is master class quality. Thank you so much for being a teacher, role model and inspiration to so many up and coming photographers!

[@joeoneill9098]

In think a better way to tell how good a sensor is at gathering light is seeing how much ISO the camera wants to properly expose the image. Restrict the shutter speed and aperture and see what the camera wants to do with ISO. If one camera can have a lower ISO to achieve exposure, and the other needs a higher ISO, that would tell you that the lower ISO camera is doing a more effective job of gathering light. I don't think whacking ISO up on normal pictures is a true test of low light performance for cameras. All it does it tell you how much grain will be introduced

[@simon_dentremont]

The « effectiveness » measure you raise is called quantum efficiency, the percentage of photons that are actually captured. Camera manufacturers sometimes publish this. but your experiment wouldn’t work, as the camera’s iso is normalized to a standard brightness, so the iso would be the same in both scenarios (but the better quantum efficiency sensor would have a cleaner image, everything else being equal).

[@Warrior_Resisting_Colonialism]

I wish people would focus more on that full frames WILL produce far superior photos in low light over crop sensor cameras than WHY they do it. In the end, to the photographer, we honestly don't need to know WHY. Just that it IS. When I started out, using an entry level crop sensor DSLR (Nikon 3400) to shoot nightscape/ Milky Way photos (using a full frame, fast lens) I had NO CLUE that I was working extra hard to produce and process decent night photos, over a full frame. I just wish I was told that a full frame WILL blow the doors off anything I could do with a crop, I would have known to just move on. Once I did and got a nice used full frame (Nikon D610 - an older entry level full frame, at that; the comparable entry level to the d3400 crop era would be the D750. so I went BACK a model and STILL blew the doors off the crop in low light. keep this in mind!) everything became clear... What I learned was, these videos didn't help me to learn that a full frame WILL be FAR superior in low light. However, this one is far better than most. I wish it were drilled a bit more, so people will KNOW for a FACT that this is the case. By trade, I'm an aborist. For years I got by, cutting up my larger tree logs, on removals, using my all purpose 70cc chainsaw. I just got a separate larger bar and chain and put those on whenever I got into something big. Did it work? YES! It worked great and "got me by" for years! However, years latter, I purchased a 95cc chainsaw just for those large logs. Did it work? YES! Far better! Just like using my smaller chainsaw, it did the job, but it wasn't the right tool for the job. Once I upgraded, and was able to cut through those logs FAR faster, I understood that "getting by" for so long, wasn't very wise. What I noticed in my night photography hobby though, when I updated from a crop sensor to a full frame camera, unlike the smaller/ larger chainsaw; the end results were NOT the same. Cutting faster just means making more money, but using the larger camera, means FAR superior low light image quality that could NEVER be replicated in post. The crop sensor camera, was simply not capable of capturing all the dynamic range in the raw files, that the full frame is capable of capturing, so in lightroom, the sliders could only do so much. The main point is, none of us really even need to know why as full frame camera will blow the doors off a crop sensor camera in low light performance. We just all need to know that it WILL. This way, we can decide what the best tool for the job is.

[@JingjokD]

yeah they keep telling how great Fujifilm camera is in low light and I thought that I had a beast in my hand, until I got a hand on a full-frame camera

[@simon_dentremont]

Some people just like to know how things work.

[@Warrior_Resisting_Colonialism]

@@simon_dentremont There's nothing wrong with this. I'm a bit interested also. It's just that without it VERY clear that full frames WILL for absolute fact, take far superior low light photos, the casual viewer will be easily mislead by these arguments as to WHY it is. I know, because I used to be one the mislead myself. With many false claims and statements in comments of videos like these, implying, lying, and or just misleading based on not knowing better, can trick people into believing that crop sensor cameras can produce the same quality of photos in low light as larger sensors. You'll see them. Many are already being posted and many more are sure to role in.

[@NotAnotherChannel_Channel]

Ah, the argument that will never die. I’ve been told time and time again that I can’t shoot the astrophotography or night photography that I’ve been taking with my APS-C camera. And those wedding and concert photographers that I follow who also shoot APS-C that they’re not supposed to be able to shoot but still seem to nail it. Modern sensors, lenses, and tech help ameliorate noise in almost any image. Not perfect, but like you said, understanding your equipment’s limitations and taking steps to reduce noise is how we get it done. Thanks Simon!

[@robertleeimages]

Hahaha I get questioned on social media(not so much now)about how could I get shots like my profile with a little 200d, and that they're fake and photoshop etc etc. I don't even use or own a tracker, photoshop or lightroom and still edit everything in Canon DPP4 before stacking sky images in sequator, then it gets combined with any light painted foregrounds using layers in Gimp. Canon 200d with Tokina 14-20mm f2 lens, that's all my nightscape kit is

[@NotAnotherChannel_Channel]

@@robertleeimages Weird how people were doing photography before 2020. And much respect to you!

[@Warrior_Resisting_Colonialism]

It's not that you CAN'T, is that's you can do it FAR better using a full frame camera. I got into photography for shooting the Milky Way myself. I started with a d3400 crop sensor, then upgraded to a used full frame, D610 and the image quality FAR surpassed anything I could take with the d3400 by a LARGE margin. So far superior, it wasn't even like comparing apples to apples. The VERY first thing I noticed, was once in lightroom, I could use a MASSIVE amount more of all the sliders!!! Meaning, the D610 captured FAR more in the raw files. Where if I slide any slider so ever so slightly on the d3400's raw files, the imagine went to crap real quick. Someone explained to me, it's because the larger sensor captured more "dynamic range" than the crop. I wish I had known there was no comparison, I would have just skipped the crop sensor camera. It was a lesson that cost me a LOT of time and a LOT more effort to get decent night shots. With the D610, it's feels like I entered a god mode cheat code in a video game or something. There's a right tool for the job, and then there's making due.

[@alansach8437]

Nothing motivates better than someone telling you that you can't do something!

[@Warrior_Resisting_Colonialism]

@@alansach8437 ALSO, nothing educates better than ensuring when you do use a crop sensor camera for night photography, that although it will work, it wont work anywhere near as good as full frame camera. This way people will know that they CAN do something and they can do it even BETTER. This way the choice is their own. No ones wrong either way, but we can always ensure to be informative and not be misleading by leaving out vital info. I question that anyone actually told the first poster that he "couldn't". I've taken plenty of decent night photos with a crop sensor and it's very will known you "can". Only very uneducated would have told he "couldn't". It's important we all know a full frame can do this task far better, that's all. Not that you "cant" do it. This video explains WHY but it's tip toeing around that full frames are FAR superior in low light over smaller sensors. The difference is very, very drastic.

