One thing to keep in mind when maximizing dynamic range on Micro Four Thirds cameras is that older models like the Olympus OM-D E-M1 might actually perform better in this area than newer, higher-resolution models. This is because the E-M1 has fewer megapixels, which means the pixels are physically larger. Larger pixels can capture more light, giving you a bit more flexibility in dynamic range, especially in challenging lighting conditions. So while my OM SYSTEM OM-5 has 20MP, it might not handle dynamic range quite as well as the E-M1 for this reason.
Tak for videoen :) Appreciate your insights. I switched from full frame to MFT a year ago and normally always expose for the highlights, as you mentioned. It hasn't been a big issue, in the situations where I needed the extra DR, I usually shoot multiple exposure. But I prefer to expose correctly than incorrectly, so I did learn something useful from you. Thanks :)
Thanks for your insights. I am not sure I follow your logic though. From the start, the claim at 1:07, the "of course a larger sensor can capture more light" puzzles me. My camera sensors, regardless of their size, tend to capture exactly the amount of light that the lens delivers, no more, no less. What am I missing?
Thank you for your question! ☺You're absolutely right that the amount of light hitting the sensor is ultimately determined by the lens and the exposure settings (aperture, shutter speed, ISO). However, when I say that a larger sensor can "capture more light," I'm referring to its ability to gather more total photons across a larger surface area, which directly affects its dynamic range and noise performance. Here’s the idea in a bit more detail: A full-frame (FF) sensor is physically larger than a Micro Four Thirds (MFT) sensor, which means it has more surface area to collect light. While each pixel (photosite) may receive the same amount of light in terms of intensity, a larger sensor has more pixels or larger pixels (depending on resolution), which means more total light is being captured across the sensor. This results in improved signal-to-noise ratio and, often, greater dynamic range. A larger sensor can better handle extreme highlights and shadows in the same scene, which is what I meant in the video. In other words, even though any sensor only captures the light the lens lets through, the larger surface area of a full-frame sensor allows it to capture that light more effectively, particularly when it comes to resolving fine details in both bright and dark areas, thereby maximizing dynamic range. I try to keep things as simple as possible in my videos so that as many people as possible can understand the subject. If you're interested in reading up more on this, what I've explained here is just a starting point, and there's a lot of in-depth material out there on sensor size, dynamic range, and photon collection! I hope that clears things up! Let me know if you have any further questions.
@@jimmywestphoto interesting. thanks for taking the time. Have you ever tried, or checked on sensors datasheets, or checked other people's measurements? I am asking because, comparing for instance a GH7 against a GFX 100 II leads to different observations. When using lenses with the same angle of view, the same aperture diameter, and using the same shutter speed, when looking at the common range of correct exposures between the two cameras, the panasonic GH7 has both signal-to-noise ratio and dynamic range at least as good as the Fuji GFX 100 II. This information is publicly available on the photons to photos website (requires a bit of effort to interpret the data correctly). Granted, in good light, since the GFX is designed to support comparatively much lower ISO, ultimately it wins in DR over the GH7 because it can take images of the same scene with longer exposures, but that's a different statement.
One thing to keep in mind when maximizing dynamic range on Micro Four Thirds cameras is that older models like the Olympus OM-D E-M1 might actually perform better in this area than newer, higher-resolution models. This is because the E-M1 has fewer megapixels, which means the pixels are physically larger. Larger pixels can capture more light, giving you a bit more flexibility in dynamic range, especially in challenging lighting conditions. So while my OM SYSTEM OM-5 has 20MP, it might not handle dynamic range quite as well as the E-M1 for this reason.
Tak for videoen :)
Appreciate your insights. I switched from full frame to MFT a year ago and normally always expose for the highlights, as you mentioned. It hasn't been a big issue, in the situations where I needed the extra DR, I usually shoot multiple exposure. But I prefer to expose correctly than incorrectly, so I did learn something useful from you. Thanks :)
Great to hear mate and thanks for the feedback, I appreciate it 🙏
Thanks for your insights. I am not sure I follow your logic though. From the start, the claim at 1:07, the "of course a larger sensor can capture more light" puzzles me. My camera sensors, regardless of their size, tend to capture exactly the amount of light that the lens delivers, no more, no less. What am I missing?
Thank you for your question! ☺You're absolutely right that the amount of light hitting the sensor is ultimately determined by the lens and the exposure settings (aperture, shutter speed, ISO). However, when I say that a larger sensor can "capture more light," I'm referring to its ability to gather more total photons across a larger surface area, which directly affects its dynamic range and noise performance.
Here’s the idea in a bit more detail:
A full-frame (FF) sensor is physically larger than a Micro Four Thirds (MFT) sensor, which means it has more surface area to collect light. While each pixel (photosite) may receive the same amount of light in terms of intensity, a larger sensor has more pixels or larger pixels (depending on resolution), which means more total light is being captured across the sensor. This results in improved signal-to-noise ratio and, often, greater dynamic range. A larger sensor can better handle extreme highlights and shadows in the same scene, which is what I meant in the video.
In other words, even though any sensor only captures the light the lens lets through, the larger surface area of a full-frame sensor allows it to capture that light more effectively, particularly when it comes to resolving fine details in both bright and dark areas, thereby maximizing dynamic range.
I try to keep things as simple as possible in my videos so that as many people as possible can understand the subject. If you're interested in reading up more on this, what I've explained here is just a starting point, and there's a lot of in-depth material out there on sensor size, dynamic range, and photon collection!
I hope that clears things up! Let me know if you have any further questions.
@@jimmywestphoto interesting. thanks for taking the time.
Have you ever tried, or checked on sensors datasheets, or checked other people's measurements? I am asking because, comparing for instance a GH7 against a GFX 100 II leads to different observations.
When using lenses with the same angle of view, the same aperture diameter, and using the same shutter speed, when looking at the common range of correct exposures between the two cameras, the panasonic GH7 has both signal-to-noise ratio and dynamic range at least as good as the Fuji GFX 100 II. This information is publicly available on the photons to photos website (requires a bit of effort to interpret the data correctly). Granted, in good light, since the GFX is designed to support comparatively much lower ISO, ultimately it wins in DR over the GH7 because it can take images of the same scene with longer exposures, but that's a different statement.