Hi guys, just a correction to note please - at 13:50 I explain how to calculate megapixels by dividing by one million but at 14:09 when I repeat the calculation I accidentally say one thousand instead of one million. Sorry my bad 😬. Thanks to a couple of our viewers for pointing it out.
This is a great video for those new to photography, it took me a few years to put all this information together for me to draw on when needed. This video is pure gold as a learning tool great job saves me explaining it to new photographers!.
Also, there were APS film cameras available before digital crop APS-C became mainstream. "Advanced Photo System Type-C (APS-C) is an image sensor format approximately equivalent in size to the Advanced Photo System (APS) film negative in its C ("Classic") format"
I think the law of diminishing returns plays a roll in most aspects of photography. Megapixels were a huge factor when going from 3 to 6, or 6 to 12. But the improvements from 50-100 aren't anywhere near as dramatic. The same is evident in lens improvements, noise performance, sensor size and other areas. For most people the sweet spot for most of these things is somewhere in the middle.
Same with sensor sizes. Past one inch type sensors there massive diminishing returns. APS-C is definitely better, but much less obviously than going from 1/2.3" to 1". And going from APS-C to full frame offers even lower gains.
My very first compact camera, a Casio had 3 MP.. These pictures are just as good as from my 20 MP compact cameras viewed on a Monitor. My Nikon D40 with 6 MP, which is considered super low still rocks.. Nobody would look at any of these pictures and say: OH.. not enough pixels, why do I see pixels? 🙂
As always, great information Karl!! I don’t know how you remember all of that information. I had to stop and rewind a couple of times to process what you were saying. 😆 Thanks for sharing!!
Well, Patty, remember though that Karl's work is solving problems that customers have and that he has a career as a photographer for many decades. Knowledge builds up while you work and what you do often is printed in your memory, I'd say. You know that too.
In practical terms 'tonal range' is the resulting quality of 'dynamic range' and this video is about the contributing factors to image quality, if you think the audience watching this video wouldn't have understood what I meant by 'steps' when it comes to dynamic range contribution to image quality then please give up some of your time to make a video that explains it more clearly.
@@VisualEducationStudio > "In practical terms 'tonal range' is the resulting quality of 'dynamic range' " These two concepts are different. The teaching is confused. "...please give up some of your time to make a video that explains it more clearly" It's easy. 1. Dynamic range is the difference between the brightest and darkest that can be registered. Show two illustrations, one with high contrast and one with low contrast. 2. Tonal range is how many steps the scale can be divided into. Show the illustration that you used for dynamic range. (he-he)
Several years ago, I showed a co-worker a recent portrait I'd made of my wife. The following conversation ensued. She: "That's beautiful! You must have a really good camera!" (The greatest compliment any photographer can receive.) Me: "Yes, I do." She: "How many megapixels does it have?" Me: "None" She: "None? What do you mean?" Me: "It's a film camera from 1952 or 1953." (Zeiss 6cm x 6cm folding camera)
Which is still technically incorrect, maybe you should've honestly answered as it wasn't the 6x6 strip you've actually brought there right, it was either a print or a file from a scanned film :) edit: well, maybe it was a chemical print though in which case it's "none" but you may still calculate resolution of the particular film and lens and "somewhat" convert that into mp number.
As always, this was top-notch. Your knowledge and ability to deliver it so we can all understand it is as good as it gets. My only caution for viewers would be to not dismiss smaller sensors out of hand because of perceived lower image quality. While technologically and mathematically true, in practical terms, it isn't always relevant. Case in point is my own 30+ year career as a photographer, which, for the last 15 years has been done successfully using digital APS-C cameras. For the type of work I do, my clients have been overjoyed. Are there limitations? Sure. But I've learned to work within them and have been able to consistently produce, not just "good enough" images, but excellent images. I may well get cameras with larger sensors in the future, but not because I want to "upgrade," but just because I want to be able to do different kinds of work. Keep up the excellent training, Karl. You are absolutely one of the best teachers out there!
Yes good points Peter and there were photojournalists even using film formats smaller than 35mm back in the day, however my main point was that as we see an advance towards mirrorless and less expensive sensors we may see a reduction in demand for that format and at that time the camera manufacturers may choose to drop that format in favour of 35mm FF mirrorless. As always with everything it's will come down to a supply/demand/cost equation.
My head literally exploded watching this. Now I'm going to need to get an ice pack and watch it 3 more times to fully understand it. That being said this has been the best explanation I've seen thus far on image quality. Cheers Karl.
Everything comes into account. Camera processors ,software/firmware lens choose. But the pixel design, size & pitch mean so much., & is what really makes the difference. Somewhere out there there is a comparison chart of all the Nikon & Canon cameras with the features & individual pixel size & pixel pitch. If you look at the cameras that were performers, the closeness of the larger pixel size &, the pitch numbers is what they had in common.
Great explination. Much to know. Where as one time the mantra was "its not the equipment but the photographer"...but in the digital world, it is equipment as well, in where the knowledgeable professional will make much better use of the higher end equipment.
A little correction: the Olympus Pen series used half of the 35mm film, that is it was a "cropped sensor camera". And there are more sensor sizes. The most prominent sensor sizes today are the ones used in phones and they are much smaller than these. And there is the four-thirds sensors.
The OM-D you show is micro four thirds, and smaller than APS-C sensors. And half frame 135 film cameras exist, and there were numerous crop film cameras like 110, 126 format.
The OMD body is also smaller than an APSC body. A Canon EOS 7 D is physically the same size and roughly the same weight as a 5D and uses the same lenses. The OMD lenses are much smaller and lighter so your bag ends up being about a quarter of the size and weight.