[@josgeusens4637]

Digital sensors - by the way - do not stop at medium format. Large sensor cameras use 4 by 5 inch (10 x 12.7 cm) huge ones. Just fyi. On topic, I might add that some people don't use the same lenses to compare full frame and micro-four thirds because f/2.8 is not the same as a 2.8 T-stop. While this is marginally important, it's also true that comparing images on pixel-level is marginally important. Very often it's also ignored that ISO 200 is not the same for all sensors, not even for the same sensor size and brand (1). This especially shows up when using a reliable external light meter (Sekonic L-389) and setting the camera to that readout. (I never do that, btw, because the most reliable meter is built in the digital camera itself for it measures the light the sensor receives and no deviations are included). To reduce the noise, we can also use the very high frame rate of the Olympus cameras and stack 12800 ISO images. While at 120 fps there is very little differentiation between the images, this can be a helpful feature. (1) Sensors are not always manufactured by the camera manufacturer. Mostly not, except for Canon and Sony.

[@MurrayVader-xp8iv]

I appreciate your last tip that helps people to get the best out of what they have. I'm not in a position to upgrade.

[@coolcat23]

Few people do this subject justice, but you did. Well done. A crucial point to understand, that many don't get, is that "the same exposure" only refers to the same intensity, i. e., number of photons per unit square, and that overall IQ depends on the overall number of photons captured (as opposed to local intensity).

[@gregsullivan7408]

Agreed, and this is a point which Tony Northrup explains very well.

[@dogpadogpa]

Great video! I've debated in your vids when people say FF is always better than crop. However it's very difficult to compare sensor size on varying technology. What I do to explain easier is to compare quarter size to full size on film. Comparing the same film like Kodak Ektar100. Full frame can print a 4 times larger page than the quarter frame. Both grains look the same when looking at the same distance. Full frame looks less noisy when printed at the same size prints. Full frame cropped to a quarter is exactly the same on all levels to the quarter frame camera (IF your lens can resolve that detail). Also why panoramic stitching and high res stitching helps in smaller sensors too. AKA full frame is good for larger prints. If you don't need larger prints (because viewing distance matters like you said in your previous video!) then crop sensors are fine for MOST people.

[@mitchellan-ebbott7408]

Great video. One advantage to smaller sensors that you didn’t mention is stabilization. Smaller sensors with less mass are easier to stabilize, which is why the best IBIS on the market is on micro four thirds bodies. For stationary subjects, this can mitigate the poor noise performance because it lets you use a slower shutter speed.

[@proksalevente]

The Sony a7rV has 8 stops of IBIS. Same as m43 flagships. Canon also has 7-8 stops already iirc.

[@r4yker442]

Isn't it true that with FF gear, which in most cases is heavier, introduces more camera shake that IBIS has to battle? MFT not only is rather compact compared to FF, but in most cases lighter as well all while having excellent IBIS

[@kenmaier6870]

This is by far the best / most thorough explanation. Your analogies are great !!

[@simon_dentremont]

Glad you think so!

[@ddsdss256]

Good point about the advantage of MFT in the field (it's whole raison d'être, especially with longer FLs) . It's not what's theoretically "better" (the "numbers" are irrelevant) but what's "good enough," as excess capacity is wasted. "Clean" detailed/sharp, etc. is way overrated (in fact, overly sharp/detailed photos can be annoying/fatiguing to view) and the human eye/visual cortex is incapable of distinguishing a significant difference between prints from different-size sensor cameras when viewed at an appropriate distance. Even smaller-sensor cameras can produce "cleaner" images than the best film cameras (and film grain can enhance the "feel" of an image, just as analog music sounds better than digital). IMO, a larger sensor's marginally higher SNR (and sometimes DR) in no way offsets the ridiculously large/heavy/pricy lenses required to cover that larger sensor. If you regularly shoot in very low light, only use short FLs, and need to satisfy a client, then hey, go for medium format (APS-C and "FF" only exist as they correspond to popular film camera formats and potential customers for early digital cameras wanted to keep their lenses). Personally, I'm sticking with MFT and plan to supplement my G9 with a G9II (check out the DR boost on the G9II--very impressive). I don't drive a huge gas hog as my Prius is more socially responsible (plus more fun and actually safer), and the same philosophy goes for my camera gear--bigger is not at all necessarily better!

[@12345678927164]

This guy always states the facts and makes me more confident

[@MeAMuse]

Very well explained! You obviously have to leave a bunch of the complexity out. The way I explain it is that larger sensors, and better lenses make it easier to get a photo (they don't necessarily make the photos better). I mainly shoot full frame, but even when I shoot 1 inch.... I can get great results by good technique and working the light.

[@timgurr1876]

Thanks Simon. Great explanation. I keep using APSC because of cost. In low light I use wider apertures to reduce noise (aperture mode on my Sony a6500). Also, I try to keep ISO lower than 800 (the lowest possible to keep a reasonably fast shutter speed (1/60 or faster for hand held).

[@ookiemand]

Also consider print/view size. - Have you done a video on how many megapixels one actually needs for an A3 print, at a normal to close viewing distance? Like Simon says, every system has it's own strengths and limitations. And buyers have their strenghts and limitations (body, budget). I'm happy with my 100-400 lens on my M43 camera because it's compact and fast while hiking with a group and in sometimes challanging areas. A bigger system would limit my range and number of occations I can bring it allong. Also a big FF system is beyond my budget, and I rather spend that on family, travel and other hobbies. The M43 system has some good image stabilization, allowing me to hand hold at very low shutter speeds, and ISO, thus avoiding going above 3200 ISO. Birds in flight are a bit too challanging for me and my camera system at the moment.

[@simon_dentremont]

I did make a video on that. kzbin.info/www/bejne/ipnTgoqehMt-hZYsi=0XJWe4lmw6ODuBIO

[@pentagramyt417]

@ookiemand, what do you think about Olympus 300 mm f4 and darker forest area? What ISO could be expected to 1/500 shutterspeed? Honestly for my APS-C sensor, 1/500 and f6.3 is on the 12.800 ISO when it's on "auto" to that range.

[@ookiemand]

@@pentagramyt417 Is the 1/500 because of subject movement? If it is not, then you could with proper technique and the good stabilization go to much lower shutter speeds. If it is, then I think going from APS-C (F6.3) to M3/4 (F4) will land you on F4-Iso 6400 on an M43 body. I'm not sure how much weightloss it will get you going from your currenct setup to a M43 system becaue the 300 F4 is not the lightest off the choices, though its very sharp and can be used without any resolution loss with a 1,4 teleconverter, I believe (I have not tested that lens). But weight and size is just one aspect of a system, weathersealing, interface, handling, simplicity etc also are big factors in having fun and succes.

