Is it still rule today to think about m43 cameras as -2x light performance to full frame

[cantsin]

24 minutes ago, Mattias Burling said:

Like I said, it isnt real life and one cant simply say, all big sensors have better iso than smaller.

Yes, one can. Unless one believes that real life beats physics. (A bigger sensor lets in more light, just like an F1.4 lens lets in more light than an F2 lens.)

They do have better ISO, but other factors (like DoF - as you pointed out - or quality of denoising/signal processing) can even out the physical ISO advantage.

[PannySVHS]

1 hour ago, cantsin said:

No. Only if you compare older sensor tech with newer sensor tech. But even a 2005 full frame camera like the Canon 5D beats a 2017 GH5 very clearly in its low light capabilities:

https://www.dxomark.com/Cameras/Compare/Side-by-side/Panasonic-Lumix-DC-GH5-versus-Canon-EOS-5D___1149_176

 

 

DXOMark... Seems like the Oly EM1 II is a piece of witchery compared to the GH5 then

https://www.dxomark.com/Cameras/Compare/Side-by-side/Olympus-OM-D-E-M1-Mark-II-versus-Canon-EOS-5D___1136_176

https://www.dxomark.com/Cameras/Compare/Side-by-side/Olympus-OM-D-E-M1-Mark-II-versus-Canon-EOS-5D-Mark-II___1136_483

 

[noone]

38 minutes ago, PannySVHS said:

 

DXOMark... Seems like the Oly EM1 II is a piece of witchery compared to the GH5 then

https://www.dxomark.com/Cameras/Compare/Side-by-side/Olympus-OM-D-E-M1-Mark-II-versus-Canon-EOS-5D___1136_176

https://www.dxomark.com/Cameras/Compare/Side-by-side/Olympus-OM-D-E-M1-Mark-II-versus-Canon-EOS-5D-Mark-II___1136_483

 

You should be using the M43 camera that came out in 2005 when the 5D was released!   

Since there weren't any, we can use the first M43 camera from 2008, the Panasonic G1

You could also use four thirds cameras that existed in 2005 but none of them (E1, E300 and E500) are on DXO.  

The top line four thirds camera in 2005 was still the Olympus E1 and since that isn't on DXO but the E3 is that came out two years after the 5D you could use that for more relevance to the 5D.

https://www.dxomark.com/Cameras/Compare/Side-by-side/Panasonic-Lumix-DMC-G1-versus-Olympus-E3-versus-Canon-EOS-5D___450_220_176

While not for me, I think the original 5D still holds up quite well today from images I see from it around the place.

To put it into perspective, the G1 and E3 have lower DR at ISO 3200 than my now aging A7s has at ISO 204800!

[Mattias Burling]

1 hour ago, cantsin said:

They do have better ISO, 

My 2016 APS-C is so noisy at 400 its unbearable. Are you saying that that no m4/3 or the rx100 can't beat that?

Of course your not.

All Im saying is that it isn't that black and white. It all depends on this and that.

Thats why saying all big sensors have better lowlight is such a pointless argument imo. But we have already covered this and started going in cirkles.

I will back out slowly.

[noone]

Yeah these always end up going in circles.

I do agree it is not always a direct comparison but in general, yes a larger sensor of fairly similar vintage will do better in low light and that comparison of the current E-M1 ii and the Canon 5D from 2005 is interesting.

The new Oly is clearly a better camera in other ways but as far as the high ISO/low light goes, the DXO scores for that are actual ISOs using their criteria(ISO 1312 for the Oly, ISO 1815 for the Canon) and the ancient 5D does rate a bit higher still for that than any M43 camera.

Does that mean everyone should shoot with a 5D (or any FF)?, of course not and M43 can have plenty of reasons and the latest  are better in low light than the older APSC DSLRs I used to use.

If the original question was, is M43 good enough to use in low light, then the answer for me is clearly yes in many cases and for many people but against current or fairly recent FF cameras, then just in terms of high ISO/low light, for me it is not yet.

[tupp]

Just to reiterate:  in regards to a sensor with a given quality/configuration, it is the photosite size that influences maximum sensitivity/DR -- not the size of the sensor.

 

When comparing a full frame sensor with zillion megapixels (tiny photosites) to a M4/3 with much fewer, larger photosites, the M4/3 sensor will exhibit a higher maximum usable sensitivity and a greater capture dynamic range.  Again, this principle assumes that all other variables are equal, such as:  the sensor internal configuration/design; the A/D converter; post-sensor NR; etc.