What about the factor that some cameras use square sensors with very little loss of "data" in between the individual pixels (ie:Nikon) and those that use round sensors with all the loss of "data" in the empty space in between the sensors ? Is it true, or is it all a con by certain advertisers ?
@@VisualEducationStudio - Saw a show that stated (and showed) the Nikon sensors specially made for Nikon have square sensor pixels leaving none of the empty space produced by the typical round sensor pixels. This supposedly resulted in less loss of detail and cleaner images. It also stated that Nikon has also developed a brand new sensor for video with the same characteristics. I can understand the concept (less loss of detail, maybe better dynamic range) but do square pixel sensors really exist ?I know my Nikons give me better images (in general) than my Canons, but I just assumed it was their X-speed technology. Another factor was bit-depth. I shoot in 14 bit, but some cameras only have 12, 10 or even 8. How much difference does that make in your analysis ? Anyways, a great video on your behalf. Enjoyed it!
IIRC crop sensors came about way before ff sensors due to technology limitations. BTW, price is not the only drawback of larger image sensors: larger sensor requires larger and heavier lenses. This is why I'm considering switching to m43 for my urban/street photography: it's 70-200 equivalent is much smaller and lighter than a regular full frame 70-200 lens.
I don't know why you think this, but the lenses are not smaller. There's not even a full frame 70-200 f/4 equivalent for M4/3. Lenses that are actually equivalent for smaller sensors are just as big and expensive.
@@TechnoBabble this is hilariously wrong. Many of the lenses are tiny in comparison, and much cheaper. The 35-100mm f2.8 is small, optically amazing and half the price of most F4 zooms.
@@NeonShores Hilariously wrong? So the 35-100mm f2.8 is equivalent to what on full frame? A 70-200 f5.6. You might think it's equivalent to a 70-200 f/2.8, but that's what would be hilariously wrong. On average, when using similar levels of sensor technology, a M4/3 sensor produces images with 4x the amount of noise of a Full Frame sensor when at the same ISO. This means that to produce an image with the same level of noise the M4/3 camera needs to be at 1/4 the ISO value, needing a lens that is 2 full stops brighter. That 35-100 would need to be f1.4 to match a full frame f/2.8 zoom. Why do you think it's half the price? It only allows the camera to gather half the amount of light. Smaller sensors are not magic and they don't get to break the laws of physics, unfortunately.
How did I miss this one? Mr Karl!! I'm going to show off a little bit now: my PhD in Optics is coming back in ways you'd never understand! Every MASTER-CLASS you provide in your channel is a blessing. I really hope sometime somebody can explain the new generations in this way every single matter! Welcome back to reality! It's just Karl Taylor doing it again! Regards
You are wrong in terms of sensor the Crop Sensor was first used & widely spread with Video cameras Since none of them had a Full Frame (24mm x36mm) back then.
That was indeed educating and good to hear it all in one place, Karl! To give an example: As an amateur who has been photographing since the 70's, I have (at some point) finally decided to buy a 24 megapixel full frame to digitalise my slides and black and white negatives. Why 24 MP? Because my older DSLR with 12 megapixel didn't reproduce all details from the fine grain b/w negatives and even some from my Kodachrome 25 slides (possibly 21 MP would be enough, but that camera didn't provide the needed dynamic range). To capture the whole dynamic range from those slides without losing on highlights or deep shadow areas, the full frame took care of both because of the larger photosites. Also, because I already had an expensive macro bellows and slide duplicating system, I could re-use it with my digital camera. Of course I also get excellent - technical - results in conventional photography because of that camera, but I am happy to use my older gear with older lenses because they still give me that much pleasure in photographing. Which I think is a tad more important than having the newest, highest technical quality - especially because I don't have to work towards a customer's goal. And that is what you, Karl, have mentioned quite often in your videos: you choose your gear in function of the result, which is of course replying to the needs of your clients. I thought I might emphasise this one more time ;-)
I'm not sure how you can talk about sensor size and omit micro four thirds and smartphones. The most popular camera sensor size by a huge margin is 1/2.55 inches, used in smartphones.
Huw Morgan He did mention smartphones but it seem irrelevant since what he's talking about is related to photography in general and fits all types of cameras and sensors regardless if they are micro four thirds or smartphones. The basics of the technology is the same.
Thank you for trying to bring attention on what really matters. Unfortunately you trapped into one common misconception: that large sensor pixels fetch more light. While the maximum number of photons a pixel can capture before being read out is linked to its size, the actual amount is only (!) determined be the exposure, aperture and time. Why is that important? A large lens with a small sensor captures more light than a small lens with a large sensor. A large sensor size only benefits for dynamic range, not more. Smaller sensors on the other hand have advantages that support image quality like better image stabilization and faster readout (which enables the use of electronic shutter mode). There are many professional photographers who prefer what you call “crop sensor cameras” for most applications.
in fact there was always "crop" ... there was 16mm 8mm film, etc. not to mention the Olympus PEN f that cropped the 35 mm film by doubling the number of photos that could be taken with a roller. But in reality the 35mm film itself was a crop ... used mainly by journalists and family men and was considered a format of worse quality than the medium format and large format used by professionals. in short, for each job there is an appropriate tool, the global characteristics of this tool are more important than the unique feature "image quality"
Yes you're absolutely right but by and large the 35mm format was significantly dominant and of course format is only one factor that contributes to images quality which is why this video also focused on the other 6 things too.