[@pentagramyt417]

@@ookiemand Thank you for the answer there! You know, having a6400 without any inbody stabilization is hard, but having sony 200-600 mm won't help me much, and give a sharp images below I'd say 1/500 when I am standing. I can go like 1/125 when I am holding camera a little more over the ground level, but still a little shake is very visible on the images if I move just a little. In forest area 1/500 = ISO 12.800, and what it means my dynamic range is pretty shit. The autofocus is also not that fast though and images are not hit like 9/10 but rather 5/15. Maybe A6700 would be faster with eye detection, but I won't switch aps-c for aps-c, that is not the option at all. As you said going down to M43 and 300 mm f/4 could probably give ISO 6400, which is like again maybe around 10.000 on my APS-C (?). You noted the weather sealing or weight is important to any photographer, and this is also something behind that because just camera and lens itself RIGHT NOW is LITERALLY 3.05 kg and we can forget about "weather sealing" without any IP rating from Sony. So going fullframe is just adding like another 350 grams of weight with battery included. And I don't know if that will compensate the image quality. I hold different lenses in my backpack so I think it's around +5 kg on my back without any food source. Of course having Sony A1 + 600 mm f4 prime would give me hell of a fun even if it weight 5 kg 😂😂 but I don't know if I am going to have the same fun with just A7 series and 200-600 at f/6.3 light. What I really miss is like 400 mm f/4 lens for APS-C sensor. I WOULD GO THERE EVEN FOR A6700 WITHOUT A QUESTION! :) I just want to change my setup, but don't know which way to go...

[@ookiemand]

@@pentagramyt417 Maybe rent an A7R4 and an A6700, and see if the IS helps to bring the ISO down. If the subject is slowly moving or resting I can easily hand hold 1/50 with my 100-400mm on my old G85, Thus going from 12800 to 1600, or lower.

[@H0mework]

Noise is now an artistic choice as well. There's been a trend of "filmic" digital with CCD sensors recently. Love your videos and productive.

[@IllusionInfusion]

My philosophy has always been that a picture with noise isn't great, but a blurry picture is useless. Obviously lower ISO is ideal, but too long of an exposure can kill a shot more than noise can.

[@simon_dentremont]

Agree!

[@RG-rm9jt]

As someone who shoots wildlife with a 600mm f6.3, noise does not bother me in the slightest. I use Topaz for that, and will happily push my iso up to 12,800 if needed to get the shot sharp.

[@davidgommeren7283]

Thanks so much, the comparison with rainfall makes it very easy to understand what is going on.

[@blindspotter5859]

Your explanation is simply amazing...wow.

[@colinblin1723]

This was a very informative video. I especially liked the part where you explain the arguments online and the analogy of cups collecting water to the sensor collecting light.

[@JezdziecBezNicka]

Bigger sensor is better, but there's an individual cut-off point called "good enough". Once you reach that, further investment gives massively diminishing returns. For example, if the only place you display your photos is on social media, getting a medium format camera makes absolutely no sense.

[@simon_dentremont]

Agree!

[@tomholzwurm86]

Thanks to Simon for the valuable summary and I vote for the full frame sensor ! I also agree on permanent improvements by AI tools, I've included AI denoising in my Lightroom import workflow permanently, the only downside is the time for processing the raw images. On the brightside I'm able to shoot most of my images using a Nikon Z8 in manual mode, means only ISO is automatic. Shutterspeed is set according to avoid motion blur and aperture to adjust depth of field. I was on a holiday shooting lots of night images and looking at the statistics of the images many of them were taken using ISO 3200-12800. After processing most of them are perfectly sharp without visible noise. I also like the possibility to switch from FX to DX mode especially if even the 600mm tele lens is too short. I fully understand the need for a small more portable camera systeme, but I got used to the FF camera and the size and weight of the equipment and I'm very satisified with it.

[@joylox]

I had an image at 40,000 ISO, and used Topaz Denoise combined with a bit of extra tweaking in Darktable, and the faces looked a bit weird and blurred, but overall, wasn't bad. And if you're only viewing it at 25% of the full image quality (like using a 1080p screen to show a 4K image), it's not bad. There is still the loss of detail, but some of that can be filled in again if you know what you're doing.

[@falxonPSN]

The newest technology of sensors, especially when paired with a low megapixel count for a given size, can produce some amazing results. I've been testing a technique on my R3 when taking pictures in near darkness that consists of using video shot at ISO levels of up to 51, 200 and then stacking frames to reduce noise. It works amazingly well and it can basically see in total darkness. People love to say that the R3 stinks because of it's low megapixel count compared to the R5, but when it comes to low light there's no comparison.

[@neurologistFACP]

Superb, as usual. The content is not new to me, but the way of delivering the information is quite simple and viewer-friendly. Keep up the good work!

[@simon_dentremont]

Great to hear!

[@careylymanjones]

I usually shoot in manual mode, with auto ISO. This lets me control my depth of field with the aperture, the amount of motion blur with shutter speed, and lets the camera figure where to set the ISO,

[@simon_dentremont]

Same!

[@franzrogar]

7:25 I don't think it "minimize" the noise. Just your seeing it a bigger image, thus "reducing" the actual size of the noise. It's like when you go to the optometrist and you shot one of the "read this" plates. If you "crop" the full-frame photo to match the APS-C (same tech, same options, same lens equivalent, same distance to object) the noise should be identical. If you zoom out the APS-C to match the physical size of the full-frame, the noise should be exactly the same, as you have made the "visual pixel" size equally small. PS: English not my native language... I hope this paragraph can be understood...

[@Warrior_Resisting_Colonialism]

It's not this way in actual real world photo taking. I can assure you, the difference is HUGE. The full frame will blow the doors off a crop sensor cam in low light. You will get FAR superior, cleaner, less grainy photos using a full frame. I started with a d3400 and upgraded to a d610 and at night, at high iso levels, it's no contest. It's not even apples to apples. I wish someone told me just like this, before I wasted my time, shooting in the dark with a crop. I know now, it was a waste of effort. I wasn't using the right tool for the job and there is NOTHING that can be done in post, to make it comparable. Nothing. In broad daylight, the crop sensor will take EXCELLENT photos. When ISO is required (especially over just 500) the full frame will, totally blow it's doors off. As in no contest, whatsoever. This is why his tips at the end for maximizing a crop sensor cam are VERY important. Listen to them VERY carefully. Where those can't be applied (like when shooting nightscapes/ Milky way, especially) then there's nothing you can do, to make them comparable. The crop sensor is only capable of so much.

[@rsat9526]

@@Warrior_Resisting_Colonialism While I agree with you mostly....I kind of disagree that APSC is very far off vs FF above ISO 500. Newer sensor on APSC these days are unlike old APSC cameras release almost 10 years ago. The sensor tech has improve so much over the years to the point that the difference is not far off and not very noticeable unless in more extreme situation. I am confident that the newer camera like Sony A6700 or Fuji XT-5 are going to be ok as long as they are under ISO 3200 which is plenty unless you are shooting night sky/astro. Even so they are going to still be usable though not going to be as good as FF for sure.