 

Of course, if we compare a full frame sensor and a M4/3 sensor having the same resolution and the same internal configuration/design, the full frame sensor will have larger photosites, and thus greater max sensitivity and dynamic range.

 

So, if you embiggen the photosites, you generally embiggen the sensitivity/DR, regardless of what the "jabronis" say.

 

embiggen:

 

[cantsin]

1 hour ago, tupp said:

Just to reiterate:  in regards to a sensor with a given quality/configuration, it is the photosite size that influences maximum sensitivity/DR -- not the size of the sensor.

 

When comparing a full frame sensor with zillion megapixels (tiny photosites) to a M4/3 with much fewer, larger photosites, the M4/3 sensor will exhibit a higher maximum usable sensitivity and a greater capture dynamic range.  Again, this principle assumes that all other variables are equal, such as:  the sensor internal configuration/design; the A/D converter; post-sensor NR; etc.

What you write is only true for dynamic range (because of the larger full-well capacity of a bigger sensel). Noise and low light performance won't be affected because (a) the larger sensor still allows more photons to hit the sensor, no matter how coarse or fine the pixel grid, (b) binning the native sensor resolution to the delivery resolution (such as 4K) will reduce single-pixel noise.

This is why there really isn't a dramatic difference in the low light performance between any of the present-day FF sensors. There's not even a dramatic difference between the A7s/II with its 12 MP sensor and A7R/II with its 42 MP sensor in regard to low light performance (in fact, the A7R has even better low light performance than the A7s because of its slightly newer sensor tech: https://www.dxomark.com/Cameras/Compare/Side-by-side/Sony-A7S-II-versus-Sony-A7R-II___1047_1035)

(And aside from that, there isn't a single current MFT sensor on the market with a larger photosites than an APS-C or full frame sensor. The last one was in the Blackmagic 2.5K Cinema Camera which is no longer for sale. The BM Cinema Camera beautifully illustrates the point because it doesn't really have a better low light performance than any other MFT camera, but - thanks to the big photo sites on its sensor - a much better dynamic range.)

[cantsin]

P.S.: But having said all the above, I'm with Mattias in one respect - that signal processing quality can make a huge difference. This is why pro-level camcorders like Canon's C series have much better low light performance than most DSLRs and mirrorless cameras with the same APS-C sensor size, simply because the C-Series has more powerful signal processing electronics with better debayering and noise filtering algorithms.

The same is true if you shoot raw video. I found that shooting raw on a BM Pocket and using Neat Video in Resolve with highest quality temporal denoising, I can push the image to ISO 128,000 without falling apart. The video below was shot at practically no light. It holds up very well against an A7s video shot at ISO 128,000 (simply because the A7s has a much worse internal codec than the Pocket's raw, and much worse internal debayering and denoising than Resolve with Neat Video, never mind that its sensor is orders of magnitude more capable):

versus the A7s in similar bad light settings:

 

2 hours ago, noone said:

Does that mean everyone should shoot with a 5D (or any FF)?, of course not and M43 can have plenty of reasons and the latest  are better in low light than the older APSC DSLRs I used to use.

Yes - on top of that, one can compensate the sensor size disadvantages of MFT vs. APS-C and full frame by simply using faster lenses. If MFT generally has a ~2 stop ISO disadvantage versus Full Frame, a 25mm/f0.95 lens (like the Voigtlander) will neutralize that difference vs. a 50mm/f2 lens on an FF body or a 35mm/f1.4 lens on an APS-C body. On top of that, you'll also gain the same possibilities of using shallow DoF. 

(Conversely, a cheap $100 50mm/f1.8 lens on a modern FF body will give you roughly the same low light and DoF possibilities as a $700 25mm/f0.95 on a modern MFT body...)

[noone]

I disagree about the A7Rii having better low light performance than the A7sii (or A7s first version) though it is a lot closer than many other cameras and only at very high ISOs.

 

DXO ISO scores (IE the limit they find acceptable using their criteria) A7Rii  ISO 2993, A7sii ISO 3434 and A7s ISO 3702.      Some of that may be down to sample variation and limited cameras used.

DR on the other hand doesn't necessary follow in that it seems manufacturers can make a camera either very good at high ISO or have very good dynamic range but not quite both though all recent FF cameras do have higher DR than just about all M43 cameras.    

