Fuji's marketing concept?
p.5 #1Fuji's marketing concept?
ruthenium wrote:
But that's only true if you view it as a percentage increase like you must be in order to make this claim. If you look at sensor area, its not true at all.It isn't even true as a percentage increase, but that doesn't stop Dan from saying it over and over again. Fuji APS-C has an area of 367 square mm. Full frame 35mm has an area of 864 square mm. FF 35mm is 2.35 times larger in area. Half of that would be 1.17 times as large. The 33 X 44 sensor has an area of 1452 square mm, which is 1.68 times as large as FF 35mm, so much larger than 1.17 times half the the size difference between APS-C and FF 35mm.Another way of looking at the differences between the three sensors is to compare the largest amounts of light they can collect (at base ISO, assuming no bias in how the different system define ISO).
The GFX100 sensor collects 1 stop of light more than a FF sensor, while a FF sensor collects 1.5 stops more light than the APS-C.The “larger sensor collects more light” business always intrigues me.
On one level, it is true. More photons fall on a larger area.
On the other hand, consider an analogy. Let’s say my garden occupies a half acre and my next door neighbor’s garden occupies a full acre. It is true that twice as much rain falls on my neighbors garden, but if my neighbor gets one inch of rain, so do I. A plant in my garden that needs and inch or rain does just as well as a plant in his that needs an inch or rain, and plants that require two incenses are rain fail in both.
Unless…
… each plant collects water from an area twice as large in his garden.
So the potential benefit of the larger garden accrues in two says:
1. You can fit twice as many plants requiring an inch of water into the larger garden, OR
2. You can can reduce the number of plants in the larger garden and grow plants that require more water.
The analogy here, as far as I can tell, is that a larger sensor can:
1. Allow more photo sites and those record more detail, OR…
2. Allow images to be made in somewhat lower light.
(Or some balance of the two.)
So, the business about “more light on the larger sensor” providing better low light performance would not see to work if we compare sensors with the same pixel pitch. (Which I think is the case when we compare the high resolution Sony sensors of different sizes used in APS-C, full-frame, and mniMF cameras these days.) Each “plant” (e.g. photo sites) gets the same number of photons in all three cases.
There are a couple of “complexifying” issues:
1. The “noise grain” will be finer with the larger sensor, given that each photo site is a smaller percentage of the frame size. So if the size of the grain is an issue, the larger sensor with the same pixel pitch will produce a slightly “smoother” (subjectively) image.
2. There are obviously different DOF and aperture choice (relative to diffraction) imperatives with different size sensors.Dan, I did NOT write “larger sensor collects more light” - this exact statement is literally meaningless.
A sensor collects only as much light as is allowed to reach the sensor through the attached lens, and up to a certain limit.
This amount of light is decided exclusively by the shutter speed and the physical size of the lens' iris.
In general, the size of a sensor does not directly correlate with the amount of light that falls on it. The same can be said about the pixel pitch.
What I said was very specific, about "the largest(!) amounts of light they...Show more →
The confusion is common, more light (photons) will fall on a larger area, significant for noise levels, but for exposure we aren't interested in that , only in illumination, which is the same for both, measured in lumens per sq metre. That's why an incident light meter is often used for critical exposure measurement, in film or studio work, because it measures illumination levels directly rather than us having to translate from a measure of refectance which is what your through tge lens light meter does.
Gerry
gdanmitchell wrote
ruthenium wrote
Steve Spencer wrote
SGinNorcal wrote
gdanmitchell wrote
Another frame of reference is to note that the difference between FF and minMF is about half the size of the difference between APS-C and FF.The GFX100 sensor collects 1 stop of light more than a FF sensor, while a FF sensor collects 1.5 stops more light than the APS-C.
On one level, it is true. More photons fall on a larger area.
On the other hand, consider an analogy. Let’s say my garden occupies a half acre and my next door neighbor’s garden occupies a full acre. It is true that twice as much rain falls on my neighbors garden, but if my neighbor gets one inch of rain, so do I. A plant in my garden that needs and inch or rain does just as well as a plant in his that needs an inch or rain, and plants that require two incenses are rain fail in both.
Unless…
… each plant collects water from an area twice as large in his garden.
So the potential benefit of the larger garden accrues in two says:
1. You can fit twice as many plants requiring an inch of water into the larger garden, OR
2. You can can reduce the number of plants in the larger garden and grow plants that require more water.
The analogy here, as far as I can tell, is that a larger sensor can:
1. Allow more photo sites and those record more detail, OR…
2. Allow images to be made in somewhat lower light.
(Or some balance of the two.)
So, the business about “more light on the larger sensor” providing better low light performance would not see to work if we compare sensors with the same pixel pitch. (Which I think is the case when we compare the high resolution Sony sensors of different sizes used in APS-C, full-frame, and mniMF cameras these days.) Each “plant” (e.g. photo sites) gets the same number of photons in all three cases.
There are a couple of “complexifying” issues:
1. The “noise grain” will be finer with the larger sensor, given that each photo site is a smaller percentage of the frame size. So if the size of the grain is an issue, the larger sensor with the same pixel pitch will produce a slightly “smoother” (subjectively) image.
2. There are obviously different DOF and aperture choice (relative to diffraction) imperatives with different size sensors.
A sensor collects only as much light as is allowed to reach the sensor through the attached lens, and up to a certain limit.
This amount of light is decided exclusively by the shutter speed and the physical size of the lens' iris.
In general, the size of a sensor does not directly correlate with the amount of light that falls on it. The same can be said about the pixel pitch.
What I said was very specific, about "the largest(!) amounts of light they...Show more →
The confusion is common, more light (photons) will fall on a larger area, significant for noise levels, but for exposure we aren't interested in that , only in illumination, which is the same for both, measured in lumens per sq metre. That's why an incident light meter is often used for critical exposure measurement, in film or studio work, because it measures illumination levels directly rather than us having to translate from a measure of refectance which is what your through tge lens light meter does.
Gerry
Nov 28, 2025 at 04:13 AM
p.5 #2Fuji's marketing concept?
DES-1 wrote:
There is a history here. The term was first used years ago by the 'inventor' in discussion, disparaging the GFX. To many, it sounded like sour grapes.
It was very tragic - apparently the "inventor" was left with permanent emotional scars from his blurry snapshot attempts with the first GFX.
There is a history here. The term was first used years ago by the 'inventor' in discussion, disparaging the GFX. To many, it sounded like sour grapes.
It was very tragic - apparently the "inventor" was left with permanent emotional scars from his blurry snapshot attempts with the first GFX.
Nov 28, 2025 at 11:36 AM
p.5 #3Fuji's marketing concept?
ruthenium wrote:
Dan, I did NOT write “larger sensor collects more light”…
Quoting the post I was replying to…
ruthenium wrote:
The GFX100 sensor collects 1 stop of light more than a FF sensor, while a FF sensor collects 1.5 stops more light than the APS-C.
- - -
Regarding, separately, the “focus beyond infinity” issue…
gyoung143 wrote:
You mileage obviously varies, as they say. My observations of using my 14mm on Xpro2 and Xt3 since my early days with Fuji is that the indication is unreliable when af-s is used. You can focus several times on the same point in a scence and get a different reading each time, but I am satisfied that the actual focus point is the same, within minor and acceptable variation. Same thing happens with my 18-55 when on 18mm. 23mm f/2 I have behaves much more consistently.
Gerry
If I recall correctly, these cameras AF at the set aperture rather than (as on DSLRs) the maximum lens aperture. Assuming my memory is correct, this means that when we shoot at smaller apertures the camera is trying to focus using a larger DOF, which would mean that the combination of diffraction blur (at really small aperture) and the larger DOF places a range of subjects within the “in focus” range.