[@Warrior_Resisting_Colonialism]

@@rsat9526 I compared a current crop sensor to a nearly 15 year old full frame and it was no contest. My old D610 Nikon, SMOKES the much, much newer D3400 at anything above 100 ISO.... Once you get up to shooting the stars at 3200 and 6400 ISO, the modern crop can't even compete. Not even comparable. So different, it's like using a screwdriver vs a hammer. I liked the D3400 for what it was, don't get me wrong but I could NEVER go back to crop, now.

[@miker5502]

Simon has some of the best and informative videos on photography in all of KZbin, all presented in an interesting and understandable way. Thanks for sharing your knowledge with us. Cheers MikeR.

[@danceswithferrets]

I grew up on film cameras, I find it counterintuitive to mess with the ISO. I'm learning new skills and make more use of digital camera settings than I used to. I have an Olympus m4/3 camera and a couple of very nice lenses. Although with the pancake kit lens I can take it anywhere and get the pictures I would have missed. A small and light camera suits me best. I take the best pics I can with it and occasionally surprise myself. If my camera has a noisy sensor so be it, I really like some of the pictures I take with it.

[@PhreddCrintt]

Spot on Simon. Again. I have been saying this for decades. (I shoot Olympus E-M1 and Canon 5D Mk3 - both with OEM glass)

[@runcmd1419]

More light over more area, but assuming the same noise performance per area, the smaller sensor needs to be enlarged more for final viewing. Same as with film.

[@simon_dentremont]

Agree

[@samue1991]

Your experienced and well researched perspective is a blessing in the photography community, thank you for making these videos!

[@simon_dentremont]

My pleasure!

[@rudigerwolf9626]

Simon, thank-you for the time you take to address multiple issue and bring some reason to the many controversies in photography. Your approach is the most reasoned I have seen on "KZbin"! Thank-you! I just watched the recent video on Larger Sensor, Lower Noise. I truly appreciate the explanations. I would suggest looking at sensor size without real world camera/lens capabilities is an incomplete comparison. I happen to have rented both a Nikon D9/800mm f/6.3 and OM1/150-400mm f/4.5 for testing. At an effective 800mm they have the same field of view. The cameras have way different resolutions. Lenses have different minimum apertures. Testing both lens/camera combinations on a tripod, the OM1/150-400 consistently delivers clearer, sharper images when viewed at 200%. At normal fit, the two are very similar - except I can typically shoot the OM1 slightly faster or at lower ISO due to the faster lens. Shooting at lower ISO typically results in lower noise. My point is, we cannot compare sensor size noise independent of real world lens and camera capabilities. I am not saying one is better than the other. What I would personally love to see is real world comparisons where a number of parameters are assessed for different shooting genres. Parameters would include weight, size, cost, sensor resolution, stabilization, lens focal length and aperture, noise levels, simplicity of use, ergonomics, lens portfolio, tracking, frames per second, minimum focus distance etc. Genres might be landscape, sports, wildlife, portrait, micro, astro, street, hiking landscape, etc. Finding the right tools for the job (systems, camera/lens combinations for a high quality 11x14 print, or instagram post, or online display) should be the point of these types of videos - at least for me. I have yet to find someone who approaches the reviews in that context. Perhaps it is just too time consuming? Finally, my thanks again for your videos. I truly enjoy your reasoned approach.

[@dogpadogpa]

I followed that path of comparing cameras (by looking at all those parameters including weather sealing). I ended up with m43 as my go to (still playing with medium format/135 film SLRs). The unfortunate thing is bigger sensors and high megapixels is what people get sold by. Easy for marketing and profits for the company. Each system has their own strengths and weaknesses (some full frame fans don't understand that even full frame has weaknesses). Having higher megapixels won't help you if your lens can't resolve that detail. If your camera system makes you enjoy photography that's a good system for you!

[@rudigerwolf9626]

@@dogpadogpa Completely agree. Most of us likely won't be selling any large volume of prints. So the joy of traveling, camaraderie, and the pleasure of taking the shot is where the joy is. So the equipment that makes the experience more enjoyable is a key aspect of equipment selection. Enjoying the finished image is another aspect. Personally, I am right there with you. Medium format for landscape, nature, scenes, portraits. M4/3 for action, wildlife, macro and light carry. Still have a full frame and APSC, but not really using them very much.

[@dogpadogpa]

@@rudigerwolf9626 the rate of technology has also helped cropped sensors. Back in the day I had to rent full frames to do low-light action shots but now m43 is fine. Printing is fun but it's funny how dynamic range has a big concern when paper's dynamic range is the smallest range ever! Well, even general phone and computer screens can't show off dynamic range (it's mainly for having lost detail to highlights and shadows). I still prefer full frame for bokeh and portraits, tilt-shift lens for architecture but current m43 is fine for everything else.

[@rudigerwolf9626]

@@dogpadogpaEspecially travel. OM1 and 12-100 is an awesome travel combination.

[@dogpadogpa]

@@rudigerwolf9626 Agreed. Or the 12-40 or Panasonic's 12-60. There's many choices.

[@davidcrossley7145]

What a very informative photographer to learn from. This man has a great way of explaining difficult and awkward problems I face regularly in my photography.So thanks so much for your videos 👍👍

[@simon_dentremont]

Glad it was helpful!

[@ww8wv1]

Great explanation, I have both a crop sensor and full frame mirrorless cameras. What I’ve noticed is that in good light the crop sensor can stand toe to toe with the full frame but in lower light the full frame pulls way ahead. If I’m understanding this video correctly I now have a better understanding as to why this is so.

[@simon_dentremont]

Yes, exactly

[@Warrior_Resisting_Colonialism]

Yup. I wish I had known from the start just how drastically the better the full frame was over crop, since I was interested in Milky Way, nightscapes. I had to learn the hard way haha. I feel I was wasting so much time and working too hard, trying to push the crop beyond it's capabilities. All I ever saw were these video fights as to why, but no one said how drastically better the full frame actually performs!

[@thatcherfreeman]

I love the continuation of the catching rain in cups analogy. Super intuitive explanation!

[@photonspark]

Thanks Simon, and of course with the excellent noise reduction of DXO Photolab/Pureraw and Topaz Denoise, us M43 users are much more brave to use higher ISO these days, just get the shot and easily deal with noise in post processing :)

[@professionalpotato4764]

There are limitations when it comes to fine detail. DXO didn't work for me when there's hair, fur, or foliage. It's fine for a thumbnail or small 4x6 print, but the artifacts are very visible at 100%.

[@rwinkler4321]

​@@professionalpotato4764I find it's much better with sharpening on the lowest setting for all situations. I believe it's called lens softness in software.

[@Al.j.Vasquez]

​@@professionalpotato4764also, sometimes (most times) when you're dealing with hair, feathers and fur, denoise softwares will hurt the image, and you end up preferring the image with extra noise but more detail than with the noise reduction.