The Pentax K1 maybe comes closest being second overall for DR and still having high ISO over ISO 3200.      DR seems to be all over the place in terms of pixel size but generally the larger the sensor the better.

  Interestingly, the Nikon D7200 rates third overall in the DXO general database for DR despite being an APSC camera

https://www.dxomark.com/best-cameras-for-landscape-under-45200-dollars

 

16 minutes ago, cantsin said:

P.S.: But having said all the above, I'm with Mattias in one respect - that signal processing quality can make a huge difference. This is why pro-level camcorders like Canon's C series have much better low light performance than most DSLRs and mirrorless cameras with the same APS-C sensor size, simply because the C-Series has more powerful signal processing electronics with better debayering and noise filtering algorithms.

The same is true if you shoot raw video. I found that shooting raw on a BM Pocket and using Neat Video in Resolve with highest quality temporal denoising, I can push the image to ISO 128,000 without falling apart. The video below was shot at practically no light. It holds up very well against an A7s video shot at ISO 128,000 (simply because the A7s has a much worse internal codec than the Pocket's raw, and much worse internal debayering and denoising than Resolve with Neat Video, never mind that its sensor is orders of magnitude more capable):

versus the A7s in similar bad light settings:

 

Yes - on top of that, one can compensate the sensor size disadvantages of MFT vs. APS-C and full frame by simply using faster lenses. If MFT generally has a ~2 stop ISO disadvantage versus Full Frame, a 25mm/f0.95 lens (like the Voigtlander) will neutralize that difference vs. a 50mm/f2 lens on an FF body or a 35mm/f1.4 lens on an APS-C body. On top of that, you'll also gain the same possibilities of using shallow DoF. 

(Conversely, a cheap $100 50mm/f1.8 lens on a modern FF body will give you roughly the same low light and DoF possibilities as a $700 25mm/f0.95 on a modern MFT body...)

Maybe, except that for M43 you NEED a fast lens and you can also use a fast lens FF.       The reason I especially like the A7s is that I can use ANY lens in any light and that includes fast and slow and it means I can use fast lenses with faster shutter speeds.

[tupp]

1 hour ago, cantsin said:

What you write is only true for dynamic range (because of the larger full-well capacity of a bigger sensel). Noise and low light performance won't be affected...

No.  Dynamic range, noise and sensitivity are all part of the same thing.

 

Larger photosites have less noise, i.e. a lower noise floor (all other variables being equal).  Dynamic range essentially is the range of amplitude above the noise floor.  So, with a lower noise floor we get a greater dynamic range.  In addition, lower noise means greater effective sensitivity.  Larger photosites yield images with less noise, and, thus, higher effective ISOs.   So, larger photosites simultaneously provide greater dynamic range, reduced noise and increased sensitivity.

 

 

1 hour ago, cantsin said:

the larger sensor still allows more photons to hit the sensor, no matter how coarse or fine the pixel grid

Certainly, a larger sensor receives more photons/light-waves (all other variables being equal).

 

Nevertheless, the size of the sensor inherently has nothing to do with it's performance regarding DR/noise/sensitivity.  If you take two full frame sensors that are absolutely equal in every way, except for one has larger photosites than the other, the sensor with the larger photosites will have better performance in regards, to DR/noise/sensitivity, at the sensor level (all post sensor processing being equal).

 

In addition, if you take the exact same scenario, and merely swap out the full frame sensor having bigger photosites with a M4/3 sensor that has the same size photosites, the M4/3 sensor will have better DR/noise/sensitivity performance, at the sensor level.  Keep in mind that the full frame sensor and M4/3 sensor in this scenario are absolutely equal in every way, except for the M4/3 sensor has larger photosites than the FF sensor (and remember that all post sensor processing on both sensors is equivalent).

 

 

1 hour ago, cantsin said:

binning the native sensor resolution to the delivery resolution (such as 4K) will reduce single-pixel noise.

No doubt.

 

However, if you equally bin two sensors (with identical sensor tech) equally, the sensor with the larger photosites will give greater dynamic range, reduced noise and increased sensitivity.

 

You can't "compare apples to oranges."  All other variables must be equal -- if one sensor is binned, then the other sensor must be equally binned.

