SURVEY - Do FT / mFT users know the difference from "full frame"? Replies wanted!!

Started Apr 26, 2013 | Discussions
Jeff Tokayer
Veteran MemberPosts: 5,904
Like?
Re: OT, backups ..... Jeff......
In reply to Guy Parsons, Apr 27, 2013

Guy Parsons wrote:

Jeff Tokayer wrote:

I only have 2 1TB drives. I can imagine the pain of backing up 3 3TB drives.

Heh heh, eventually I will have 4 x 3TB or maybe more.... that should last for a year or two.

I decided to make the NAS my main drive, so I don't have to go trough backups again. Using Raid 1, gives me one safe backup.

Using WiFi mostly in the house so the NAS is too slow to use as a working drive, so I treat it purely as a monster backup device or a file swap device between computers (not all necessarily turned on at any one time) instead of using Dropbox which would slurp up monthly quota.

Each computer has a USB drive attached for a local backup every 30 mins and when the NAS is on (often is off) then the "final" backups happen at again 30 minute intervals. I use SyncBack set to backup at that 30 min interval to whatever device is on or plugged in.

Long winded process these days, I take RAW+jpeg and download all that to my notebook, then Silkypix the RAWs and pass the jpegs (via NAS mostly) to Lyn where she culls and adds in her photos to a monster day dated folder set for the cameras, then adds some naming to the dated folders to make things easier to find, then that all gets backed up to now it must be to 6 or so places. When we leave the house we usually take one of the USB drives that has everything on it (about 750 gig for the house in total files capacity and growing).

Wow, what a job. Don't tell me you have one of those fire proof safe boxes on the sidewalk, where you store a backup. I remember in the 70's the company I was working for, had a safe outside the building, to protect a "5 Meg" backup of the company's data.

As for Sylkypix, do you use the full version? or the Panasonic SE version. How do you like it? How would you compare it to Viewer?

She has thousands of hours of research in her family tree stuff so that must be safe, more so than all our images.

The NAS of course is the ultimate store so for extended time away we would move that little box to somewhere safe.

Yes, about WiFi speed, I never used to worry much but prompted by you I did dig out the cable from behind the TV and the what was maybe another 7 or so hours estimated for WiFi backup dropped to 1.5 hours for cable. So I won't rip out the cabling just yet from the house.

Regards...... Guy

Cable is still the way to go. I wired my house with CAT-6 wiring. To access the internet, all my devices are on wifi, but for transferring data between devices, gigabit is the way to go.

-- hide signature --

My nickel, since the penny is being discontinued...
Jeff.

Reply   Reply with quote   Complain
Bluephotons
Senior MemberPosts: 2,581Gear list
Like?
Re: Spitfire
In reply to talico, Apr 27, 2013

LOL! My brother used to date the pretty ones and I have to deal with the ugly little sister or cousin chaperon,  at one point I stop double dating with him, until my father finally bought me a second hand Datsun, then I was free.

-- hide signature --

Bluephotons
Ah, but I was so much older then, I'm younger than that now. Bob Dylan

 Bluephotons's gear list:Bluephotons's gear list
Olympus OM-D E-M5
Reply   Reply with quote   Complain
Great Bustard
Forum ProPosts: 22,372
Like?
Re: "Courage"?
In reply to Ergo607, Apr 27, 2013

Ergo607 wrote:

Great Bustard wrote:

Ergo607 wrote:

Lay it to rest. There is no way you can win this dissuasion, and frankly I don't come to this forum to read about this silly discussions.

And yet, you're the first to reply.

Sue me.

Whatcha got? 

If you want my short answer: I knew about the strengths (!) and weaknesses of the MFT format.

Excellent.

Txs.

A pleasure.

If you want the long answer: I am a salesperson, and by definition 90% of the people don't have a clue what they are buying into.

Did you mean to say "my experience is" instead of "by definition"?

I don't see what's your point, but not being a native English speaker, let me say what I meant, which is that a lot of people believe (or want to believe) that they know what they are buying, when in fact they don't...

Ah, OK -- sure.  Didn't know you were not a native English speaker, which, of course, is something of a complement, no?

More so if they are C*n*n or N$k$n users. Because it takes courage to buy into a system that is less popular, you will find more informed people in the FT/MFT world.

Hmm, so I guess it takes "courage" to buy a Suzuki over a Honda or Nissan, for example?

If Suzuki is less popular than honda or Nissan, then exactly. You wouldn't believe how many people buy into mass market because they feel more comfortable with it.

Maybe it's a language thing, then -- I sure wouldn't call that "courage".

That said: there is no such thing as full frame, because by the very definition of it, there is no lens that I know of that uses the whole frame of the sensor (quite rightly so, because it would have severe vignetting.)

Funny you say "because by the very definition of it":

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Full-frame_digital_SLR

A full-frame digital SLR is a digital single-lens reflex camera (DSLR) fitted with an image sensor that is the same size as a 35 mm (36×24 mm) film frame

That definition is plain wrong, and someone should rewrite it, and you know it.