[@photonspark]

@@professionalpotato4764 I use Tppaz Sharpen AI as a second step, it often (not always) does a decent job of putting fine detail back. I suppose close up shots may be more tricky

[@ddsdss256]

@@professionalpotato4764 I've gotten great results from my Lumix G9 (and even FZ1000) with DxO DeepPRIME XD (PL6 and higher) as well as Topaz DeNoise, and the minimal loss of shadow detail that can occur with very low light/high ISO (like 12,800+ for the G9, more like 3200 for the FZ) is generally irrelevant, as the shadows are generally background anyway. Also, you can avoid artifacts by pulling back a bit on the sliders. All that really matters is how the print looks from an appropriate viewing distance and I've gotten no complaints so far (even from myself). Only pixel-peeping photographers even consider things like shadow detail/noise anyway. Nobody else cares or even notices.

[@adunthecitadel9122]

What about thermal noise? Lights are photons received by receivers through antennas. Thermal noise in receivers make noise goo astrophotographic cameras lower that heat reduce your noise. Does smaller sensors generate more internal heat? Is there interferences between pixels? In AstroPhoto, Fullframe requires costier optics while the small sensor fit with much more telescopes.

[@simon_dentremont]

Thermal noise from hot electronics is only an issue for long or repeated exposures (ie over 30 seconds or timelapses). I own cooled astrophotography cameras for this purpose. For daytime photography, just taking a photo here and there, it’s not an issue.

[@David_Quinn_Photography]

I use crop sensors and never heard of such a thing but I did like your analigy with rain drops on glasses.

[@deejayiwan7]

Soooooo you are right... Thats why everyone needs a Flash... Or two... Or three....

[@dankedozo]

This is such a great explanation! I really appreciate how you clearly define terms in your videos!

[@simon_dentremont]

Glad you think so!

[@Lesterandsons]

Excellent. FF requires longer focals, so larger apertures at the same f/ stop to cover a wider area Same exposure but more light. To take advantage of FF the size of the subject has to be larger on the sensor. If the size is the same it’s a waste. Apsc are today very good and software makes wonders.

[@simval84]

The night shot mode used by many cameras is basically a way to use a form of electronic stabilization in still photography. With a camera with IBIS, you can take a photo with a long exposure handheld, say 1/10 s at ISO 640, which you can't without some lens stabilization which is limited to 1/FF equivalent focal length (say 1/25 s for 24 mm). By taking say 6 photos at 1/60 s at ISO 3200 and using computing to make each photo fit and average the noise, you produce the equivalent of a single 1/10 s photo at ISO 500, more or less.

[@JRodPhotoArt]

Well done Simon !! Everyone should watch this and maybe people will stop complaining.

[@michaelschneider9710]

One thing to factor with sensor size is stacked vs. non-stacked sensors. Olympus OM-1 is a stacked micro-four thirds sensor at 20mps, and Panasonic G6II and GH6 are 25 mps, but they are not stacked. I love Olympmpus with 300 f4, and a friend has the 150-300. I also use a Canon R5/6 for a full frame. Since the OM-1 has landed in my gear, with the stacked sensor and new autofocus, and much smaller long lens sizes, I don't grab the R5 and 500 F4 as much as I used to. I am hoping Sigma finally brings their Fovean Sensor II out, it will be very interesting to see what that does.

[@wandererstraining]

Great video, your explanations were very clear and I hope that it helps people understand better how it works and various tradeoffs. Too many people don't get the difference between intensity of light vs total light captured by a sensor. It's always about finding the right combination of sensors and lenses. A 135mm f/1.8 give an APS-C sensor the equivalent of a 200mm f/2.8 on a full-frame. Most people don't have access to a 200mm f/2 lens, so one should compare the performance of both equivalent lenses. In this case, a good 135mm f/1.8 on an APS-C sensor might give a better performance than a 200mm f/2.8 on a full-frame sensor if the zoom lens isn't as sharp or has worse vignetting or coatings than the f/1.8 lens. All in all, the two would be pretty comparable given the same sensor technology. The APS-C camera might have an easier time to focus in low light with the 135mm prime. In general tho, full-frame cameras win the equivalency game. It would take an f/0.6 lens to gather the same amount of light on a m43 camera as it does on an f/1.2 full-frame camera. For APS-C, it would take an f/0.8. No f/0.6 lens was ever made, and f/0.8 lenses would be incredibly difficult to correct and their image quality would never compare favourably to the full-frame equivalent, just like current f/0.95 lenses for APS-C cannot match an f/1.4 lens' quality on full-frame. The only f/0.95 lens that would be an exception to that would be Nikon's Noct, which weights a lot, is extremely expensive and only has manual focus. Also, it's a full-frame lens anyway.

[@rocheuro]

pixel size is crucial, not necessarily sensor size. but often one determines the other.

[@ion_X]

So basically light and noise ratio per surface are is very similar, if pixel size; and once again if sensor tech and type and it's photosensitivity are similar

[@johngregg5735]

I took your advice before I even saw this video. My DSLR is one of the best C2K cameras around. C2K as in Costco Camera Kit. A Nikon D3200 w/ a 18-55 ( f/3.5- d/4.6 4) and a 55-200 (f/4-f/5.6). And it came with a real nice bag. I've been trying to take photographs in low light, without a flash. Results were not so good. Yesterday, my (relatively) new 50mm f/1.8 was delivered. Just messing around, I was able to take photos in very dim light and actually get good images. Of course, they put the 'G' in grainy. A game changer.

[@cityproofdad]

i use m43 for wildlife because crop factor and the size of lenses

[@simon_dentremont]

A popular choice. A 300mm lens goes a long way.

[@cityproofdad]

@@simon_dentremont yes i use basic 100-300 lumix and is plenty enough for amateur me i was thinking to upgrade for leica 100-400mm but is there a point considering price i payed £170 vs £700???

[@wandererstraining]

The sneaky trick that smartphones can do to reduce noise, you can do with a camera as well if you're willing to do some post-processing. The trick is to take a burst, put it on the computer, align all the frames, and then apply median blending. It can be done in Photoshop, or with open source tools like the "align_image_stack" and "convert -evaluate-sequence median" commands in Linux. A cool thing about this is that you can get better dynamic range out of your image files. Process the raw files almost as heavily as you want, the the noise that shows in the shadows will be attenuated once you blend the files, possibly leaving only sensor read noise if your sensor is dated. The amount of noise reduction works the same way as f-stops. 2 images is one stop, 4 images 2 stops, 8 images 3 stops, 16 images 4 stops, etc.

[@washingtonradio]

I think the more one understands sensor physics the better able one is to compensate for the sensor size by using different camera settings, different lens choices, and general technique in more challenging conditions. Also, one needs to be very familiar with one's gear to get the most out of it.

[@simon_dentremont]

Yes, exactly

[@chrisburnard5157]

Thank you for the hard work you must have put in to make this content.

[@simon_dentremont]

You bet

[@geraldbraun6267]

Great video Simon, I use a micro four thirds camera and you're 100% correct on using a faster lens. I purchased a 2.8 lens, then a 1.4 and finally a .095. The reduction in noise is amazing using these lenses compared to the kit lens.

