Makten wrote:
I really don\'t understand why this isn\'t common knowledge. It should be perfectly understandable for anyone, even without education. Put a bucket out in the rain and get X liters of water per hour. Now put TWO buckets there, and get 2X liters per hour. At THE SAME bucket size (aperture).
On the theorethical level, I think many people have not yet understood that the reason you want to collect much water, is that the noise is in the water (in the random arrival of drops) before it even hits the buckets. I believe many people think you need much water because the methods to measure the amount of water is imperfect.
Photon shot noise.
The noise is in the light before it even hits the sensor
On the practical level (The 2 stop ISO advantage the larger sensor has in practical use), I think it is a combination of:
1) Some people go from an old FF sensor to a modern u4/3 sensor (typically 5D to OM-D). That is a technically valid argument, as the photon shot noise after recording by a sensor is the product of (total amount of light into the sensor X sensor efficiency). Try comparing the 6D and the OM-D and the two stop difference in noise performance is there.
2) Some people openly admit that they can tolerate more noise when they use a smaller camera, or that as long as the noise is below some level of tolerance, they don\'t care if there is a two stop difference. This is of course not a technically nor logically valid argument.
Makten wrote:
I really don\'t understand why this isn\'t common knowledge. It should be perfectly understandable for anyone, even without education. Put a bucket out in the rain and get X liters of water per hour. Now put TWO buckets there, and get 2X liters per hour. At THE SAME bucket size (aperture).
On the theorethical level, I think many people have not yet understood that the reason you want to collect much water, is that the noise is in the water (in the random arrival of drops) before it even hits the buckets. I believe many people think you need much water because the methods to measure the amount of water is imperfect.
Photon shot noise.
The noise is in the light before it even hits the sensor
On the practical level (The 2 stop ISO advantage the larger sensor has in practical use), I think it is a combination of:
1) Some people go from an old FF sensor to a modern u4/3 sensor (typically 5D to OM-D). That is a technically valid argument, as the photon shot noise after recording by a sensor is the product of (total amount of light into the sensor X sensor efficiency)
2) Some people openly admit that they can tolerate more noise when they use a smaller camera, or that as long as the noise is below some level of tolerance, they don\'t care if there is a two stop difference. This is of course not a technically nor logically valid argument.
Makten wrote:
I really don\'t understand why this isn\'t common knowledge. It should be perfectly understandable for anyone, even without education. Put a bucket out in the rain and get X liters of water per hour. Now put TWO buckets there, and get 2X liters per hour. At THE SAME bucket size (aperture).
On the theorethical level, I think many people have not yet understood that the reason you want to collect much water, is that the noise is in the water (in the random arrival of drops) before it even hits the buckets. I believe many people think you need much water because the methods to measure the amount of water is imperfect.
Photon shot noise.
The noise is in the light before it even hits the sensor
On the practical level (The 2 stop ISO advantage the larger sensor has in practical use), I think it is a combination of:
1) Some people go from an old FF sensor to a modern u4/3 sensor (typically 5D to OM-D). That is a technically valid argument, as the photon shot noise after recording by a sensor is the product of (total amount of light into the sensor X sensor efficiency)
2) Some people openly admit that they can tolerate more noise when they use a smaller camera, or that as long as the noise is below some level of tolerance, they don\'t care if there is a two stop difference. This is of course not a technically valid argument.
Makten wrote:
I really don\'t understand why this isn\'t common knowledge. It should be perfectly understandable for anyone, even without education. Put a bucket out in the rain and get X liters of water per hour. Now put TWO buckets there, and get 2X liters per hour. At THE SAME bucket size (aperture).
On the theorethical level, I think many people have not yet understood that the reason you want to collect much water, is that the noise is in the water (in the random arrival of drops) before it even hits the buckets. I believe many people think you need much water because the methods to measure the amount of water is imperfect.
Photon shot noise.
The noise is in the light before it even hits the sensor
On the practical level (The 2 stop ISO advantage the larger sensor has in practical use), I think it is a combination of:
1) Some people go from an old FF sensor to a modern u4/3 sensor (typically 5D to OM-D). That is a technically valid argument, as the photon shot noise after recording by a sensor is the product of (total amount of light into the sensor X sensor efficiency)
2) Some people openly admit that they can tolerate more noise when they use a smaller camera. This is of course not a technically valid argument.