Very, very useful indeed? I have enjoyed the clarity of all the issues on the photographic medium being discussed here. Thank you very much. Happy New Year 2021
The megapixel race reminds me of the early 2000s when intel convinced everyone that the more GHZ your processor had the faster your computer ran. The general public like nice round simple numbers to equate to higher or lower quality. 3GHZ is obviously better than 2.6GHZ unless you take into consideration processer design and efficiency. :)
Another great no nonsense tutorial.... the way I put it to use the right tool for the job, and in order to do so you need to understand the tool, maximise its strengths whilst controlling its weaknesses. As it’s true that most cameras of the last 5-10 years are capable to do most jobs, it’s also true that the perfect camera doesn’t exist, finding the perfect compromise for the situation is the secret ingredient. Great explanation of diffraction, I would have also mentioned the losses in quality at the other extreme, wide apertures, not directly related to sensors, still affecting quality though. Great job keep it up.
Hi Karl, I haven't seen many of your videos in a while, I forgot how detailed and unbiased you are, as always, your videos are straight to the point, informative and easy to follow. You are still one of the great masters. I felt this this video in areas was a bit of a rant, but rightly so, a great argument and made so much sense, yet again, from the thousands of videos I've watched, I learnt from yours the most. Cheers, Danny.
Fantastic video. thank you so much. You summarized everything elequently and precise. Your explanation of the subject matter helped fully grasp the concepts fully. Thank you again
Photography is really an Allice in Wonderland rabit hole, when you think you have leant all one can possibly know a mentor appears revealing a whole new world to explore within...
And even that is only a part from the quality chain...it will also depending on the ability from the graphics card from your PC/Laptop, on the monitor, on the printer (how many different inks will he use), on the quality from the pigments in the ink, and on the quality of paper you will use for the final product. Lenses, Pixels/Sensorsize, a certain algorithm (aka camera brand) and RAW is nice, but without the final product, it`s only something for pixelpeepers with a 4k Monitor (8k will coming soon, lol!). The RAW data is only the "digital" Color Transparency Film, the storage medium. But without a printed Photo, you didn´t end the full cycle of photography.
FYI for anyone watching this video, waves of diffracted light does not converge, they spread out when passed through an opening. They only "converge" (not really convergence) when passing an obstacle. So diffracted light does not interfere or superposed unless there are two or more openings. What actually happens is the information reaching a section of the sensor is different or "less" than the information reaching another point at the _same instant_.
At last ! finally complicated information I can understand. Well delivered, easily understood and clear. Thank you ...I have subscribed and will use you as my "go to" youtuber.
14 minutes in and Karl is just after a job on Countdown.....alias clear and concise information as always. Brilliant. Lens wise is interesting to note that in cinematography these days a lot of DP’s are using older lenses such as K 35’s, usually re-housed. These illicit diffractions and aberrations are sometimes wonderful.
As few as possible words for transporting the information. Nice production. I did‘t learn much new, but still watched the video until the end, because of the overall quality. Keep going! Thumbs up!
Very thorough and informative with no wrong info at all. Only mistake would be in 14:15 you divide the numeric value by 1000 instead of 1M to calculate the Megapixel counts. As an electronics engineer I would like to point out some overlooked yet powerful factor behind image quality that you'd missed to mention. (i) In electronics we call photosite as photodiode. Quality of photodiode is the most important factor when it comes to image quality. And photodiode quality is determined by quantum efficiency and saturated current/dark current. In short quantum efficiency is the efficiency to convert the photon to electric current whereas dark current is the leakage current during no photon hitting the photodiode. So higher quantum efficiency with lower dark current yields higher quality of the photodiode. As the technology is getting better and better every day the photodiode quality is also getting better. One perfect example would be nikon D700 and nikon Z6. Each photosite size in D700 is somewhat double the photosite size of Z6. If we only consider the size of the photosite in these case, then it would make D700 sensor much better - but in reality the experience is quite opposite. As Z6 has latest generation of photodiode that makes the D700 a rookie in comparison with Z6. (ii) The circuitry is important. With the advancement of the technology circuit reaches in nano level and as a result consume less power while producing less heat. So with the elimination of heat, dark current and heat noise become negligible which render much better image quality. (iii) The quality of a digital image varies from device to device when viewing them. While an image in 10bit Adobe RGB LED display looks perfect, the 8bit sRGB LCD display could make the same image less dynamic with some pixel clipping and banding. So even though quality of the digital image file was good but poor quality monitor presents the file badly. The same is true for printed image. Better printer with better quality of ink in a better paper produces better images. As simple as that.
my question is, can you compensate for a smaller smartphone sensor by incresing exposure time and come up with the same image quality as of a bigger camera sensor?
Do smaller pixel sizes actually increase diffraction, or do they just make it more visible? It would seem that the light would be equally diffracted regardless, since this is a property of the lens, not the sensor.
Quick question Karl, do you use or have you used theatrical coloured smoke for a photo shoot. i have been looking at the lemaitre long duration (90seconds) coloured smokes and was wondering if you fancied doing a video on using coloured smoke for a shoot?
Quality breakdown of all the factors, but I can tell you've never used a foveon sensor camera, though. If you had you'd never have omitted including them.
An easy way to explain pixels in relation to sensor size is with signal to noise ratio. The smaller and more densely pack the pixels are, the more their electrical signals interfere with each other, creating noise visible particularly in low light situations.
I just used high resolution jpeg for non profit work since it is volunteer work, and it save spaces on hard drive. Good enough for now for social media. The non- profit is happy with my work!! Thanks for the classes. My photography is much better.