[@simon_dentremont]

Good stuff!

[@LeoS-58]

That was a great explanation of the noise issue! Thank you Simon.

[@DanaPushie]

Thank you Simon, Great explaination. I don't find noise to the that much of a problem shooting landscape and streetscapes with an APS-C camera. Editing software helps alot these days as well. I have found knowing the limitations of my camera and lenses has been the most important. When I'm really in doubt I sometimes use exposure bracketing to reduce the need for more extreme ISO settings.

[@alvaro5162]

Your explanation would be fine if the total amount of energy received by the sensor was related to the noise but that is not the case, what matters is the amount of energy received in each pixel and that depends on the pixel density of the sensor and not on its size. To explain it simply, if we completely cover the surface of one square meter with 12 large glasses and another square meter with 24 small glasses. It is obvious that the total amount of rain will be the same for all small or large glasses, but in each large glass we will have twice as much water as in a small one.

[@simon_dentremont]

True, but it stole the water from the neighboring glass.

[@alvaro5162]

@@simon_dentremont Depth of field also affects image noise because a sensor with greater depth of field allows you to use larger apertures. To obtain the same depth of field with an FF as with a micro 4/3 you will have to use f5,6 instead of f2, those two stops that you gain in the the aperture can be subtract from the ISO.

[@lenzflyfishing]

this has been very helpful and I was blown away at the end by seeing that iPhone stack. I have seen my phone do this but I didn't know it was actually stacking. Great video, makes me think as a new "hobbyist".

[@simon_dentremont]

Great to hear!

[@AnandaGarden]

Thanks for understanding the needs of your viewers and helping with such clear explanations. I am grateful.

[@simon_dentremont]

You are very welcome

[@rominnooo]

I love those videos, you are one of the fewest people that can explain everything so good.

[@simon_dentremont]

Glad you think so!

[@juliettemansour]

Hello Simon, I'm new here and so happy to have found your channel! I shoot street photography and have been shooting for a couple of decades. Only the last two years have I become interested in nature photography. I bought a Fuji XH2S because of its versatility in both genres and improved AF. However, I'm barely hobbling on with the 70-300mm and the lens selection is killing me! My specific situation is that I cannot carry heavy zooms (I'm 5'2" with tiny hands and suffered on and off with carpal tunnel/other hand issues). I can stand to use a camera all day as long as it weighs a total of 4lbs or so and less. My preference also is to hand hold (no tripod) though I do bend sometimes. I don't really want to invest in micro four thirds for birding, but will if that's my only option. Right now, the XH2S or something from Sony (but so far even with the smaller body, I'm not sure if there's a lighter weight lens that would serve for bird photography) or the Canon R7 are the options I have looked at. I have several Fuji lenses (mostly for street) and a few Nikon F mount/DX mount lenses. I'd prefer Nikon but the Z system is insanely expensive and I'm trying to keep costs down. I know that sounds like a lot of restrictions, but would love it if you have any time at all to provide a little guidance as to go for the OM-1, keep the XH2S and keep using what I have or sell that and go for an older Nikon or Canon DSLR? I know there must be an option that makes sense. Thank you!

[@simon_dentremont]

A light long lens is the issue, rather than the body I’d say. The Canon 600mm f11 on a Canon R8 would be light and solid autofocus. As long as f11 isn’t a deal breaker.

[@juliettemansour]

@@simon_dentremont I appreciate you taking the time to read and respond. I will look into it!

[@DannyTaddei]

I’ll start by saying I love your videos. Thank you. So I’ve been loving my Canon M6 mkii with a speed booster and EF lenses. I have two of them and use them primarily for local store social media commercials and music videos. My 50mm f1.4 comes in with an equivalent f0.97. I love the results, lightness of the camera, everything. It’s seems to me to do magnificently in low light. I’ve never done the testing like you do or other do. All I do is love the result and ease of use… oh yeah, and the extra profit I put in my pocket by used a $1000 body instead of a $3500 body.

[@Tugela60]

The level of noise is determined by pixel size and dynamic range of the associated electronics, not sensor size.

[@mikejoyner3051]

hmmm not all of it, pixel size also determines row and column repeat pitch, and signal integrity is also affected by this, especially column-to-column.

[@MasticinaAkicta]

Having a full frame saved my bacon. Though, its size means it doesn't goes everywhere with me. Envision, a small event and you are asked by family to help out with some pictures. For the local news paper, the website and organization. Since I didn't want to travel super heavy I went, one zoom lens, full frame camera model, and just hoped it was enough. Light conditions? BAD! NO FLASH! Camera doing hard work, fluctuating between ISO 2000 and ISO 6400. That is the situation. In the end though while some pictures were unusable enough were usable. That big sensor definitely saved the day there. I did have a 1" camera with me but... looking at the light situation I just knew it would be unable to do anything for me.

[@malikknows3510]

Very well done, thank you. I’m a M43 shooter because size, weight and cost was important. I also have Topaz AI to reduce noise and even the playing field a bit with larger formats. At about $200, it is a cheap upgrade to a smaller format system that allows me to get results closer to larger, more expensive systems. All the best.

[@enzocannizzo7411]

What is your take on. TOPAZ AI in its application w/ M43 gear .For the record I just purchased Topaz AI need to start working with it ..Thanks

[@malikknows3510]

@@enzocannizzo7411 I think it is a gamer changer. It's still early days and it will only get better. My guess is there will always be a place for a dedicated camera with detachable lenses, but if a cheap program can improve noise and increase resolution, what will be the point of larger formats? All the best.

[@pentagramyt417]

@@malikknows3510 As a wildlife photorapher what do you think about Olympus 300 mm f4 and darker forest area (I mean, as in forest... there is usually no light)? What ISO could be expected to 1/500 shutterspeed? Honestly for my APS-C sensor, 1/500 and f6.3 is on the 12.800 ISO when it's on "auto" to that range.

[@malikknows3510]

@@pentagramyt417 Thanks for the question, I don't have that lens yet, so I'm not sure. My OM-1 can handhold very long exposures so that helps to bring the ISO down. I rarely need to shoot that high an ISO in my own photography. I do think that 300 mm f4 is a great lens for the money. All the best.

[@pentagramyt417]

@@malikknows3510 Thank you Sir! And could I know at the end, what times could be possible with that lens? Around 1/60? Have a good day though!

[@sdm2]

Recently discovered your channel. I use both MFT and FF and have researched many, many videos on this topic. You explained this perfectly!

[@simon_dentremont]

Welcome aboard!

[@petemellows]

I just shot an indoor sporting event at ISO12800 with a full frame and a crop sensor. After processing with Capture One Pro, all noise was gone from the full frame (Canon R5) images (I did apply some fairly heavy noise reduction), resulting in sharp, clean images. The crop sensor (Pentax K3M3) was noticeably more noisy, but the images were still excellent and saleable. My only mistake was using in-camera NR on the Pentax, which Capture One could not handle, yet Topaz was able to give perfectly clean images.