If this is on the right track, the issue would be magnified when using wide angle lenses since a given subject element will be even small than it would be using a longer lens.
My hunch is that this is why we might be seeing the camera lock onto different-distance elements of the scene with very wide lenses shot at small apertures, perhaps. But the real world consequences would usually be minimal or even meaningless n the photograph, since I assume that the camera’s AF system is looking at more than one point in the image area and, at least, all of them in the Af zone should be in focus to a viewer.
Dan, I did NOT write “larger sensor collects more light”…
Quoting the post I was replying to…
ruthenium wrote:
The GFX100 sensor collects 1 stop of light more than a FF sensor, while a FF sensor collects 1.5 stops more light than the APS-C.
- - -
Regarding, separately, the “focus beyond infinity” issue…
gyoung143 wrote:
You mileage obviously varies, as they say. My observations of using my 14mm on Xpro2 and Xt3 since my early days with Fuji is that the indication is unreliable when af-s is used. You can focus several times on the same point in a scence and get a different reading each time, but I am satisfied that the actual focus point is the same, within minor and acceptable variation. Same thing happens with my 18-55 when on 18mm. 23mm f/2 I have behaves much more consistently.
Gerry
If I recall correctly, these cameras AF at the set aperture rather than (as on DSLRs) the maximum lens aperture. Assuming my memory is correct, this means that when we shoot at smaller apertures the camera is trying to focus using a larger DOF, which would mean that the combination of diffraction blur (at really small aperture) and the larger DOF places a range of subjects within the “in focus” range.
If this is on the right track, the issue would be magnified when using wide angle lenses since a given subject element will be even small than it would be using a longer lens.
My hunch is that this is why we might be seeing the camera lock onto different-distance elements of the scene with very wide lenses shot at small apertures, perhaps. But the real world consequences would usually be minimal or even meaningless n the photograph, since I assume that the camera’s AF system is looking at more than one point in the image area and, at least, all of them in the Af zone should be in focus to a viewer.
Nov 28, 2025 at 11:46 AM
p.5 #4Fuji's marketing concept?
gdanmitchell wrote:
Quoting the post I was replying to…
- - -
Regarding, separately, the “focus beyond infinity” issue…
GerryIf I recall correctly, these cameras AF at the set aperture rather than (as on DSLRs) the maximum lens aperture. Assuming my memory is correct, this means that when we shoot at smaller apertures the camera is trying to focus using a larger DOF, which would mean that the combination of diffraction blur (at really small aperture) and the larger DOF places a range of subjects within the “in focus” range.
If this is on the right track, the issue would be magnified when using wide angle...Show more →
It depends. normally, DoF will cover for the camera not putting the focus where it was supposed to be. But: On a pixel level (when cropping), DoF is very narrow even with a wide angle lens. This leads to something that was suppose to be in critical focus to be just outside of it and to appear soft.
ruthenium wrote
Dan, I did NOT write “larger sensor collects more light”…ruthenium wrote
The GFX100 sensor collects 1 stop of light more than a FF sensor, while a FF sensor collects 1.5 stops more light than the APS-C.Regarding, separately, the “focus beyond infinity” issue…
gyoung143 wrote
You mileage obviously varies, as they say. My observations of using my 14mm on Xpro2 and Xt3 since my early days with Fuji is that the indication is unreliable when af-s is used. You can focus several times on the same point in a scence and get a different reading each time, but I am satisfied that the actual focus point is the same, within minor and acceptable variation. Same thing happens with my 18-55 when on 18mm. 23mm f/2 I have behaves much more consistently.Gerry
If this is on the right track, the issue would be magnified when using wide angle...Show more →
It depends. normally, DoF will cover for the camera not putting the focus where it was supposed to be. But: On a pixel level (when cropping), DoF is very narrow even with a wide angle lens. This leads to something that was suppose to be in critical focus to be just outside of it and to appear soft.
Nov 28, 2025 at 01:13 PM
p.5 #5Fuji's marketing concept?
Nielk Mike wrote:
Quoting the post I was replying to…
- - -
Regarding, separately, the “focus beyond infinity” issue…
GerryIf I recall correctly, these cameras AF at the set aperture rather than (as on DSLRs) the maximum lens aperture. Assuming my memory is correct, this means that when we shoot at smaller apertures the camera is trying to focus using a larger DOF, which would mean that the combination of diffraction blur (at really small aperture) and the larger DOF places a range of subjects within the “in focus” range.
If this is on the right track, the issue would be magnified when using wide angle lenses since a given subject element will be even small than it would be using a longer lens.
My hunch is that this is why we might be seeing the camera lock onto different-distance elements of the scene with very wide lenses shot at small apertures, perhaps. But the real world consequences would usually be minimal or even meaningless n the photograph, since I assume that the camera’s AF system is looking at more than one point in the image area and, at least, all of them in the Af zone should be in focus to a viewer.It depends. normally, DoF will cover for the camera not putting the focus where it was supposed to be. But: On a pixel level (when cropping), DoF is very narrow even with a wide angle lens. This leads to something that was suppose to be in critical focus to be just outside of it and to appear soft.
In those cases, where you want a specific target in a field full of different-distance potential subjects, that you could resolve or at least lessen the issue by shrinking the AF zone and moving it to that subject.
gdanmitchell wrote
ruthenium wrote
Dan, I did NOT write “larger sensor collects more light”…ruthenium wrote
The GFX100 sensor collects 1 stop of light more than a FF sensor, while a FF sensor collects 1.5 stops more light than the APS-C.Regarding, separately, the “focus beyond infinity” issue…
gyoung143 wrote
You mileage obviously varies, as they say. My observations of using my 14mm on Xpro2 and Xt3 since my early days with Fuji is that the indication is unreliable when af-s is used. You can focus several times on the same point in a scence and get a different reading each time, but I am satisfied that the actual focus point is the same, within minor and acceptable variation. Same thing happens with my 18-55 when on 18mm. 23mm f/2 I have behaves much more consistently.Gerry
If this is on the right track, the issue would be magnified when using wide angle lenses since a given subject element will be even small than it would be using a longer lens.
My hunch is that this is why we might be seeing the camera lock onto different-distance elements of the scene with very wide lenses shot at small apertures, perhaps. But the real world consequences would usually be minimal or even meaningless n the photograph, since I assume that the camera’s AF system is looking at more than one point in the image area and, at least, all of them in the Af zone should be in focus to a viewer.
In those cases, where you want a specific target in a field full of different-distance potential subjects, that you could resolve or at least lessen the issue by shrinking the AF zone and moving it to that subject.
Nov 28, 2025 at 01:32 PM
p.5 #6Fuji's marketing concept?
gdanmitchell wrote:
Quoting the post I was replying to…
- - -
Regarding, separately, the “focus beyond infinity” issue…
GerryIf I recall correctly, these cameras AF at the set aperture rather than (as on DSLRs) the maximum lens aperture. Assuming my memory is correct, this means that when we shoot at smaller apertures the camera is trying to focus using a larger DOF, which would mean that the combination of diffraction blur (at really small aperture) and the larger DOF places a range of subjects within the “in focus” range.
If this is on the right track, the issue would be magnified when using wide angle lenses since a given subject element will be even small than it would be using a longer lens.
My hunch is that this is why we might be seeing the camera lock onto different-distance elements of the scene with very wide lenses shot at small apertures, perhaps. But the real world consequences would usually be minimal or even meaningless n the photograph, since I assume that the camera’s AF system is looking at more than one point in the image area and, at least, all of them in the Af zone should be in focus to a viewer.It depends. normally, DoF will cover for the camera not putting the focus where it was supposed to be. But: On a pixel level (when cropping), DoF is very narrow even with a wide angle lens. This leads to something that was suppose to be in critical focus to be just outside of it and to appear soft.In those cases, where you want a specific target in a field full of different-distance potential subjects, that you could resolve or at least lessen the issue by shrinking the AF zone and moving it to that subject.
