For Joe and Bob, et al. Equivalence again

Started 11 months ago | Discussions thread
ForumParentFirstPreviousNextNext unread
Flat view
rubank
Contributing MemberPosts: 614Gear list
Like?
For Joe and Bob, et al. Equivalence again
11 months ago

One thing that puzzles me about the "equivalence theory" - often sited and linked to - is the statement that ISO 3200 on mFT equals ISO 12800 on FF (ceteris paribus) from a recently blocked thread.

However, in my own testing with my D800 in FX and DX mode respectively I have found that the higher comparative ISO in FX mode gives more highlight clipping than does the "equal" lower ISO setting in DX mode.

My testings haven´t been very elaborate, since I can´t set ISO values at 1.5x the chosen ISO in DX mode, but the tendency - if approximate - is quite clear.
E.g. comparing ISO 3200 on DX to ISO 5000 FF (should be ISO 4800, which can´t be set) shows this beyond doubt.

So, in this case there is no "equivalence".
With the exception of blown highlights I have no issue with equivalence as described in Joe´s blog. For now.

I welcome comments, explanations and all relevant input

EDIT!!

I just realised that my testing is erroneus. It should be 1 stop advantage to FX vs DX, not the 1/2 stop I tried.
But that makes things even worse, from a blown highlight perspective....

ForumParentFirstPreviousNextNext unread
Flat view
Post (hide subjects)Posted by
ForumParentFirstPreviousNextNext unread
Keyboard shortcuts:
FForum PPrevious NNext WNext unread UUpvote SSubscribe RReply QQuote BBookmark post MMy threads
Color scheme? Blue / Yellow