[@3dtrip870]

This was a great breakdown! For most of my work I have control over the light, hence: Micro Four Thirds is just fine. I have a full frame camera too, but I really like the light lenses of MFT, and only pull out the FF when the situation calls for it. But, of course, there are those moments where I'd like to get the best low light performance, so I will wait for that day I get that gorgeous GFX! Great video!

[@mrv1264]

At 4:20, the larger sensor does capture more light (more absolute amount of light). At 4:30, the smaller sensor __might__ capture the same amount of light per area (not the same absolute amount of light). Whether it does indeed capture the same amount of light per area (density) is a function of the shot noise and read noise performance of the camera that you mentioned at the beginning of the video. At 4:50, you should say the smaller sensor captured the same density of light (not intensity), density being defined as photons per unit area.

[@danncorbit3623]

Another important factor (mentioned in your video) in noise and overall sensor quality is the generation of the sensor. For instance, the Olympus OM-D E-M1 Mark II is rated above the Hasselblad H3DII 50 in every single category except portrait (color depth), because even though it is a tiny fraction of the size, it is many generations improved in technology. So buying an old camera with a very large sensor size won't necessarily fix the noise level problem. That same Olympus literally trounces the full frame Canon 5d in every single important measurement. Now, all other things being the same, a larger sensor does produce cleaner pictures. Even so, Topaz denoise can work wonders on a noisy image. Naturally, there are limits, and post processing is not an answer for low light.

[@flatheadprints]

Your knowledge is beyond phenomenal, well done.

[@brentfugett2700]

Excellent dive as always Simon! I agree, the forums are ripe with people making a big deal out of inconsequencials. I think the one addage I've heard that i agree with, to the point, don't get hung up on sensor size: date the body, marry the lens. Ie invest more in glass than camera bodies which tend to come and go.

[@simon_dentremont]

Agree!

[@ion_X]

Great in depth comparison, I do love these technical analysis

[@MatthewUseda]

Finally you mention medium format. I'm happy now! Love your videos

[@simon_dentremont]

Assuming you have one!

[@MatthewUseda]

@simon_dentremont yes! Can't wait for you to test out the GFX100 II with the new phase autofocus and more FPS. Maybe! Have fujifilm have you do a video on it. They also will have a 500mm lens coming out to go with it

[@G95G95]

A sensor is like a solar panel, bigger creates more output, not complicated.

[@Warrior_Resisting_Colonialism]

Close enough. That's really all we need to know as photographers. The important thing is that we all know it to be true and not get so lost as to how, or else it confuses people into thinking their crop sensor is just as capable as a full frame and it's not.

[@BuildingByFaith]

Great video. I'm a m43 shooter and am thankful for modern AI noise reduction. My question for crop sensor lenses is why not project a smaller image circle? Then the light would be more concentrated onto the sensor.

[@simon_dentremont]

Wider apertures and sorter focal lengths can indeed concentrate more light and a smaller image. So settings and gear choices are what controls those. But then in comparison, the larger sensor will also get a better image.

[@Endureromex]

What a neat explanation, thank you. I recently bought a G lens (full frame) for my 6400 (apsc) camera, just because it had a huge discount. To my surprise the image quality is much better.

[@simon_dentremont]

Great to hear!

[@Warrior_Resisting_Colonialism]

A great advantage to using full frame lenses on crop sensor bodies is, you use the BEST part of the lens (the center).

[@enzocannizzo7411]

Thank you for your excellent presentation on sensor sizes .As a M43 photographer I understand that due to laws of physics there are limitations w/ M43 .However a camera is a creative tool .The person who employs the tool must understand what are the limits and parameters of the successful use of the tool to accomplish the task . In conclusion there is too much chasing the tail w/ gear .Thank you I look forward to your presentations as mini lectures !!!

[@simon_dentremont]

Glad it was helpful!

[@nightdonutstudio]

That what m43 fans always say f2.8 is f2.8. Same light hit the sensor as your full frame f2.8 lens. but look at m43 lens size. F2.8 lens are much smaller than full frame lens. Look at depreview comparison. If I lower m43 iso two stops below full frame's iso. I got similar quality image. That kind tells the story. You can acheive great low light with m43, but you need really fast glass to counter it. If full frame is at f2.8 at iso 12800. You need to use f1.4 at iso 3200 for m43 to get simialr quality.

[@obscurelight]

Get your wildlife telephoto lens at f1.4 and see how much you going to pay compared to f2.8 . It defeats the purpose of having compact and cheaper lenses in the m4/3 system compared to full frame.

[@dogpadogpa]

f2.8 is f2.8. The quality changes depending on how you compare. Full frame f2.8 ISO 12800 vs m43 f1.4 ISO 3200 is similar IF the view sizes are the same (same size print and same tech/pixel size). If you enlarge the full frame picture to 4x the size of the m4/3, the ISO noise will look the same (full frame f2.8 ISO 12800 will look like m43 f2.8 ISO 12800). On dpreview try this: Sony a7R V RAW 12800 vs OM-1 RAW 12800. (in theory Sony should be 80 megapixel to be exactly like OM 20 megapixel). Compare = same size print, the Sony looks better. Full 100% = larger full frame view, both ISO 12800 look the same.

[@rlgenge]

A great topic, and one that will continue for some time. Using your water and photon analogy, I would add that the degree of 'dirty' water that arrives or 'noisy' photons that arrive at the sensor makes no significant difference to the digital noise seen in the result of the final image as a result of sensor size. It's about the relationship of sensor performance and conversion to digital signals that has the biggest impact. The quantity of atmospheric noise (low light will give you a poorer SNR) arriving at the sensor (assuming equal external conditions of light, lens and camera settings) is equal, and therefore not dependant on the sensor size. Analog-to-digital converters (ADCs) are used in digital cameras to convert the analogue signal from the image sensor into a digital signal that can be stored on a memory card. The type of ADC used in a camera depends on the camera’s sensor and other factors (which you touch upon). For example, some cameras use a single-slope ADC, while others use a dual-slope ADC (better performance) or a successive approximation ADC. The choice of ADC can affect the image quality, especially in low-light conditions. However, the specific ADCs used in different cameras are not typically disclosed by manufacturers, and along with the sensor will have a significant cost impact. Cropping is a form of amplification and it is expected to see more clearly any noise that is present in the final image.

[@simon_dentremont]

Thanks for the comment. I would add though that in your “dirty” water analogy, while the amount of light increases in a linear fashion with larger sensors and longer exposures, the dirty noise only increases at a decreasing rate (square root of the number of photons), leading to a better signal to noise ratio as more light is added.