Dan, I am always using the second to smallest AF point in AF-S. It doesn't make a difference. The AF system sometimes struggles to find peak focus.
Nielk Mike wrote
gdanmitchell wrote
ruthenium wrote
Dan, I did NOT write “larger sensor collects more light”…ruthenium wrote
The GFX100 sensor collects 1 stop of light more than a FF sensor, while a FF sensor collects 1.5 stops more light than the APS-C.Regarding, separately, the “focus beyond infinity” issue…
gyoung143 wrote
You mileage obviously varies, as they say. My observations of using my 14mm on Xpro2 and Xt3 since my early days with Fuji is that the indication is unreliable when af-s is used. You can focus several times on the same point in a scence and get a different reading each time, but I am satisfied that the actual focus point is the same, within minor and acceptable variation. Same thing happens with my 18-55 when on 18mm. 23mm f/2 I have behaves much more consistently.Gerry
If this is on the right track, the issue would be magnified when using wide angle lenses since a given subject element will be even small than it would be using a longer lens.
My hunch is that this is why we might be seeing the camera lock onto different-distance elements of the scene with very wide lenses shot at small apertures, perhaps. But the real world consequences would usually be minimal or even meaningless n the photograph, since I assume that the camera’s AF system is looking at more than one point in the image area and, at least, all of them in the Af zone should be in focus to a viewer.
Dan, I am always using the second to smallest AF point in AF-S. It doesn't make a difference. The AF system sometimes struggles to find peak focus.
Nov 28, 2025 at 01:44 PM
p.5 #7Fuji's marketing concept?
gdanmitchell wrote:
ruthenium wrote
Dan, I did NOT write “larger sensor collects more light”…ruthenium wrote
The GFX100 sensor collects 1 stop of light more than a FF sensor, while a FF sensor collects 1.5 stops more light than the APS-C.Regarding, separately, the “focus beyond infinity” issue…
gyoung143 wrote
You mileage obviously varies, as they say. My observations of using my 14mm on Xpro2 and Xt3 since my early days with Fuji is that the indication is unreliable when af-s is used. You can focus several times on the same point in a scence and get a different reading each time, but I am satisfied that the actual focus point is the same, within minor and acceptable variation. Same thing happens with my 18-55 when on 18mm. 23mm f/2 I have behaves much more consistently.Gerry
If this is on the right track, the issue would be magnified when using wide angle...Show more →
Dan, with due respect, this is inappropriate to quote a sentence taken out of the context. What you qouted had been preceeded with a clear conditional clause: "to compare the largest amounts of light they can collect (at base ISO, assuming no bias in how the different system define ISO)"
Naturally, I don't expect you meant to misrepresented me intentionally and assume your reading of my post as a generalized claim was a mere misunderstanding.
Nov 28, 2025 at 02:15 PM
p.5 #8Fuji's marketing concept?
gdanmitchell wrote:
The main reason I avoided the "miniMF" was that it is isn't enough more than single frames from 24x36 to replace the panning/stitching.
EBHAnother frame of reference is to note that the difference between FF and minMF is about half the size of the difference between APS-C and FF.But that's only true if you view it as a percentage increase like you must be in order to make this claim. If you look at sensor area, its not true at all.It isn't even true as a percentage increase, but that doesn't stop Dan from saying it over and over again. Fuji APS-C has an area of 367 square mm. Full frame 35mm has an area of 864 square mm. FF 35mm is 2.35 times larger in area. Half of that would be 1.17 times as large. The 33 X 44 sensor has an area of 1452 square mm, which is 1.68 times as large as FF 35mm, so much larger than 1.17 times half the the size difference between APS-C and FF 35mm.Another way of looking at the differences between the three sensors is to compare the largest amounts of light they can collect (at base ISO, assuming no bias in how the different system define ISO).
The GFX100 sensor collects 1 stop of light more than a FF sensor, while a FF sensor collects 1.5 stops more light than the APS-C.The “larger sensor collects more light” business always intrigues me.
On one level, it is true. More photons fall on a larger area.
On the other hand, consider an analogy. Let’s say my garden occupies a half acre and my next door neighbor’s garden occupies a full acre. It is true that twice as much rain falls on my neighbors garden, but if my neighbor gets one inch of rain, so do I. A plant in my garden that needs and inch or rain does just as well as a plant in his that needs an inch or rain, and plants...Show more →
There are theory beneath it.
Let's say we have two systems all take "exact image" using "proper focal length". 40X30, 20X15.
Case A: If they all share the same resolution with sensor area difference: means larger sensor has "larger" pixel that can collect more light (in this case 4X) "for the same scene" before photon saturation, you could exposure "more" to improve Signal level to improve signal to noise ratio. (noise is square root of 4, and signal is 4, SNR improvement will be 2X)
Case B: If they all share the same pixel pitch, larger sensor has more resolution. Obviously, a advantage for print but this is separate topic. let's focus on SNR signal to noise ratio here. Per pixel SNR will be same as your post wrote as well as a few others. However, we need bring target display resolution or target print size to this discussion. As ultimately, for artwork to show, it has to be displayed in its target form, either screen or print. Say: 20X15, a 10M resolution camera, 40X30 will be 40M. Once down size to the same target resolution, there is a concept call over sampling. Basically signal is sampled 4 times, but noise is random so it will be again squre root of 4. so the SNR is again 2X.
Talk about per pixel SNR is OK but it is not very helpful in term of sensor size/area technical discussion here. To think this in extreme term, considering you have a single pixel camera, you can't say you have the same performance compare to 100M medium format sensor just because per pixel performance is the same.
ruthenium wrote
Steve Spencer wrote
SGinNorcal wrote
gdanmitchell wrote
EB-1 wrote
Exactly. Some gates were 54 or 55 mm and even so they didn't go through all that straight. The main reason I avoided the "miniMF" was that it is isn't enough more than single frames from 24x36 to replace the panning/stitching.
EBH
The GFX100 sensor collects 1 stop of light more than a FF sensor, while a FF sensor collects 1.5 stops more light than the APS-C.
On one level, it is true. More photons fall on a larger area.
On the other hand, consider an analogy. Let’s say my garden occupies a half acre and my next door neighbor’s garden occupies a full acre. It is true that twice as much rain falls on my neighbors garden, but if my neighbor gets one inch of rain, so do I. A plant in my garden that needs and inch or rain does just as well as a plant in his that needs an inch or rain, and plants...Show more →
There are theory beneath it.
Let's say we have two systems all take "exact image" using "proper focal length". 40X30, 20X15.
Case A: If they all share the same resolution with sensor area difference: means larger sensor has "larger" pixel that can collect more light (in this case 4X) "for the same scene" before photon saturation, you could exposure "more" to improve Signal level to improve signal to noise ratio. (noise is square root of 4, and signal is 4, SNR improvement will be 2X)
Case B: If they all share the same pixel pitch, larger sensor has more resolution. Obviously, a advantage for print but this is separate topic. let's focus on SNR signal to noise ratio here. Per pixel SNR will be same as your post wrote as well as a few others. However, we need bring target display resolution or target print size to this discussion. As ultimately, for artwork to show, it has to be displayed in its target form, either screen or print. Say: 20X15, a 10M resolution camera, 40X30 will be 40M. Once down size to the same target resolution, there is a concept call over sampling. Basically signal is sampled 4 times, but noise is random so it will be again squre root of 4. so the SNR is again 2X.
