Avslutat Medlemskap23
Aktiv medlem
Det finns uppenbarligen olika sätt att jämföra sensorstorlekar på...
"Since the basic principle of equivalence is that two equivalent images are created with the same amount of light, the shot noise will be the same for any two systems, regardless of sensor size or design (with the exception of the fill factor of the microlenses). The only differences in noise will be due to the differences in read noise between the systems. If shot noise dominates read noise, then these differences are unimportant. But if the shot noise is low compared to the read noise, then these differences are key. In fact, for shooting conditions that require maximum DOF and shutter speed in limited light, smaller sensor systems seem to enjoy a distinct advantage. To overcome this disadvantage, the larger sensor systems usually either use a tripod and a longer shutter speed in low light, or simply sacrifice DOF for a lower ISO. But these situations do not produce equivalent images, and certainly limit the types of images that can be taken.
For example, if we were to try to achieve an equivalent image from, say, a Fuji f31 at f/2.8, 1/50, ISO 1600 using a Canon 5D, we would have to use f/13, 1/50, ISO 33000. There is simply no way the 5D, or any 35mm FF DSLR, can match that performance at the time of this essay. The reason for this is that "noise equivalence" requires the same efficiency of sensor. However, the reality is that the sensors in compacts digicams are more efficient than larger sensors. Recent images I've seen seem to suggest that the difference in noise for equivalent images seems to favor 35mm FF DSLRs up to ISO 400 on a compact digicam (ISO 8000 on 35mm FF) and, perhaps, ISO 1600 on 4/3 (ISO 6400 on 35mm FF). Beyond this point, the smaller sensor cameras have a noise advantage for equivalent images since the read noise from the more efficient sensor begins to make up an appreciable proportion of the total noise at that point."
http://www.josephjamesphotography.com/equivalence/
Hälsar
R
"Since the basic principle of equivalence is that two equivalent images are created with the same amount of light, the shot noise will be the same for any two systems, regardless of sensor size or design (with the exception of the fill factor of the microlenses). The only differences in noise will be due to the differences in read noise between the systems. If shot noise dominates read noise, then these differences are unimportant. But if the shot noise is low compared to the read noise, then these differences are key. In fact, for shooting conditions that require maximum DOF and shutter speed in limited light, smaller sensor systems seem to enjoy a distinct advantage. To overcome this disadvantage, the larger sensor systems usually either use a tripod and a longer shutter speed in low light, or simply sacrifice DOF for a lower ISO. But these situations do not produce equivalent images, and certainly limit the types of images that can be taken.
For example, if we were to try to achieve an equivalent image from, say, a Fuji f31 at f/2.8, 1/50, ISO 1600 using a Canon 5D, we would have to use f/13, 1/50, ISO 33000. There is simply no way the 5D, or any 35mm FF DSLR, can match that performance at the time of this essay. The reason for this is that "noise equivalence" requires the same efficiency of sensor. However, the reality is that the sensors in compacts digicams are more efficient than larger sensors. Recent images I've seen seem to suggest that the difference in noise for equivalent images seems to favor 35mm FF DSLRs up to ISO 400 on a compact digicam (ISO 8000 on 35mm FF) and, perhaps, ISO 1600 on 4/3 (ISO 6400 on 35mm FF). Beyond this point, the smaller sensor cameras have a noise advantage for equivalent images since the read noise from the more efficient sensor begins to make up an appreciable proportion of the total noise at that point."
http://www.josephjamesphotography.com/equivalence/
Hälsar
R