[@dhrubo9140]

Tnx ❤ we want more videos on aps c sensor camera

[@simon_dentremont]

I will try my best

[@andreas_rr]

Thank you for adressing the topic. What i always tell people in this regard is, a 6μm by 6μm pixel will give the same results no matter how many of them there are. In full frame, there are usually either more pixels (with the same density) or bigger pixels. That's why the only 2 differences i like to talk about APS-C and MFT etc compared to full frame is that you get a forced crop, but you also pay less since the sensor chip is smaller (and the camera can be build smaller). Full frame will give you roughly 2-3 times as much image (talking about area), but also costs more. And that's it. There's no black magic involved, that makes an APS-C sensor turn a 500mm lens in a 750mm/800mm lens, it is simply the same lens, but the APS-C gives you a forced crop compared to the full frame (that's also why it's called "crop" factor. not "zoom factor" or "focal length improvement factor" or whatever). It's just a crop to make the camera body cheaper and smaller (and thus lighter).

[@Warrior_Resisting_Colonialism]

But, the crop factor aside; the low light performance is drastically improved, using the full frame. You will have far less grain in your photos.

[@andreas_rr]

@@Warrior_Resisting_Colonialism why should it? the pixels are exactly the same, so the noise is also the same. the ONLY reason you get better lowlight is when you compare an APS-C image with an uncropped Fullframe. Or alternatively speaking, that means, if you intend to crop the fullframe image, you can just use an APS-C instead. If the pixels have the same physical dimensions, they will behave the same, no matter how much pixels there are around them. and full frame means you just get more pixels. thats it.

[@timgurr1876]

@@andreas_rrDoes a smaller pixel size have impact on noise? Is there an “ideal” pixel size? Thanks.

[@Warrior_Resisting_Colonialism]

@@andreas_rr The reason WHY are explained this very video. But honestly, it doesn't matter. All we need to know that it IS. A full frame WILL produce a MAJOR higher quality photo in low light over a crop sensor camera. (crop/ field of view, having nothing to do with it.)

[@andreas_rr]

@@timgurr1876it's not the individual pixel size that matters, it's how much physical area is used to collect the light that is represented on one screen pixel where you are watching the image. going with the rain analogy, it doesnt matter if the water is collected in one glass that is 2x2 large, or by 4 1x1 glasses added up together. It only makes a difference when you compare a single 2x2 glass (covering an area of 4) with a single 1x1 glass (covering only a 1/4th of the area). It's not about comparing pixel sizes, nor sensor size. it's all about how much of the sensor area is used for a given resolution image. less area means less photons, means more noise.

[@davidcrossley7145]

Once again I’m thankful Simon for going over this noise,sensor size.Because I’ve been contemplating purchasing a canon R5 for some time now. Thank you because you’ve helped me make an expensive decision much easier. I’ve decided to stay for a longer period of time with the equipment that I have currently own. So thanks for your incite much appreciated 👍

[@simon_dentremont]

Enjoy!

[@TheFlyingDogFish]

If anyone ever argues with me about sensor size and noise, I'll send him to this video.

[@rocheuro]

interesting things happens when you use a "Speedbooster" adapter/with 0.71x with FF lens on mirrorless APS-C camera. this becomes really interesting.

[@umfilmmaker8253]

This is a great topic! I still use a Canon 7D mk1, as well as a 5D mk3. The 7D has been excellent for added reach with the crop sensor for wildlife photography. My Canon 100-400mm f/4.5-5.6 then becomes long enough to reach elk, pronghorns, and bighorn sheep, without breaking the bank. I also love the 5D for lower lighting situations when the wildlife is closer, but also for landscapes to get the fullest effect of my wide aperture lenses. New tech is great, but in 2023, this has still been an excellent pairing on a budget. BUY USED 😊

[@simon_dentremont]

Having one of each really is great.

[@tysonator5433]

Here is my take on this, the ISO noise on my 7D got bad after 800, my 7Dii it was apx 3500 - 4000, my R7 I have got reasonable results from 6400 and even 10,000 ISO ! My 7D images at this level would be completely unusable, and though R7 users complain about the noise it is still very, very good image compared to 5 years ago. Plus we have a lot of DeNoise software to use. Any camera will work amazingly in good light, however we do not also have that luxury all the time, so we need to master the techniques to achieve better results, not rely on the camera to solve the issue for us !

[@LEEEEEEEEEEE1]

It sounds to me (and I think this is saying the same thing you say here but in a different way) like shot noise is constant on a per-unit-of-surface-area basis rather than a per-pixel basis, and so when you take an image from a smaller sensor the noise is more "coarse", so to speak, and thus more noticeable.

[@simon_dentremont]

Roughly, yes

[@grattonland]

Nice to see there's experts on the other side of the Bay of Fundy. d'Entremont, you're likely a Par-en-bas. I'm a Lanteigne from la Baie des Chaleurs. Anyway, discovered you this week, watched a dozen of your videos and learned a lot. Thanks for your content.

[@simon_dentremont]

J’y suis! merci!

[@christophhoppe2947]

Simon, it’s always a pleasure to watch your videos, thanks!

[@simon_dentremont]

Glad you like them!

[@vonchef14]

Thanks for clearing that up, enjoy your work 👍📸

[@arimargolis-i4d]

Very helpful video, all I wanted to know! Thanks 🙏🙏

[@SeanChandler]

One thing you didn’t mention: full frame cameras capture more light, but only because the surface area is larger, so the light is just spread across a larger area. Within the same area (I.e crop) the amount of light captured and the noise is the same. When you mentioned that Crop has more noise, it’s because you’re zooming in on / magnifying the noise. A Full Frame camera will typically have less megapixels within the cropped area, and when viewed at 100% the noise will be the same. But the full frame will have e a wider fov. In your example, the Cybershot is a 24mp sensor in a tiny little one inch sensor which would equate to 148MP over a full frame sensor area. Full Frame cameras perform better at the same ISO, but most of this can be offset with low f-stop lenses taking advantage of lower ISOs. For example, a Fujifilm 50mm f/1.0 could utilize half (one full stop) the iso of a Full Frame using a 50mm f/1.4. A crop sensor at iso 200 will perform the same noise wise as a full frame at iso 100 and this fujifilm lens would negate that advantage.

[@Lesterandsons]

Yes but in order to gather the same amount of light you have to buy a 1.0 lens as expensive and bulky than a 1.4 or 2.0 FF lens. Major advantages of crop is cost, weight and price imho.

[@simon_dentremont]

Actually, your first statement is exactly what I say in the video (captures more light because larger area, within the crop the same). Your latter points are about equivalency which I raised are true, but I don’t get into, because the lenses required, like a 50mm f1 or 200mm f2, hardly no one owns, so don’t have great real world applications.

[@Twobarpsi]

A lot of information here! Your cups and rain example really helps explain the concept!

[@simon_dentremont]

Glad it was helpful!

[@box0xB9]

Why would you expect every cup to get the same amount of rain, or why would you expect every photo-site to get the same amount of light? Think about what that image would look like. This is not the source of noise. The noise is due to the sensor, not the photons.