Talk about per pixel SNR is OK but it is not very helpful in term of sensor size/area technical discussion here. To think this in extreme term, considering you have a single pixel camera, you can't say you have the same performance compare to 100M medium format sensor just because per pixel performance is the same.
Nov 28, 2025 at 02:43 PM
p.5 #9Fuji's marketing concept?
gdanmitchell wrote:
Quoting the post I was replying to…
- - -
Regarding, separately, the “focus beyond infinity” issue…
GerryIf I recall correctly, these cameras AF at the set aperture rather than (as on DSLRs) the maximum lens aperture. Assuming my memory is correct, this means that when we shoot at smaller apertures the camera is trying to focus using a larger DOF, which would mean that the combination of diffraction blur (at really small aperture) and the larger DOF places a range of subjects within the “in focus” range.
If this is on the right track, the issue would be magnified when using wide angle...Show more →
Yes, as I said earlier, Fuji has chosen to do af-s at the set taking aperture, IMHO a rather daft choice unless the lens has focus shift on stopping down. The work around is to use back button focus, where Fuji uses full aperture for the 'af', actually just motorised focussing. Since the 14mm is pretty slow to latch on to tge focus point anyway I usually use this, or MF.
Gerry
ruthenium wrote
Dan, I did NOT write “larger sensor collects more light”…ruthenium wrote
The GFX100 sensor collects 1 stop of light more than a FF sensor, while a FF sensor collects 1.5 stops more light than the APS-C.Regarding, separately, the “focus beyond infinity” issue…
gyoung143 wrote
You mileage obviously varies, as they say. My observations of using my 14mm on Xpro2 and Xt3 since my early days with Fuji is that the indication is unreliable when af-s is used. You can focus several times on the same point in a scence and get a different reading each time, but I am satisfied that the actual focus point is the same, within minor and acceptable variation. Same thing happens with my 18-55 when on 18mm. 23mm f/2 I have behaves much more consistently.Gerry
If this is on the right track, the issue would be magnified when using wide angle...Show more →
Yes, as I said earlier, Fuji has chosen to do af-s at the set taking aperture, IMHO a rather daft choice unless the lens has focus shift on stopping down. The work around is to use back button focus, where Fuji uses full aperture for the 'af', actually just motorised focussing. Since the 14mm is pretty slow to latch on to tge focus point anyway I usually use this, or MF.
Gerry
Nov 28, 2025 at 02:54 PM
p.5 #10Fuji's marketing concept?
Dan, by the way, thinking along the lines "Let’s say my garden occupies a half acre and my next door neighbor’s garden occupies a full acre. It is true that twice as much rain falls on my neighbors garden" - this is not how things work in photography. The nearest analogy is not rain, but watering a garden through a hose (the hose being the lens in front of a sensor). The amount of water that falls on the ground is decided by the diameter of the hose and the time between opening and closing of the water tap. The size of the garden is irrelevant.
Nov 28, 2025 at 02:54 PM
|
p.5 #11Fuji's marketing concept?
Nielk Mike wrote:
Quoting the post I was replying to…
- - -
Regarding, separately, the “focus beyond infinity” issue…
GerryIf I recall correctly, these cameras AF at the set aperture rather than (as on DSLRs) the maximum lens aperture. Assuming my memory is correct, this means that when we shoot at smaller apertures the camera is trying to focus using a larger DOF, which would mean that the combination of diffraction blur (at really small aperture) and the larger DOF places a range of subjects within the “in focus” range.
If this is on the right track, the issue would be magnified when using wide angle lenses since a given subject element will be even small than it would be using a longer lens.
My hunch is that this is why we might be seeing the camera lock onto different-distance elements of the scene with very wide lenses shot at small apertures, perhaps. But the real world consequences would usually be minimal or even meaningless n the photograph, since I assume that the camera’s AF system is looking at more than one point in the image area and, at least, all of them in the Af zone should be in focus to a viewer.It depends. normally, DoF will cover for the camera not putting the focus where it was supposed to be. But: On a pixel level (when cropping), DoF is very narrow even with a wide angle lens. This leads to something that was suppose to be in critical focus to be just outside of it and to appear soft.
DoF calculations include factors for magnification. Thus tge 'normal' DoF figure for a given aperture anf field of view are only 'true' if the whole image is viewed at 'normal viewing distance. If you alter those conditions, such as bt cropping, or viewing a part of the image by magnification then the DoF will be less. It's about how the image is viewed and was just as true when you looked at the image on an enlarger baseboard with a magnifier. It's nothing to do with 'digital' as such.
Gerry
gdanmitchell wrote
ruthenium wrote
Dan, I did NOT write “larger sensor collects more light”…ruthenium wrote
The GFX100 sensor collects 1 stop of light more than a FF sensor, while a FF sensor collects 1.5 stops more light than the APS-C.Regarding, separately, the “focus beyond infinity” issue…
gyoung143 wrote
You mileage obviously varies, as they say. My observations of using my 14mm on Xpro2 and Xt3 since my early days with Fuji is that the indication is unreliable when af-s is used. You can focus several times on the same point in a scence and get a different reading each time, but I am satisfied that the actual focus point is the same, within minor and acceptable variation. Same thing happens with my 18-55 when on 18mm. 23mm f/2 I have behaves much more consistently.Gerry
If this is on the right track, the issue would be magnified when using wide angle lenses since a given subject element will be even small than it would be using a longer lens.
My hunch is that this is why we might be seeing the camera lock onto different-distance elements of the scene with very wide lenses shot at small apertures, perhaps. But the real world consequences would usually be minimal or even meaningless n the photograph, since I assume that the camera’s AF system is looking at more than one point in the image area and, at least, all of them in the Af zone should be in focus to a viewer.
DoF calculations include factors for magnification. Thus tge 'normal' DoF figure for a given aperture anf field of view are only 'true' if the whole image is viewed at 'normal viewing distance. If you alter those conditions, such as bt cropping, or viewing a part of the image by magnification then the DoF will be less. It's about how the image is viewed and was just as true when you looked at the image on an enlarger baseboard with a magnifier. It's nothing to do with 'digital' as such.
Gerry
Nov 28, 2025 at 03:06 PM
p.5 #12Fuji's marketing concept?
zhangyue wrote:
But that's only true if you view it as a percentage increase like you must be in order to make this claim. If you look at sensor area, its not true at all.It isn't even true as a percentage increase, but that doesn't stop Dan from saying it over and over again. Fuji APS-C has an area of 367 square mm. Full frame 35mm has an area of 864 square mm. FF 35mm is 2.35 times larger in area. Half of that would be 1.17 times as large. The 33 X 44 sensor has an area of 1452 square mm, which is 1.68 times as large as FF 35mm, so much larger than 1.17 times half the the size difference between APS-C and FF 35mm.Another way of looking at the differences between the three sensors is to compare the largest amounts of light they can collect (at base ISO, assuming no bias in how the different system define ISO).
The GFX100 sensor collects 1 stop of light more than a FF sensor, while a FF sensor collects 1.5 stops more light than the APS-C.The “larger sensor collects more light” business always intrigues me.
On one level, it is true. More photons fall on a larger area.
On the other hand, consider an analogy. Let’s say my garden occupies a half acre and my next door neighbor’s garden occupies a full acre. It is true that twice as much rain falls on my neighbors garden, but if my neighbor gets one inch of rain, so do I. A plant in my garden that needs and inch or rain does just as well as a plant in his that needs an inch or rain, and plants that require two incenses are rain fail in both.
Unless…
… each plant collects water from an area twice as large in his garden.