Okay Karl, this was your promised video and it is close to perfection (I agree 95% but let's forget the 5% ;-) What made me happy is the fact you rather have a 80 MP FF sensor, but then in the size of the HB H 6 - 100 (not the 50) and I understand that you need that MP for your big size prints. For magazine size I would go even further and would be satisfied with something around 40-50 MP in H6 100 sensor size format. (less noise) BUT WITH A BETTER DYNAMIC RANGE ! (and I missed that) What did I miss, the fact that ISO is applied after the shot is taken, application of the signal (or gain) instead of sensitivity of film. - And I am glad you pointed out the color array cause I want to make something clear (bit out of your field of work but in addition to this good video on topic). As you know Leica has Monochrome camera's(and they are great) and there are people who strip down an old camera's and let the color array filter be removed to pretend they have an equal Monochrome camera. But that is not completely true. Because ......, the color filter array not only filters color but it also weakens the light intensity a bit (1 or 2 stops , depending on the color), and not equal. So there is an extra attenuation (gain) per color afterwards to get it even again. Removing the color area, the attenuation per photo-diode is still there so you have a monochrome image but with different photodiode gain where as the real monochrome camera's don't have that difference per photo-diode. It can also not be altered cause it is backed into the firmware. So removing the color array with not give you a 1 tot 1 equal to a Monochrome camera. Thanks for sharing the wisdom !!
Great video Kal, but I bet it went way over the top of many heads, super packed with information! Who said you don’t have to be a rocket scientist! Nicely done!
Hello, I'm an avid fan of yours, and I love your content, which helps a lot in having effective results in a very efficient way. I'd like to know if there's a way to solve my problem. I edit student photos, and since it's a pandemic, getting them close for a class picture isn't allowed. That's why I used their individual images to compose a Virtual like class picture. The problem is that every image has a different focal length, so some photos look bigger than others. So I adjust them one by one in Photoshop, and it looks great, but it consumes a lot of time since I'm editing many photos. I wonder if there's a way to crop all images based on focal length so that images are of a consistent size and proportion with their classmates. The first method would be to have a tripod in the photoshoot session and leave the focal length as it is from the beginning up to the very end, but what if we use a shotgun photoshoot style? Is there a way we can use it to fix it in post-production? I'm looking forward to you covering it up in your UA-cam content. I would appreciate any help you can provide.
Hi guys, just a correction to note please - at 13:50 I explain how to calculate megapixels by dividing by one million but at 14:09 when I repeat the calculation I accidentally say one thousand instead of one million. Sorry my bad 😬. Thanks to a couple of our viewers for pointing it out.
thank god you made a mistake, i was thinking you were a God....................:)
Shoudn't this number be 1,024 as opposed to 1,000? Thanks.
This is a great video for those new to photography, it took me a few years to put all this information together for me to draw on when needed. This video is pure gold as a learning tool great job saves me explaining it to new photographers!.
It's cool, I've noticed that during watching and I actually felt relieved because of that: this guy is still a human 😂 phew
Also, there were APS film cameras available before digital crop APS-C became mainstream.
"Advanced Photo System Type-C (APS-C) is an image sensor format approximately equivalent in size to the Advanced Photo System (APS) film negative in its C ("Classic") format"
Wow. What a well delivered, in-depth video about the topic. Very well done. I felt like I went back to university :).
Cheers Denis 😂
Same!!!
My university is all about student to teacher sex incidents. I didn't leave much cos of that
I will get back to this in the morning. Equipped with a notebook and pen😂
Lol😂
Yes, I will be doing the same thing.
I think the law of diminishing returns plays a roll in most aspects of photography. Megapixels were a huge factor when going from 3 to 6, or 6 to 12. But the improvements from 50-100 aren't anywhere near as dramatic. The same is evident in lens improvements, noise performance, sensor size and other areas.
For most people the sweet spot for most of these things is somewhere in the middle.
Same with sensor sizes. Past one inch type sensors there massive diminishing returns. APS-C is definitely better, but much less obviously than going from 1/2.3" to 1". And going from APS-C to full frame offers even lower gains.
My very first compact camera, a Casio had 3 MP.. These pictures are just as good as from my 20 MP compact cameras viewed on a Monitor. My Nikon D40 with 6 MP, which is considered super low still rocks.. Nobody would look at any of these pictures and say: OH.. not enough pixels, why do I see pixels? 🙂
As always, great information Karl!! I don’t know how you remember all of that information. I had to stop and rewind a couple of times to process what you were saying. 😆 Thanks for sharing!!
Well, Patty, remember though that Karl's work is solving problems that customers have and that he has a career as a photographer for many decades. Knowledge builds up while you work and what you do often is printed in your memory, I'd say. You know that too.
Dynamic range is NOT number of steps. It is ratio between largest and lowest value. Number of steps used to split dynamic range is called tonal range.
In practical terms 'tonal range' is the resulting quality of 'dynamic range' and this video is about the contributing factors to image quality, if you think the audience watching this video wouldn't have understood what I meant by 'steps' when it comes to dynamic range contribution to image quality then please give up some of your time to make a video that explains it more clearly.
@@VisualEducationStudio > "In practical terms 'tonal range' is the resulting quality of 'dynamic range' "
These two concepts are different. The teaching is confused.
"...please give up some of your time to make a video that explains it more clearly"
It's easy.
1. Dynamic range is the difference between the brightest and darkest that can be registered. Show two illustrations, one with high contrast and one with low contrast.
2. Tonal range is how many steps the scale can be divided into. Show the illustration that you used for dynamic range. (he-he)
Seriously the best photography video series on UA-cam that is full of great information. I look forward to every video. Thank you Karl!
My pleasure
Several years ago, I showed a co-worker a recent portrait I'd made of my wife. The following conversation ensued.