 

 

1 hour ago, cantsin said:

This is why there really isn't a dramatic difference in the low light performance between any of the present-day FF sensors. There's not even a dramatic difference between the A7s/II with its 12 MP sensor and A7R/II with its 42 MP sensor in regard to low light performance (in fact, the A7R has even better low light performance than the A7s because of its slightly newer sensor tech:

Again, this is comparing apples to oranges.  The newer sensor tech in the A7R introduces additional variables other than merely larger photosites.

 

If you made a M4/3 sensor with the A7R sensor tech and gave that sensor larger photosites than the A7R sensor, the M4/3 version would have better DR/noise/sensitivity performance.

 

 

1 hour ago, cantsin said:

The BM Cinema Camera beautifully illustrates the point because it doesn't really have a better low light performance than any other MFT camera, but - thanks to the big photo sites on its sensor - a much better dynamic range.)

Once again, this is comparing apples to oranges.

 

If the BMCC sensor has larger photosites that certainly helps with it's capture dynamic range, but there is a huge difference in both the sensor tech and in post-sensor processing between the BMCC and current M4/3 cameras.

 

The BMCC is an older sensor, and it's greatest capture dynamic range comes from its raw mode, which applies hardly any post-sensor processing.  On the other hand, most M4/3 cameras have a lot of post-sensor processing, including noise reduction, which can increase sensitivity but not necessarily capture DR.

 

If you were to take a sensor from any of the cameras that you mention and create another sensor with the same exact sensor tech, but with larger photosites, the sensor with the larger photosites would yield greater DR, less noise and increased effective sensitivity.

 

[cantsin]

27 minutes ago, tupp said:

No.  Dynamic range, noise and sensitivity are all part of the same thing.

 

Larger photosites have less noise, i.e. a lower noise floor (all other variables being equal).  Dynamic range essentially is the range of amplitude above the noise floor.  So, with a lower noise floor we get a greater dynamic range.  In addition, lower noise means greater effective sensitivity.  Larger photosites yield images with less noise, and, thus, higher effective ISOs.   So, larger photosites simultaneously provide greater dynamic range, reduced noise and increased sensitivity.

Yes and no, because again you disregard binning. Use this calculation example:

A 48MP FF sensor has photo sites with 25% the size of a 12MP FF sensor. Let's assume that this reciprocally results in a 400% higher noise floor per pixel. However, if you use the 12MP image as a 4K video, each photo site becomes one display pixel. If you have a 48MP image and good signal processing, you'll bin 4 pixel into 1 - which will reduce the noise equivalently. Same is true if you print on a large format; the 12 MP image will have each pixel at 400% the size of the 48 MP image, which also means that the noise floor will get enlarged 400%, so the advantage evens out.

In other words: One shouldn't consider noise floor per pixel, but literally the whole picture. The full well capacity advantage of a 12 MP sensor gets neutralized through its disadvantage of having fewer photosites.

You could also compare it to rain (instead of light) falling into into two grids of vessels: Both grids have the same size, but one consists of 12 (4x3) vessels/compartments, the other of 48 (8x6). In the 8x6 grid, the individuals vessels have a lower capacity and will spill over sooner than the individual vessels in the 4x3 grid. But if you consider the two structures as a whole, both grids have the same capacity of holding water.

 

Quote

If you were to take a sensor from any of the cameras that you mention and create another sensor with the same exact sensor tech, but with larger photosites, the sensor with the larger photosites would yield greater DR, less noise and increased effective sensitivity.

 

No, because as soon as you blow up both images to cinema screen size, the lower noise advantage of the sensor containing the larger photosites will get neutralized by the fact that each individual pixel is being more enlarged and thus having its noise amplified. - Your model only works for cameras that produce their downscaled video image from line skipping rather than from binning. (Which used to be the norm for DSLR and mirrorless cameras until recently, so your model isn't completely wrong - it just no longer applies to most present-day camera technology.)

[tupp]

1 hour ago, cantsin said:

Yes and no, because again you disregard binning.

I did not disregard binning.  I directly addressed binning:

1 hour ago, tupp said:

However, if you equally bin two sensors (with identical sensor tech) equally, the sensor with the larger photosites will give greater dynamic range, reduced noise and increased sensitivity.

You can't "compare apples to oranges."  All other variables must be equal -- if one sensor is binned, then the other sensor must be equally binned.

 

 

1 hour ago, cantsin said:

A 48MP FF sensor has photo sites with 25% the size of a 12MP FF sensor. Let's assume that this reciprocally results in a 400% higher noise floor per pixel. However, if you use the 12MP image as a 4K video, each photo site becomes one display pixel. If you have a 48MP image and good signal processing, you'll bin 4 pixel into 1 - which will reduce the noise equivalently.