So the potential benefit of the larger garden accrues in two says:
1. You can fit twice as many plants requiring an inch of water into the larger garden, OR
2. You can can reduce the number of plants in the larger garden and grow plants that require more water.
The analogy here, as far as I can tell, is that a larger sensor can:
1. Allow more photo sites and those record more detail, OR…
2. Allow images to be made in somewhat lower light.
(Or some balance of the two.)
So, the business about “more light on the larger sensor” providing better low light performance would not see to work if we compare sensors with the same pixel pitch. (Which I think is the case when we compare the high resolution Sony sensors of different sizes used in APS-C, full-frame, and mniMF cameras these days.) Each “plant” (e.g. photo sites) gets the same number of photons in all three cases.
There are a couple of “complexifying” issues:
1. The “noise grain” will be finer with the larger sensor, given that each photo site is a smaller percentage of the frame size. So if the size of the grain is an issue, the larger sensor with the same pixel pitch will produce a slightly “smoother” (subjectively) image.
2. There are obviously different DOF and aperture choice (relative to diffraction) imperatives with different size sensors.There are theory beneath it.
Let's say we have two systems all take "exact image" using "proper focal length". 40X30, 20X15.
Case A: If they all share the same resolution with sensor area difference: means larger sensor has "larger" pixel that can collect more light (in this case 4X) "for the same scene" before photon saturation, you could exposure "more" to improve Signal level to improve signal to noise ratio. (noise is square root of 4, and signal is 4, SNR improvement will be 2X)
Case B: If they all share the same pixel pitch, larger sensor has more resolution. Obviously,...Show more →
That’s why I wrote this in that post:
gdanmitchell wrote:
The analogy here, as far as I can tell, is that a larger sensor can:
1. Allow more photo sites and those record more detail, OR…
2. Allow images to be made in somewhat lower light.
(Or some balance of the two.)
- - -
ruthenium wrote:
Dan, by the way, thinking along the lines "Let’s say my garden occupies a half acre and my next door neighbor’s garden occupies a full acre. It is true that twice as much rain falls on my neighbors garden" - this is not how things work in photography. The nearest analogy is not rain, but watering a garden through a hose (the hose being the lens in front of a sensor). The amount of water that falls on the ground is decided by the diameter of the hose and the time between opening and closing of the water tap. The...Show more →
Let’s try a thought experiment: Think of two cameras whose sensors have the same pixel pitch. I believe that this is the case with the Sony sensor used in Sony’s 60MP FF cameras and in Fujifilm’s 100MP miniMF cameras.
There’s no question that a greater quantity of light falls on the larger area of the miniMF sensor than on a FF sensor. But the intensity of the light is the same. In either case, a photosite getting light from the same point in the subject image will record the same number of photons, and each will fill (be saturated) at the same point. So the “more light” business doesn’t accomplish anything other than greater resolution and smaller noise grain.
Now if you compare (theoretical*) sensors in the two formats that have the same number of megapixels, the larger sensor’s individual photosites will be exposed to more photons due to their larger area. In low light situations (such as the darkest tones in a very wide DR subject) this can extend the dynamic range of the sensor with the larger area.
* I don’t think there are currently any otherwise identical sensors in the two formats that both use the same pixel dimensions and MP.
Another thought experiment: If you take a wide dynamic range photograph from the 100MP miniMF sensor and crop it to 60MP FF dimensions, do you lose dynamic range? How so?
- - -
ruthenium wrote:
Dan, with due respect, this is inappropriate to quote a sentence taken out of the context. What you qouted had been preceeded with a clear conditional clause: "to compare the largest amounts of light they can collect (at base ISO, assuming no bias in how the different system define ISO)"
Naturally, I don't expect you meant to misrepresented me intentionally and assume your reading of my post as a generalized claim was a mere misunderstanding.
OK. Here’s the entire post I was responding to:
ruthenium wrote:
Another way of looking at the differences between the three sensors is to compare the largest amounts of light they can collect (at base ISO, assuming no bias in how the different system define ISO).
The GFX100 sensor collects 1 stop of light more than a FF sensor, while a FF sensor collects 1.5 stops more light than the APS-C.
I fail to see how I am taking anything out of context. I was just addressing your point about “largest amounts of light they can detect” and “collec[ing]… “more light.”
Edited on Nov 28, 2025 at 03:32 PM · View previous versions
gdanmitchell wrote
ruthenium wrote
Steve Spencer wrote
SGinNorcal wrote
gdanmitchell wrote
Another frame of reference is to note that the difference between FF and minMF is about half the size of the difference between APS-C and FF.The GFX100 sensor collects 1 stop of light more than a FF sensor, while a FF sensor collects 1.5 stops more light than the APS-C.
On one level, it is true. More photons fall on a larger area.
On the other hand, consider an analogy. Let’s say my garden occupies a half acre and my next door neighbor’s garden occupies a full acre. It is true that twice as much rain falls on my neighbors garden, but if my neighbor gets one inch of rain, so do I. A plant in my garden that needs and inch or rain does just as well as a plant in his that needs an inch or rain, and plants that require two incenses are rain fail in both.
Unless…
… each plant collects water from an area twice as large in his garden.
So the potential benefit of the larger garden accrues in two says:
1. You can fit twice as many plants requiring an inch of water into the larger garden, OR
2. You can can reduce the number of plants in the larger garden and grow plants that require more water.
The analogy here, as far as I can tell, is that a larger sensor can:
1. Allow more photo sites and those record more detail, OR…
2. Allow images to be made in somewhat lower light.
(Or some balance of the two.)
So, the business about “more light on the larger sensor” providing better low light performance would not see to work if we compare sensors with the same pixel pitch. (Which I think is the case when we compare the high resolution Sony sensors of different sizes used in APS-C, full-frame, and mniMF cameras these days.) Each “plant” (e.g. photo sites) gets the same number of photons in all three cases.
There are a couple of “complexifying” issues:
1. The “noise grain” will be finer with the larger sensor, given that each photo site is a smaller percentage of the frame size. So if the size of the grain is an issue, the larger sensor with the same pixel pitch will produce a slightly “smoother” (subjectively) image.
2. There are obviously different DOF and aperture choice (relative to diffraction) imperatives with different size sensors.
Let's say we have two systems all take "exact image" using "proper focal length". 40X30, 20X15.
Case A: If they all share the same resolution with sensor area difference: means larger sensor has "larger" pixel that can collect more light (in this case 4X) "for the same scene" before photon saturation, you could exposure "more" to improve Signal level to improve signal to noise ratio. (noise is square root of 4, and signal is 4, SNR improvement will be 2X)
Case B: If they all share the same pixel pitch, larger sensor has more resolution. Obviously,...Show more →
That’s why I wrote this in that post:
gdanmitchell wrote:
The analogy here, as far as I can tell, is that a larger sensor can:
1. Allow more photo sites and those record more detail, OR…
2. Allow images to be made in somewhat lower light.
(Or some balance of the two.)
- - -
ruthenium wrote:
Dan, by the way, thinking along the lines "Let’s say my garden occupies a half acre and my next door neighbor’s garden occupies a full acre. It is true that twice as much rain falls on my neighbors garden" - this is not how things work in photography. The nearest analogy is not rain, but watering a garden through a hose (the hose being the lens in front of a sensor). The amount of water that falls on the ground is decided by the diameter of the hose and the time between opening and closing of the water tap. The...Show more →
Let’s try a thought experiment: Think of two cameras whose sensors have the same pixel pitch. I believe that this is the case with the Sony sensor used in Sony’s 60MP FF cameras and in Fujifilm’s 100MP miniMF cameras.