She: "That's beautiful! You must have a really good camera!" (The greatest compliment any photographer can receive.)
Me: "Yes, I do."
She: "How many megapixels does it have?"
Me: "None"
She: "None? What do you mean?"
Me: "It's a film camera from 1952 or 1953." (Zeiss 6cm x 6cm folding camera)
Brilliant
Which is still technically incorrect, maybe you should've honestly answered as it wasn't the 6x6 strip you've actually brought there right, it was either a print or a file from a scanned film :) edit: well, maybe it was a chemical print though in which case it's "none" but you may still calculate resolution of the particular film and lens and "somewhat" convert that into mp number.
As always, this was top-notch. Your knowledge and ability to deliver it so we can all understand it is as good as it gets. My only caution for viewers would be to not dismiss smaller sensors out of hand because of perceived lower image quality. While technologically and mathematically true, in practical terms, it isn't always relevant. Case in point is my own 30+ year career as a photographer, which, for the last 15 years has been done successfully using digital APS-C cameras. For the type of work I do, my clients have been overjoyed. Are there limitations? Sure. But I've learned to work within them and have been able to consistently produce, not just "good enough" images, but excellent images. I may well get cameras with larger sensors in the future, but not because I want to "upgrade," but just because I want to be able to do different kinds of work. Keep up the excellent training, Karl. You are absolutely one of the best teachers out there!
Yes good points Peter and there were photojournalists even using film formats smaller than 35mm back in the day, however my main point was that as we see an advance towards mirrorless and less expensive sensors we may see a reduction in demand for that format and at that time the camera manufacturers may choose to drop that format in favour of 35mm FF mirrorless. As always with everything it's will come down to a supply/demand/cost equation.
@@VisualEducationStudio Thanks, Karl. Appreciate the response. I'm excited to see where technology leads us!
My head literally exploded watching this. Now I'm going to need to get an ice pack and watch it 3 more times to fully understand it. That being said this has been the best explanation I've seen thus far on image quality. Cheers Karl.
Thank you.
Everything comes into account. Camera processors ,software/firmware lens choose. But the pixel design, size & pitch mean so much., & is what really makes the difference. Somewhere out there there is a comparison chart of all the Nikon & Canon cameras with the features & individual pixel size & pixel pitch. If you look at the cameras that were performers, the closeness of the larger pixel size &, the pitch numbers is what they had in common.
If you’re a newb you should be watching and reading some more introductory stuff.
absolutely the clearest and most complete introduction to digital photography I have ever heard. Congratulations!
Glad you enjoyed it!
Great explination. Much to know. Where as one time the mantra was "its not the equipment but the photographer"...but in the digital world, it is equipment as well, in where the knowledgeable professional will make much better use of the higher end equipment.
Karl is my only dictionary in photography. Thanks Karl.
Cheers!
A little correction: the Olympus Pen series used half of the 35mm film, that is it was a "cropped sensor camera". And there are more sensor sizes. The most prominent sensor sizes today are the ones used in phones and they are much smaller than these. And there is the four-thirds sensors.
And APS format was actually created as a film format
And let us not forget 110 film, as well as the Minox camera.
What an amazing video. I'll be sharing this with all my friends who want to know how to take better images!
Thank you. Excellent information.
Amazing detail! Very Knowledgeable! I’m subscribed! Love your stuff...thank you!
Welcome
The OM-D you show is micro four thirds, and smaller than APS-C sensors. And half frame 135 film cameras exist, and there were numerous crop film cameras like 110, 126 format.
The OMD body is also smaller than an APSC body. A Canon EOS 7 D is physically the same size and roughly the same weight as a 5D and uses the same lenses. The OMD lenses are much smaller and lighter so your bag ends up being about a quarter of the size and weight.
And the APS film format from which the sensor size was derived.
Also, both Olympus and Panasonic offer very high quality lenses, which are used by professionals.
Thanks for the information! Extremely helpful stuff.
A pleasure Zack
What about the factor that some cameras use square sensors with very little loss of "data" in between the individual pixels (ie:Nikon) and those that use round sensors with all the loss of "data" in the empty space in between the sensors ? Is it true, or is it all a con by certain advertisers ?
I'm not quite sure what you mean here.
@@VisualEducationStudio - Saw a show that stated (and showed) the Nikon sensors specially made for Nikon have square sensor pixels leaving none of the empty space produced by the typical round sensor pixels. This supposedly resulted in less loss of detail and cleaner images. It also stated that Nikon has also developed a brand new sensor for video with the same characteristics. I can understand the concept (less loss of detail, maybe better dynamic range) but do square pixel sensors really exist ?I know my Nikons give me better images (in general) than my Canons, but I just assumed it was their X-speed technology. Another factor was bit-depth. I shoot in 14 bit, but some cameras only have 12, 10 or even 8. How much difference does that make in your analysis ? Anyways, a great video on your behalf. Enjoyed it!
Congrats to 500.000 subs! :)
Thank you.
IIRC crop sensors came about way before ff sensors due to technology limitations. BTW, price is not the only drawback of larger image sensors: larger sensor requires larger and heavier lenses. This is why I'm considering switching to m43 for my urban/street photography: it's 70-200 equivalent is much smaller and lighter than a regular full frame 70-200 lens.
I don't know why you think this, but the lenses are not smaller. There's not even a full frame 70-200 f/4 equivalent for M4/3. Lenses that are actually equivalent for smaller sensors are just as big and expensive.
@@TechnoBabble this is hilariously wrong. Many of the lenses are tiny in comparison, and much cheaper. The 35-100mm f2.8 is small, optically amazing and half the price of most F4 zooms.