Actually, binning yields slightly reduced signal-to-noise ratio compared to that of equivalently larger photosites.

 

In the first place, there are fewer photons/light-waves captured with four binned photosites as compared to a single equally-sized photosite.  This is due to some photons/light-waves being wasted when striking the border between the binned photosites.

 

In addition, there is a minute increase in noise inherent in binning.  It's very tiny, but it appears nonetheless.

 

Also, the binned photosites don't have less noise than an equivalent sized larger photosite with the same sensor tech.

 

Furthermore, as I said above, you can't compare apples to oranges -- if you bin one sensor but not the other, you are presenting two different scenarios regarding post sensor processing, and you are now dealing with two variables (instead of one):  photosite size; and post sensor processing.

 

Again, larger photosites give better performance than smaller photosites, as long as all other variables are equivalent -- identical sensor tech and identical post sensor processing.

 

 

1 hour ago, cantsin said:

which will reduce the noise equivalently. [snip]  In other words: One shouldn't consider noise floor per pixel, but literally the whole picture. The full well capacity advantage of a 12 MP sensor gets neutralized through its disadvantage of having fewer photosites.

No.  As I mentioned, there is a slight increase in noise when binning.

 

 

1 hour ago, cantsin said:

Same is true if you print on a large format; the 12 MP image will have each pixel at 400% the size of the 48 MP image, which also means that the noise floor will get enlarged 400%, so the advantage evens out.

We are discussing sensors and photosites -- not printing.

 

 

1 hour ago, cantsin said:

You could also compare it to rain (instead of light) falling into into two grids of vessels: Both grids have the same size, but one consists of 12 (4x3) vessels/compartments, the other of 48 (8x6).

Some of the rain drops will be lost in the "48" grid, as a few drops will land on the border between the vessels and a few drops will stick to the inside of the "48" vessels when you pour (bin) each group of "48" vessels into each respective "12" vessel.

 

 

1 hour ago, cantsin said:

No, because as soon as you blow up both images to cinema screen size, the lower noise advantage of the sensor containing the larger photosites will get neutralized by the fact that each individual pixel is being more enlarged and thus having its noise amplified

Firstly, noise doesn't increase just because an image is projected to a lager size -- the noise level stays the same relative to the image, regardless of projected size.

 

Secondly, even if noise increased when a (say) 12MP image was projected, the exact same thing would happen to a 12MP image binned from a larger resolution (say 48MP).

 

1 hour ago, cantsin said:

Your model only works for cameras that produce their downscaled video image from line skipping rather than from binning. (Which used to be the norm for DSLR and mirrorless cameras until recently, so your model isn't completely wrong - it just no longer applies to most present-day camera technology.)

No.  My "model" applies to all digital imaging sensors, including those to which binning (summed or averaged) has been applied.

 

Larger photosites yield greater signal-to-noise than smaller photosites on sensors with the same tech, all other variables bein equal.

[Trek of Joy]

8 hours ago, noone said:

I disagree about the A7Rii having better low light performance than the A7sii (or A7s first version) though it is a lot closer than many other cameras and only at very high ISOs.

+1

A7s2 is much better in low light, after 6400 the R2 really gets ugly with noise and a color shift. The S2 at 25,600 looks as good as the R2 at 6400 IMO. 51,200 is still good in some situations on the S2. There's another comparison I can't find at the moment, just someone sitting at a desk in a dimly lit room and it really shows the shadow noise that creeps into the R2. There isn't a m43 sensor that's as clean as the A7s2 at 12,800, and none of them shoot at a base ISO of 100, same for the XT2. For lowlight shooting the A7s2 is clearly ahead of everything m43. 

I agree with Mattias though, pick what features and such suits your shooting best.

But for lowlight video, Sony's FF is tops IMO. Same for stills, lift shadows and pull back highlights a couple stops - which is what I do when shooting in midday sun conditions, there's clearly more latitude in A7r/s2 files compared to the XT2, and the gap is wider with A7r/s2 and m43.

Cheers 

[kaylee]

@tupp your points are delightfully cromulent

[IronFilm]

On 7/10/2017 at 5:59 PM, Ivanhurba said:

I just reached the point where ISO at 6400 is enough no matter the camera I use (except my RX10II which 800 is the limit...). Would I love to be able to go higher? Maybe, but for the kind of jobs that pay my bread now, it's time to worry about other things like reliability, battery life, backup security, stealthiness and weight. Just saying .