There’s no question that a greater quantity of light falls on the larger area of the miniMF sensor than on a FF sensor. But the intensity of the light is the same. In either case, a photosite getting light from the same point in the subject image will record the same number of photons, and each will fill (be saturated) at the same point. So the “more light” business doesn’t accomplish anything other than greater resolution and smaller noise grain.
Now if you compare (theoretical*) sensors in the two formats that have the same number of megapixels, the larger sensor’s individual photosites will be exposed to more photons due to their larger area. In low light situations (such as the darkest tones in a very wide DR subject) this can extend the dynamic range of the sensor with the larger area.
* I don’t think there are currently any otherwise identical sensors in the two formats that both use the same pixel dimensions and MP.
Another thought experiment: If you take a wide dynamic range photograph from the 100MP miniMF sensor and crop it to 60MP FF dimensions, do you lose dynamic range? How so?
- - -
ruthenium wrote:
Dan, with due respect, this is inappropriate to quote a sentence taken out of the context. What you qouted had been preceeded with a clear conditional clause: "to compare the largest amounts of light they can collect (at base ISO, assuming no bias in how the different system define ISO)"
Naturally, I don't expect you meant to misrepresented me intentionally and assume your reading of my post as a generalized claim was a mere misunderstanding.
OK. Here’s the entire post I was responding to:
ruthenium wrote:
Another way of looking at the differences between the three sensors is to compare the largest amounts of light they can collect (at base ISO, assuming no bias in how the different system define ISO).
The GFX100 sensor collects 1 stop of light more than a FF sensor, while a FF sensor collects 1.5 stops more light than the APS-C.
I fail to see how I am taking anything out of context. I was just addressing your point about “largest amounts of light they can detect” and “collec[ing]… “more light.”
Edited on Nov 28, 2025 at 03:32 PM · View previous versions
Nov 28, 2025 at 03:12 PM
p.5 #13Fuji's marketing concept?
gyoung143 wrote:
Quoting the post I was replying to…
- - -
Regarding, separately, the “focus beyond infinity” issue…
GerryIf I recall correctly, these cameras AF at the set aperture rather than (as on DSLRs) the maximum lens aperture. Assuming my memory is correct, this means that when we shoot at smaller apertures the camera is trying to focus using a larger DOF, which would mean that the combination of diffraction blur (at really small aperture) and the larger DOF places a range of subjects within the “in focus” range.
If this is on the right track, the issue would be magnified when using wide angle lenses since a given subject element will be even small than it would be using a longer lens.
My hunch is that this is why we might be seeing the camera lock onto different-distance elements of the scene with very wide lenses shot at small apertures, perhaps. But the real world consequences would usually be minimal or even meaningless n the photograph, since I assume that the camera’s AF system is looking at more than one point in the image area and, at least, all of them in the Af zone should be in focus to a viewer.It depends. normally, DoF will cover for the camera not putting the focus where it was supposed to be. But: On a pixel level (when cropping), DoF is very narrow even with a wide angle lens. This leads to something that was suppose to be in critical focus to be just outside of it and to appear soft.DoF calculations include factors for magnification. Thus tge 'normal' DoF figure for a given aperture anf field of view are only 'true' if the whole image is viewed at 'normal viewing distance. If you alter those conditions, such as bt cropping, or viewing a part of the image by magnification then the DoF will be less. It's about how the image is viewed and was just as true when you looked at the image on an enlarger baseboard with a magnifier. It's nothing to do with 'digital' as such.
Gerry
Exactly. That is why Fuji offers two different DoF scales :-)
Nielk Mike wrote
gdanmitchell wrote
ruthenium wrote
Dan, I did NOT write “larger sensor collects more light”…ruthenium wrote
The GFX100 sensor collects 1 stop of light more than a FF sensor, while a FF sensor collects 1.5 stops more light than the APS-C.Regarding, separately, the “focus beyond infinity” issue…
gyoung143 wrote
You mileage obviously varies, as they say. My observations of using my 14mm on Xpro2 and Xt3 since my early days with Fuji is that the indication is unreliable when af-s is used. You can focus several times on the same point in a scence and get a different reading each time, but I am satisfied that the actual focus point is the same, within minor and acceptable variation. Same thing happens with my 18-55 when on 18mm. 23mm f/2 I have behaves much more consistently.Gerry
If this is on the right track, the issue would be magnified when using wide angle lenses since a given subject element will be even small than it would be using a longer lens.
My hunch is that this is why we might be seeing the camera lock onto different-distance elements of the scene with very wide lenses shot at small apertures, perhaps. But the real world consequences would usually be minimal or even meaningless n the photograph, since I assume that the camera’s AF system is looking at more than one point in the image area and, at least, all of them in the Af zone should be in focus to a viewer.
Gerry
Exactly. That is why Fuji offers two different DoF scales :-)
Nov 28, 2025 at 03:22 PM
p.5 #14Fuji's marketing concept?
Nielk Mike wrote:
Quoting the post I was replying to…
- - -
Regarding, separately, the “focus beyond infinity” issue…
GerryIf I recall correctly, these cameras AF at the set aperture rather than (as on DSLRs) the maximum lens aperture. Assuming my memory is correct, this means that when we shoot at smaller apertures the camera is trying to focus using a larger DOF, which would mean that the combination of diffraction blur (at really small aperture) and the larger DOF places a range of subjects within the “in focus” range.
If this is on the right track, the issue would be magnified when using wide angle lenses since a given subject element will be even small than it would be using a longer lens.
My hunch is that this is why we might be seeing the camera lock onto different-distance elements of the scene with very wide lenses shot at small apertures, perhaps. But the real world consequences would usually be minimal or even meaningless n the photograph, since I assume that the camera’s AF system is looking at more than one point in the image area and, at least, all of them in the Af zone should be in focus to a viewer.It depends. normally, DoF will cover for the camera not putting the focus where it was supposed to be. But: On a pixel level (when cropping), DoF is very narrow even with a wide angle lens. This leads to something that was suppose to be in critical focus to be just outside of it and to appear soft.DoF calculations include factors for magnification. Thus tge 'normal' DoF figure for a given aperture anf field of view are only 'true' if the whole image is viewed at 'normal viewing distance. If you alter those conditions, such as bt cropping, or viewing a part of the image by magnification then the DoF will be less. It's about how the image is viewed and was just as true when you looked at the image on an enlarger baseboard with a magnifier. It's nothing to do with 'digital' as such.
GerryExactly. That is why Fuji offers two different DoF scales :-)
Basically, DOF scales are so subjective as to be virtually useless.
Many years ago when I was a very young photographer, i mistakenly believed that everything within the supposed DOF zone would be “in focus” and that things outside of that zone would be “out of focus.”
But it is way more complicated and way more subjective than that.
Essentially, those DOF scales made a conditional prediction along the lines of: “Given typical expectations for how share is ‘sharp enough,’ stuff within the DOF zone is likely to not be so fuzzy that you’ll think it is out of focus as long as you make a print that isn’t all that large.”
But it is very subjective in real world photography. For example, a level of OOF that is OK for a 8x10 print is unlikely to be as acceptable in a 20” x 30” print, though by what degree depends on how you judge — nose-length close or so-called “normal viewing distance?”
today we push small image area captures (e.g. the size of a 24 x 36 35mm frame) to much larger final output, and often while asking for an even higher level of sharpness and detail than we accepted in the film era. For example, way back in the 35mm film era, we would regularly shoot at f/16 if we wanted more DOF. But today, many of us think twice before using that aperture unless we’re willing to sacrifice a bit of full-image softness due to diffraction in order to gain that bit of depth of field.