@@NeonShores Hilariously wrong? So the 35-100mm f2.8 is equivalent to what on full frame? A 70-200 f5.6. You might think it's equivalent to a 70-200 f/2.8, but that's what would be hilariously wrong.
On average, when using similar levels of sensor technology, a M4/3 sensor produces images with 4x the amount of noise of a Full Frame sensor when at the same ISO. This means that to produce an image with the same level of noise the M4/3 camera needs to be at 1/4 the ISO value, needing a lens that is 2 full stops brighter.
That 35-100 would need to be f1.4 to match a full frame f/2.8 zoom. Why do you think it's half the price? It only allows the camera to gather half the amount of light.
Smaller sensors are not magic and they don't get to break the laws of physics, unfortunately.
m4/3 is awesome. I have an EM1 ii and Sony A7iv, while I love the more powerful Sony the Olympus is my favorite for travel and street photography.
@@TechnoBabble The lenses are smaller, this is a fact. I have an array of m4/3 and full frame lenses.
Superb video Karl, excellent collection of information in an excellent way, great job🌷
Thank you Tanweer 📸
Just awesome this video and your knowledge!!!!
Glad you liked it!
Very great video, Karl!
Many thanks
How did I miss this one? Mr Karl!!
I'm going to show off a little bit now: my PhD in Optics is coming back in ways you'd never understand! Every MASTER-CLASS you provide in your channel is a blessing.
I really hope sometime somebody can explain the new generations in this way every single matter!
Welcome back to reality! It's just Karl Taylor doing it again!
Regards
Thank you. Damn I wish I'd done a PhD in optics!
Nice rendition of the concepts.Thanks and wishing you a happy new year 2021.
Same to you
You are wrong in terms of sensor the Crop Sensor was first used & widely spread with Video cameras Since none of them had a Full Frame (24mm x36mm) back then.
Fantastic information, thank you for sharing your expertise!
Excellent presentation. Very clearly put across.
Thank you kindly!
That was indeed educating and good to hear it all in one place, Karl!
To give an example: As an amateur who has been photographing since the 70's, I have (at some point) finally decided to buy a 24 megapixel full frame to digitalise my slides and black and white negatives. Why 24 MP? Because my older DSLR with 12 megapixel didn't reproduce all details from the fine grain b/w negatives and even some from my Kodachrome 25 slides (possibly 21 MP would be enough, but that camera didn't provide the needed dynamic range). To capture the whole dynamic range from those slides without losing on highlights or deep shadow areas, the full frame took care of both because of the larger photosites. Also, because I already had an expensive macro bellows and slide duplicating system, I could re-use it with my digital camera.
Of course I also get excellent - technical - results in conventional photography because of that camera, but I am happy to use my older gear with older lenses because they still give me that much pleasure in photographing. Which I think is a tad more important than having the newest, highest technical quality - especially because I don't have to work towards a customer's goal. And that is what you, Karl, have mentioned quite often in your videos: you choose your gear in function of the result, which is of course replying to the needs of your clients. I thought I might emphasise this one more time ;-)
Thanks Jozef.
Thank you! for explaining and elaborating on in particular sensors. Much appreciated.
Glad it was helpful!
This is brilliant. This is the best honest overview I have ever seen.
I'm not sure how you can talk about sensor size and omit micro four thirds and smartphones. The most popular camera sensor size by a huge margin is 1/2.55 inches, used in smartphones.
Huw Morgan He did mention smartphones but it seem irrelevant since what he's talking about is related to photography in general and fits all types of cameras and sensors regardless if they are micro four thirds or smartphones. The basics of the technology is the same.
So how then does a smart phone cram 108mpix in a sensor the size of 10mm square ? Thanks for this advice and video well worth my time in seeing it.
karl, this is really super helpful (even though i may need to watch the vid 3 times to let all the info sink in :) ) just subscribed!
Glad you enjoyed it!
I just got a olympus sp-600Uz was that a good choose?
This is probably the best informational video i have seen on youtube. Thank you for this!!
Subscribed!!
Thanks for the sub!
Fantastic and great value information Karl. So well put together too!
Best wishes and stay safe.
Thanks Ivan
Not one um one er, so not only is Karl a master photographer but a consummate speaker. Superb tutorial.
In such a short time you did an amazing job of explaining the best info about the most important aspect of photography… Image quality!!!
Bravo 👏 👏👏
Thank you for trying to bring attention on what really matters. Unfortunately you trapped into one common misconception: that large sensor pixels fetch more light. While the maximum number of photons a pixel can capture before being read out is linked to its size, the actual amount is only (!) determined be the exposure, aperture and time. Why is that important? A large lens with a small sensor captures more light than a small lens with a large sensor. A large sensor size only benefits for dynamic range, not more. Smaller sensors on the other hand have advantages that support image quality like better image stabilization and faster readout (which enables the use of electronic shutter mode). There are many professional photographers who prefer what you call “crop sensor cameras” for most applications.
in fact there was always "crop" ... there was 16mm 8mm film, etc. not to mention the Olympus PEN f that cropped the 35 mm film by doubling the number of photos that could be taken with a roller. But in reality the 35mm film itself was a crop ... used mainly by journalists and family men and was considered a format of worse quality than the medium format and large format used by professionals. in short, for each job there is an appropriate tool, the global characteristics of this tool are more important than the unique feature "image quality"
Yes you're absolutely right but by and large the 35mm format was significantly dominant and of course format is only one factor that contributes to images quality which is why this video also focused on the other 6 things too.