 

Give it a while, perhaps when the RX100VI comes out, and 1" sensors will be just as good at ISO6400!

23 hours ago, tugela said:

It doesn't matter how big the sensor is, the amount of light received will be determined by the lens arrangement in front of the sensor. If you stick a speedbooster inbetween a crop sensor and a FF lens for example, both crop and FF sensors will receive the same amount of light even though the sensor sizes are different.

Seriously?? Do you not understand how a focal reducer works?

20 hours ago, Mattias Burling said:

Which isn't happening in real life. At the en of the day there are m4/3 cameras that beat full frame in lowlight and ISO. And vice versa. 

I only look at individual cameras and what they can do. Sensor size is borderline irrelevant.

This. Is. TRUTH.

15 hours ago, Mattias Burling said:

Sometimes I also notice the difference when I need to stop down a large sensor to get the same DOF as the m4/3. Which results in a darker image and the large sensor is already at max ISO. The shutter is of course fixed.

So a m4/3 can definitely have better lowlight in certain situations.

Yes, people need to not forget about the practical aspects. 

How often are you shooting WFO? ("wide fvcking open!") And even if you are shooting WFO....  MFT gets an edge here with F0.95 lenses just for MFT vs the usual F1.4 for FF cameras. 

But often the DoF is chosen for practical purposes (or artistic purposes) as you don't want to be trying to pull focus with half an inch of DoF, and once you've got picked out (let's say a couple of feet is what you select for your DoF), then if that is kept constant, you'll find FF is operating at quite a disadvantage to MFT!

13 hours ago, Mattias Burling said:

My 2016 APS-C is so noisy at 400 its unbearable. Are you saying that that no m4/3 or the rx100 can't beat that?

 

Is this a "2016 APS-C" a Canon DSLR? ;-) 

[IronFilm]

11 hours ago, noone said:

I disagree about the A7Rii having better low light performance than the A7sii (or A7s first version) though it is a lot closer than many other cameras and only at very high ISOs.

DXO ISO scores (IE the limit they find acceptable using their criteria) A7Rii  ISO 2993, A7sii ISO 3434 and A7s ISO 3702.      Some of that may be down to sample variation and limited cameras used.

 

If you actually read what DXO says themselves, you'll realise that ISO 441 is mostly a pretty insignificant difference!

Remember also DXO scores are only applicable for photo stills, which can end up being quite irrelevant for us! If the stills vs video performance ends up being waaaaaaay off...

[noone]

19 minutes ago, IronFilm said:

If you actually read what DXO says themselves, you'll realise that ISO 441 is mostly a pretty insignificant difference!

Remember also DXO scores are only applicable for photo stills, which can end up being quite irrelevant for us! If the stills vs video performance ends up being waaaaaaay off...

Yes it isn't a big difference but then it IS a difference in FAVOUR of the A7s and not the A7Rii.

The DXO scores are also not just for stills but for RAW stills only too.

That said, I have seen posts around the internet that the A7s advantage for video is much greater than for stills (in terms of low light) though personally I think it is for both at least for my uses and of course Sony artificially limits the A7Rii to a max ISO 25600for video (if they hadn't, I may well have got an A7Rii replacing my A7s) though I am very happy with the A7s still.

I found it very interesting looking at DXO ranks just for DR and ISO (Landscape and sports)

EG the Nikon D810 scores 1 and 18, the Pentax K1 gets 2 and 4, the APSC Nikon D7200 is 3 and 55, my precious (A7s) is 57 and 1.

For M43 cameras, the GH5 is 73 and 142 and the EM-1 ii is 79 and 60 (both of which are still quite good.

The choices we have today are amazing.

[Mattias Burling]

8 hours ago, IronFilm said:

Is this a "2016 APS-C" a Canon DSLR? ;-) 

Nope, dont own any Canon cameras. Nor DSLRs

[tugela]

9 hours ago, IronFilm said:

Seriously?? Do you not understand how a focal reducer works?

 

Do you? Apparently not.

[Timotheus]

Insightful: "Complete Guide To Image Sensor Pixel Size" (note: this piece is photography oriented, for noise performance in video more/other factors are also at play).

https://www.ephotozine.com/article/complete-guide-to-image-sensor-pixel-size-29652#APS-C-Sensor