Once you learn the effect on final images of shooting with your camera’s DOF scale as a helper, it can be somewhat useful. But if sharpness is really critical you get in the habit of at least hitting the DOF preview button and inspecting elements of the scene that you consider important. I know, had to do that while shooting moving subjects with a handheld camera!
gyoung143 wrote
Nielk Mike wrote
gdanmitchell wrote
ruthenium wrote
Dan, I did NOT write “larger sensor collects more light”…ruthenium wrote
The GFX100 sensor collects 1 stop of light more than a FF sensor, while a FF sensor collects 1.5 stops more light than the APS-C.Regarding, separately, the “focus beyond infinity” issue…
gyoung143 wrote
You mileage obviously varies, as they say. My observations of using my 14mm on Xpro2 and Xt3 since my early days with Fuji is that the indication is unreliable when af-s is used. You can focus several times on the same point in a scence and get a different reading each time, but I am satisfied that the actual focus point is the same, within minor and acceptable variation. Same thing happens with my 18-55 when on 18mm. 23mm f/2 I have behaves much more consistently.Gerry
If this is on the right track, the issue would be magnified when using wide angle lenses since a given subject element will be even small than it would be using a longer lens.
My hunch is that this is why we might be seeing the camera lock onto different-distance elements of the scene with very wide lenses shot at small apertures, perhaps. But the real world consequences would usually be minimal or even meaningless n the photograph, since I assume that the camera’s AF system is looking at more than one point in the image area and, at least, all of them in the Af zone should be in focus to a viewer.
Gerry
Basically, DOF scales are so subjective as to be virtually useless.
Many years ago when I was a very young photographer, i mistakenly believed that everything within the supposed DOF zone would be “in focus” and that things outside of that zone would be “out of focus.”
But it is way more complicated and way more subjective than that.
Essentially, those DOF scales made a conditional prediction along the lines of: “Given typical expectations for how share is ‘sharp enough,’ stuff within the DOF zone is likely to not be so fuzzy that you’ll think it is out of focus as long as you make a print that isn’t all that large.”
But it is very subjective in real world photography. For example, a level of OOF that is OK for a 8x10 print is unlikely to be as acceptable in a 20” x 30” print, though by what degree depends on how you judge — nose-length close or so-called “normal viewing distance?”
today we push small image area captures (e.g. the size of a 24 x 36 35mm frame) to much larger final output, and often while asking for an even higher level of sharpness and detail than we accepted in the film era. For example, way back in the 35mm film era, we would regularly shoot at f/16 if we wanted more DOF. But today, many of us think twice before using that aperture unless we’re willing to sacrifice a bit of full-image softness due to diffraction in order to gain that bit of depth of field.
Once you learn the effect on final images of shooting with your camera’s DOF scale as a helper, it can be somewhat useful. But if sharpness is really critical you get in the habit of at least hitting the DOF preview button and inspecting elements of the scene that you consider important. I know, had to do that while shooting moving subjects with a handheld camera!
Nov 28, 2025 at 03:42 PM
p.5 #15Fuji's marketing concept?
Nielk Mike wrote:
Quoting the post I was replying to…
- - -
Regarding, separately, the “focus beyond infinity” issue…
GerryIf I recall correctly, these cameras AF at the set aperture rather than (as on DSLRs) the maximum lens aperture. Assuming my memory is correct, this means that when we shoot at smaller apertures the camera is trying to focus using a larger DOF, which would mean that the combination of diffraction blur (at really small aperture) and the larger DOF places a range of subjects within the “in focus” range.
If this is on the right track, the issue would be magnified when using wide angle lenses since a given subject element will be even small than it would be using a longer lens.
My hunch is that this is why we might be seeing the camera lock onto different-distance elements of the scene with very wide lenses shot at small apertures, perhaps. But the real world consequences would usually be minimal or even meaningless n the photograph, since I assume that the camera’s AF system is looking at more than one point in the image area and, at least, all of them in the Af zone should be in focus to a viewer.It depends. normally, DoF will cover for the camera not putting the focus where it was supposed to be. But: On a pixel level (when cropping), DoF is very narrow even with a wide angle lens. This leads to something that was suppose to be in critical focus to be just outside of it and to appear soft.DoF calculations include factors for magnification. Thus tge 'normal' DoF figure for a given aperture anf field of view are only 'true' if the whole image is viewed at 'normal viewing distance. If you alter those conditions, such as bt cropping, or viewing a part of the image by magnification then the DoF will be less. It's about how the image is viewed and was just as true when you looked at the image on an enlarger baseboard with a magnifier. It's nothing to do with 'digital' as such.
GerryExactly. That is why Fuji offers two different DoF scales :-)
What magnification or crop is spe Ifield for the so called digital version? It's nonsensense, there is a spec for DoF to do the calculations. The so called digital is really none, which simply proves tge point. If you stray from tge standard definition you need a separate scale for any magnification or crop. To quote one 'alternative' to the 'standard' definition is pointless.
Gerry
gyoung143 wrote
Nielk Mike wrote
gdanmitchell wrote
ruthenium wrote
Dan, I did NOT write “larger sensor collects more light”…ruthenium wrote
The GFX100 sensor collects 1 stop of light more than a FF sensor, while a FF sensor collects 1.5 stops more light than the APS-C.Regarding, separately, the “focus beyond infinity” issue…
gyoung143 wrote
You mileage obviously varies, as they say. My observations of using my 14mm on Xpro2 and Xt3 since my early days with Fuji is that the indication is unreliable when af-s is used. You can focus several times on the same point in a scence and get a different reading each time, but I am satisfied that the actual focus point is the same, within minor and acceptable variation. Same thing happens with my 18-55 when on 18mm. 23mm f/2 I have behaves much more consistently.Gerry
If this is on the right track, the issue would be magnified when using wide angle lenses since a given subject element will be even small than it would be using a longer lens.
My hunch is that this is why we might be seeing the camera lock onto different-distance elements of the scene with very wide lenses shot at small apertures, perhaps. But the real world consequences would usually be minimal or even meaningless n the photograph, since I assume that the camera’s AF system is looking at more than one point in the image area and, at least, all of them in the Af zone should be in focus to a viewer.
Gerry
What magnification or crop is spe Ifield for the so called digital version? It's nonsensense, there is a spec for DoF to do the calculations. The so called digital is really none, which simply proves tge point. If you stray from tge standard definition you need a separate scale for any magnification or crop. To quote one 'alternative' to the 'standard' definition is pointless.
Gerry
Nov 28, 2025 at 03:45 PM
p.5 #16Fuji's marketing concept?
gdanmitchell wrote:
Quoting the post I was replying to…
- - -
Regarding, separately, the “focus beyond infinity” issue…
GerryIf I recall correctly, these cameras AF at the set aperture rather than (as on DSLRs) the maximum lens aperture. Assuming my memory is correct, this means that when we shoot at smaller apertures the camera is trying to focus using a larger DOF, which would mean that the combination of diffraction blur (at really small aperture) and the larger DOF places a range of subjects within the “in focus” range.
If this is on the right track, the issue would be magnified when using wide angle lenses since a given subject element will be even small than it would be using a longer lens.
My hunch is that this is why we might be seeing the camera lock onto different-distance elements of the scene with very wide lenses shot at small apertures, perhaps. But the real world consequences would usually be minimal or even meaningless n the photograph, since I assume that the camera’s AF system is looking at more than one point in the image area and, at least, all of them in the Af zone should be in focus to a viewer.It depends. normally, DoF will cover for the camera not putting the focus where it was supposed to be. But: On a pixel level (when cropping), DoF is very narrow even with a wide angle lens. This leads to something that was suppose to be in critical focus to be just outside of it and to appear soft.DoF calculations include factors for magnification. Thus tge 'normal' DoF figure for a given aperture anf field of view are only 'true' if the whole image is viewed at 'normal viewing distance. If you alter those conditions, such as bt cropping, or viewing a part of the image by magnification then the DoF will be less. It's about how the image is viewed and was just as true when you looked at the image on an enlarger baseboard with a magnifier. It's nothing to do with 'digital' as such.