Very, very useful indeed? I have enjoyed the clarity of all the issues on the photographic medium being discussed here. Thank you very much. Happy New Year 2021
Glad it was helpful. Cheers.
The megapixel race reminds me of the early 2000s when intel convinced everyone that the more GHZ your processor had the faster your computer ran. The general public like nice round simple numbers to equate to higher or lower quality. 3GHZ is obviously better than 2.6GHZ unless you take into consideration processer design and efficiency. :)
IPC.
Very informative, thanks for sharing.
excellent video instruction manual. i w ll go over it again to learn more. thank you!!
VISUAL EDUCATION,
This was most instructive, thank you. 👏
Very late after the release of this excellent video, but i was wondering if you have any views on the foveon sensors as found in sigma cameras ?
Another great no nonsense tutorial.... the way I put it to use the right tool for the job, and in order to do so you need to understand the tool, maximise its strengths whilst controlling its weaknesses. As it’s true that most cameras of the last 5-10 years are capable to do most jobs, it’s also true that the perfect camera doesn’t exist, finding the perfect compromise for the situation is the secret ingredient. Great explanation of diffraction, I would have also mentioned the losses in quality at the other extreme, wide apertures, not directly related to sensors, still affecting quality though. Great job keep it up.
Cheers
Hi Karl, I haven't seen many of your videos in a while, I forgot how detailed and unbiased you are, as always, your videos are straight to the point, informative and easy to follow. You are still one of the great masters. I felt this this video in areas was a bit of a rant, but rightly so, a great argument and made so much sense, yet again, from the thousands of videos I've watched, I learnt from yours the most. Cheers, Danny.
Thanks Danny much appreciated
Mind blown!! Thank you very much for the excellent way you presented this material. I learned a lot!!
Glad you enjoyed it!
Super interesting 👌🏻 thank you very much.
Glad you liked it, thanks.
Your gift of knowledge is appreciated. Thanks for sharing with us!
My pleasure!
Hi Karl !
How much dpi is required to print a large size 30 feet x 20 feet billboard ?
150dpi is usually fine for big stuff as it's viewed from a distance
Thanks Karl for a brilliant video, just saved me a pile of pocket money. Happy new Year.
Glad it helped
Fantastic video. thank you so much. You summarized everything elequently and precise. Your explanation of the subject matter helped fully grasp the concepts fully. Thank you again
You're very welcome!
Brilliant description of so many concepts. Thank you Karl.
Glad you enjoyed it!
Photography is really an Allice in Wonderland rabit hole, when you think you have leant all one can possibly know a mentor appears revealing a whole new world to explore within...
Thank you very much. This is very informative lecture !!!
You are welcome!
And even that is only a part from the quality chain...it will also depending on the ability from the graphics card from your PC/Laptop, on the monitor, on the printer (how many different inks will he use), on the quality from the pigments in the ink, and on the quality of paper you will use for the final product.
Lenses, Pixels/Sensorsize, a certain algorithm (aka camera brand) and RAW is nice, but without the final product, it`s only something for pixelpeepers with a 4k Monitor (8k will coming soon, lol!). The RAW data is only the "digital" Color Transparency Film, the storage medium. But without a printed Photo, you didn´t end the full cycle of photography.
Extremely useful details 👍
This is gold in regarding to photography knowledge, thank you so much.
My pleasure!
FYI for anyone watching this video, waves of diffracted light does not converge, they spread out when passed through an opening. They only "converge" (not really convergence) when passing an obstacle.
So diffracted light does not interfere or superposed unless there are two or more openings. What actually happens is the information reaching a section of the sensor is different or "less" than the information reaching another point at the _same instant_.
Ammazing! Thank you so much! I learnt a lot.
Glad it was helpful!
What an amazing video. All of the information you presented is so helpful, detailed and easy to understand! Thank you.
Glad you enjoyed it!
Perfect point to point discussion , great examples shown to clear all the clutters . shared with so many professionals in photography .
Thank you
So so so useful. Thank you
Excellent overview.
Thank you so much for taking such challenging topics & making them easy to follow. Outstanding.
You're very welcome!
At last ! finally complicated information I can understand. Well delivered, easily understood and clear. Thank you ...I have subscribed and will use you as my "go to" youtuber.
Awesome, thank you!
Thanks so much for sharing this info!
Glad it was helpful!
Thanks Karl, really informative and easy to understand explanation.
Thank you.
APS stands for Advanced Photo System. This is a film format that was introduced in 1996.
Right, and the APS-C sensors r are the same size than the film used in APS Kodak cameras.
Thank you for clearing up all my doubts.
14 minutes in and Karl is just after a job on Countdown.....alias clear and concise information as always. Brilliant. Lens wise is interesting to note that in cinematography these days a lot of DP’s are using older lenses such as K 35’s, usually re-housed. These illicit diffractions and aberrations are sometimes wonderful.
As few as possible words for transporting the information. Nice production. I did‘t learn much new, but still watched the video until the end, because of the overall quality. Keep going! Thumbs up!
Glad you enjoyed it! Thanks.
APS-Advanced photo sistem was used by Kodak film for some time.I had a kodak camera with APS FILM.
APS AND APS-C ARE DIFFERENT IN SIZE,
APS-C IS SLIGHTLY BIGGER.
This is the best explanation i've seen so far on image quality vs resolution
Thank you.
Very Informative!
Glad it was helpful!
Very thorough and informative with no wrong info at all. Only mistake would be in 14:15 you divide the numeric value by 1000 instead of 1M to calculate the Megapixel counts.
As an electronics engineer I would like to point out some overlooked yet powerful factor behind image quality that you'd missed to mention.
(i) In electronics we call photosite as photodiode. Quality of photodiode is the most important factor when it comes to image quality. And photodiode quality is determined by quantum efficiency and saturated current/dark current. In short quantum efficiency is the efficiency to convert the photon to electric current whereas dark current is the leakage current during no photon hitting the photodiode. So higher quantum efficiency with lower dark current yields higher quality of the photodiode. As the technology is getting better and better every day the photodiode quality is also getting better. One perfect example would be nikon D700 and nikon Z6. Each photosite size in D700 is somewhat double the photosite size of Z6. If we only consider the size of the photosite in these case, then it would make D700 sensor much better - but in reality the experience is quite opposite. As Z6 has latest generation of photodiode that makes the D700 a rookie in comparison with Z6.
(ii) The circuitry is important. With the advancement of the technology circuit reaches in nano level and as a result consume less power while producing less heat. So with the elimination of heat, dark current and heat noise become negligible which render much better image quality.
(iii) The quality of a digital image varies from device to device when viewing them. While an image in 10bit Adobe RGB LED display looks perfect, the 8bit sRGB LCD display could make the same image less dynamic with some pixel clipping and banding. So even though quality of the digital image file was good but poor quality monitor presents the file badly.
The same is true for printed image. Better printer with better quality of ink in a better paper produces better images. As simple as that.
Ahh yes, maths was never my strong point 🤣 I think people get the idea.
sir , you explained everything with sheer brilliance. hats off !
Amazing tutorial. Thanks very much for sharing your knowledge.
thanks
my question is, can you compensate for a smaller smartphone sensor by incresing exposure time and come up with the same image quality as of a bigger camera sensor?
Do smaller pixel sizes actually increase diffraction, or do they just make it more visible?
It would seem that the light would be equally diffracted regardless, since this is a property of the lens, not the sensor.
Thanks Karl for an awesome delivery
My pleasure
Excellent video. Thanks
You are welcome!
BEST educational clip about sensor-size and image-quality that there is. Thnx Karl :)
Thank you.
Quick question Karl, do you use or have you used theatrical coloured smoke for a photo shoot.
i have been looking at the lemaitre long duration (90seconds) coloured smokes and was wondering if you fancied doing a video on using coloured smoke for a shoot?
I've used a smoke machine twice in about 30 years but not coloured smoke.
Quality breakdown of all the factors, but I can tell you've never used a foveon sensor camera, though. If you had you'd never have omitted including them.
Some very solid information here. thanks Karl
An easy way to explain pixels in relation to sensor size is with signal to noise ratio. The smaller and more densely pack the pixels are, the more their electrical signals interfere with each other, creating noise visible particularly in low light situations.
I just used high resolution jpeg for non profit work since it is volunteer work, and it save spaces on hard drive. Good enough for now for social media. The non- profit is happy with my work!! Thanks for the classes. My photography is much better.
Very good explanation 🎉... It is incredible how many photographers don't understand difraction, aberration, etc... 😅
Glad you liked it!
Does photosite size equal to pixel size though? I am confused when he talks them at 12:53.
Sort of, not entirely but you can think of it that way.
Okay Karl, this was your promised video and it is close to perfection (I agree 95% but let's forget the 5% ;-)
What made me happy is the fact you rather have a 80 MP FF sensor, but then in the size of the HB H 6 - 100 (not the 50) and I understand that you need that MP for your big size prints.
For magazine size I would go even further and would be satisfied with something around 40-50 MP in H6 100 sensor size format. (less noise)
BUT WITH A BETTER DYNAMIC RANGE ! (and I missed that)
What did I miss, the fact that ISO is applied after the shot is taken, application of the signal (or gain) instead of sensitivity of film.
-
And I am glad you pointed out the color array cause I want to make something clear (bit out of your field of work but in addition to this good video on topic).
As you know Leica has Monochrome camera's(and they are great) and there are people who strip down an old camera's and let the color array filter be removed to pretend they have an equal Monochrome camera.
But that is not completely true.
Because ......, the color filter array not only filters color but it also weakens the light intensity a bit (1 or 2 stops , depending on the color), and not equal. So there is an extra attenuation (gain) per color afterwards to get it even again.
Removing the color area, the attenuation per photo-diode is still there so you have a monochrome image but with different photodiode gain where as the real monochrome camera's don't have that difference per photo-diode.
It can also not be altered cause it is backed into the firmware.
So removing the color array with not give you a 1 tot 1 equal to a Monochrome camera.
Thanks for sharing the wisdom !!
Glad you liked it and many thanks for the additional info.
Great video Kal, but I bet it went way over the top of many heads, super packed with information! Who said you don’t have to be a rocket scientist! Nicely done!
Glad you enjoyed it!
Very much useful information thank u so much sir
Welcome
Hello, I'm an avid fan of yours, and I love your content, which helps a lot in having effective results in a very efficient way.
I'd like to know if there's a way to solve my problem. I edit student photos, and since it's a pandemic, getting them close for a class picture isn't allowed. That's why I used their individual images to compose a Virtual like class picture. The problem is that every image has a different focal length, so some photos look bigger than others. So I adjust them one by one in Photoshop, and it looks great, but it consumes a lot of time since I'm editing many photos. I wonder if there's a way to crop all images based on focal length so that images are of a consistent size and proportion with their classmates. The first method would be to have a tripod in the photoshoot session and leave the focal length as it is from the beginning up to the very end, but what if we use a shotgun photoshoot style? Is there a way we can use it to fix it in post-production?
I'm looking forward to you covering it up in your UA-cam content. I would appreciate any help you can provide.
You are the elite expert on photography.