GerryExactly. That is why Fuji offers two different DoF scales :-)Basically, DOF scales are so subjective as to be virtually useless.
Many years ago when I was a very young photographer, i mistakenly believed that everything within the supposed DOF zone would be “in focus” and that things outside of that zone would be “out of focus.”
But it is way more complicated and way more subjective than that.
Essentially, those DOF scales made a conditional prediction along the lines of: “Given typical expectations for how share is ‘sharp enough,’ stuff within the DOF zone is likely to not be so fuzzy that you’ll think it is out of focus as long...Show more →
You miss the point of DoF entirely, its about tge human eye's ability to discern sharpness. It gives you figures that apply to the normal practice, of viewing a photo at such a distance as to see tge whole image, which is normally what the photographer intends. It allows tge photographer to utilise the eyesight limitations to make a useful photograph. As soon as you depart from tge assumptions, tge illusion falls apart, but is none the less useful. If you were told that it defined tge limits of what was sharp, rather than what appears to tge eye to be sharp in 'normal circumstances then whoever told you didn't understand it.
Gerry
Nielk Mike wrote
gyoung143 wrote
Nielk Mike wrote
gdanmitchell wrote
ruthenium wrote
Dan, I did NOT write “larger sensor collects more light”…ruthenium wrote
The GFX100 sensor collects 1 stop of light more than a FF sensor, while a FF sensor collects 1.5 stops more light than the APS-C.Regarding, separately, the “focus beyond infinity” issue…
gyoung143 wrote
You mileage obviously varies, as they say. My observations of using my 14mm on Xpro2 and Xt3 since my early days with Fuji is that the indication is unreliable when af-s is used. You can focus several times on the same point in a scence and get a different reading each time, but I am satisfied that the actual focus point is the same, within minor and acceptable variation. Same thing happens with my 18-55 when on 18mm. 23mm f/2 I have behaves much more consistently.Gerry
If this is on the right track, the issue would be magnified when using wide angle lenses since a given subject element will be even small than it would be using a longer lens.
My hunch is that this is why we might be seeing the camera lock onto different-distance elements of the scene with very wide lenses shot at small apertures, perhaps. But the real world consequences would usually be minimal or even meaningless n the photograph, since I assume that the camera’s AF system is looking at more than one point in the image area and, at least, all of them in the Af zone should be in focus to a viewer.
Gerry
Many years ago when I was a very young photographer, i mistakenly believed that everything within the supposed DOF zone would be “in focus” and that things outside of that zone would be “out of focus.”
But it is way more complicated and way more subjective than that.
Essentially, those DOF scales made a conditional prediction along the lines of: “Given typical expectations for how share is ‘sharp enough,’ stuff within the DOF zone is likely to not be so fuzzy that you’ll think it is out of focus as long...Show more →
You miss the point of DoF entirely, its about tge human eye's ability to discern sharpness. It gives you figures that apply to the normal practice, of viewing a photo at such a distance as to see tge whole image, which is normally what the photographer intends. It allows tge photographer to utilise the eyesight limitations to make a useful photograph. As soon as you depart from tge assumptions, tge illusion falls apart, but is none the less useful. If you were told that it defined tge limits of what was sharp, rather than what appears to tge eye to be sharp in 'normal circumstances then whoever told you didn't understand it.
Gerry
Nov 28, 2025 at 03:55 PM
p.5 #17Fuji's marketing concept?
gdanmitchell wrote:
1. Allow more photo sites and those record more detail, OR…
2. Allow images to be made in somewhat lower light.
I disagree the #2.
To be more technical specific: regardless of light, at any given light: large sensor can capture more SNR for target output in either cases: same pixel resolution or same pixel pitch. This is the most important concept when talk about sensor size.
1. Allow more photo sites and those record more detail, OR…
2. Allow images to be made in somewhat lower light.
I disagree the #2.
To be more technical specific: regardless of light, at any given light: large sensor can capture more SNR for target output in either cases: same pixel resolution or same pixel pitch. This is the most important concept when talk about sensor size.
Nov 28, 2025 at 03:59 PM
p.5 #18Fuji's marketing concept?
Exposure is exposure and is the same for any system, film or digital of any size, assuming they are viewing the same portion of any given scene under the same lighting conditions. The quantity of photons hitting each sensor format is wholly irrelevant to exposure.
DoF will vary between formats using the same apertures and same relative FoV; the larger the format, the longer the focal length needed to render the same FoV, and the greater the aperture needed to render comparable DoF to smaller formats.
I don't understand the need to make it more complicated than this -- am I missing something?
DoF will vary between formats using the same apertures and same relative FoV; the larger the format, the longer the focal length needed to render the same FoV, and the greater the aperture needed to render comparable DoF to smaller formats.
I don't understand the need to make it more complicated than this -- am I missing something?
Nov 28, 2025 at 04:06 PM
p.5 #19Fuji's marketing concept?
Hi Jack, if this is related to my post, I can explain and to simplify: even we do the same exposure, large sensor capture more photon. The equation related to SNR: N/SquareR(N) is still valid. (N is area ratio)
Nov 28, 2025 at 04:19 PM
p.5 #20Fuji's marketing concept?
Jack Flesher wrote:
Exposure is exposure and is the same for any system, film or digital of any size, assuming they are viewing the same portion of any given scene under the same lighting conditions. The quantity of photons hitting each sensor format is wholly irrelevant to exposure.
DoF will vary between formats using the same apertures and same relative FoV; the larger the format, the longer the focal length needed to render the same FoV, and the greater the aperture needed to render comparable DoF to smaller formats.
I don't understand the need to make it more complicated than this --...Show more →
No you are not missing anything assuming you are interested in taking photos.
This discussion has veered off into questions of how many angels can dance on the heads of pins. For all the esoteric talk about sensor size, there is no mention of the generation of sensor. My X-T5 (APS-C) outperforms by a mile my old Canon 5D (FF). Needless to say if you can't take a compelling photo with even an APS-c camera it's not the fault of the gear.
As for needing sharpness at the pixel level for areas that are not the main subject, I was watching a video with Joe Cornish and Colin Prior, and Joe was often shooting landscapes at F5.6- F8 because he wanted the areas away from the main subject to be just slightly softer than the main subject to help guide the viewer's eyes to rest on the subject.
Exposure is exposure and is the same for any system, film or digital of any size, assuming they are viewing the same portion of any given scene under the same lighting conditions. The quantity of photons hitting each sensor format is wholly irrelevant to exposure.
DoF will vary between formats using the same apertures and same relative FoV; the larger the format, the longer the focal length needed to render the same FoV, and the greater the aperture needed to render comparable DoF to smaller formats.
I don't understand the need to make it more complicated than this --...Show more →
No you are not missing anything assuming you are interested in taking photos.
This discussion has veered off into questions of how many angels can dance on the heads of pins. For all the esoteric talk about sensor size, there is no mention of the generation of sensor. My X-T5 (APS-C) outperforms by a mile my old Canon 5D (FF). Needless to say if you can't take a compelling photo with even an APS-c camera it's not the fault of the gear.
As for needing sharpness at the pixel level for areas that are not the main subject, I was watching a video with Joe Cornish and Colin Prior, and Joe was often shooting landscapes at F5.6- F8 because he wanted the areas away from the main subject to be just slightly softer than the main subject to help guide the viewer's eyes to rest on the subject.
Nov 28, 2025 at 04:36 PM