Really?  'Cause I didn't find the "correct" definition when I googled it:

http://www.google.com/search?sourceid=navclient&ie=UTF-8&rlz=1T4GGHP_enUS444US444&q=full+frame

Probably the least informed people buy 135mm format anyway, because they have the money, don't know what the are buying, but because they can and because they want to show off they buy a 135mm format camera.

So it's the "least informed" that buy Ferrari and Lamborghini?

Quite rightly so.

Huh.  I hope it's a language thing, again.

Sth like most people who buy an iPhone: they don't know sh*t what it can do, but they buy it to stand out in the crowd...

But those who buy, say, an S3, know all about it?

I think that people who buy and use a Fuji S3 (I had that camera, loved it) know a lot about good gear...

I meant the Samsung S3 phone, but, well... 

All I wanted to say is that the discussion between 135 format and smaller formats is fairly clinical and still only exists because people want to defend what they bought even if (I say that from my 'experience' as a salesperson) that was overkill for them.

Thing is, though, people say things like "FF is overkill", which I don't disagree with, but you rarely, if ever, hear people saying things like "the 75 / 1.8 is overkill" or "the 35-100 / 2.8 is overkill".  I mean, where is the line between "killed just right" and "overkill"?

I see it like this (also speaking from my experience as a sales person): a lot of people (and I let others decide how many that would be) buy gear because they want to show of; others follow because they want to belong to the crowd. Taking your example of Lamborghini/Ferrari, if you think about it objectively no one in his right mind would buy a car of those: they are far from comfortable, there is no room for luggage, you can't take more than one person with you, the things burn gasoline like hell and you cannot enter a garage park, because they sit too close to the ground. As for speed: where exactly can you run these cars at full throttle? And how much exactly do you have to pay for these privileges? You don't have to agree with me, but every time I see sth like that I can't help but think that the person behind the wheel has something serious to compensate for...

So, can we assume the same for someone who has a 75 / 1.8?

I don't think the same way about 135mm format because in the hands of an experienced person it will deliver some astonishing results. But you will agree with me that is not the majority of 135mm format users, and you will also agree that it also comes with its compromises.

It's long been my opinion that, in terms of IQ, even a good compact is "good enough" for the vast majority in the vast majority of shooting conditions.  Indeed, even a cell phone is overkill for many.

And to conclude: yes, MFT comes also with its compromises; we know them. Sure enough we know them, because if we don't there will always be some sort of 135mm format user which just has to pay us attention to our compromises. These kind of people I would categorize as the Ferrari riders described here above...

All you have to say is that mFT satisfies your needs, is smaller, lighter, and less expensive than a FF kit, and that you are happy that they are such talented photographers that only FF will do for them.

Reply   Reply with quote   Complain
dinoSnake
Contributing MemberPosts: 924
Like?
Re: SURVEY - Do FT / mFT users know the difference from "full frame"? Replies wanted!!
In reply to JoeNapa, Apr 27, 2013

I had no idea there were any trade offs. I thought my EM-5 was a perfect camera. Count me with the ignoramuses.

Indeed!

The largest number of replies have been truly thought provoking in sincerity and eloquence. Loved reading other people's thoughts, the photos are excellent, and the ernrst replies gives me much to think about!.

Thank you to all!

Reply   Reply with quote   Complain
Great Bustard
Forum ProPosts: 22,372
Like?
The evidence indicates otherwise.
In reply to boggis the cat, Apr 27, 2013

boggis the cat wrote:

If you are arguing about 'equivalence' with Joe the "Great Bustard", then simply ask him why, after he started to sufficiently explain what he meant, nobody took issue with what he was saying.

Please link to an example where I failed to "sufficiently explain" what I meant.

The problem is not that most people are ignorant fools, the problem is that some people tend to make simple things convoluted and indecipherable (then resist fiercely when you try to get them to explain what they are on about in comprehensible terms).

Funny you say it, 'cause I can link and quote quite a few examples of the exact opposite.  In fact, this just about sums it up (Crocodile Gena was one of my former IDs, in case you didn't know):

http://www.dpreview.com/forums/post/34732328

Reply   Reply with quote   Complain
MrScorpio
Senior MemberPosts: 1,351Gear list
Like?
Yes! Thats why I have also a 6D. n/t
In reply to dinoSnake, Apr 27, 2013
-- hide signature --
 MrScorpio's gear list:MrScorpio's gear list
Canon PowerShot S100 Olympus OM-D E-M5 Canon EOS 5D Mark III Canon EOS 6D Canon EF 35mm f/2.0 +20 more
Reply   Reply with quote   Complain
JosephScha
Veteran MemberPosts: 4,210Gear list
Like?
Re: SURVEY - Do FT / mFT users know the difference from "full frame"? Replies wanted!!
In reply to ultimitsu, Apr 27, 2013

ultimitsu wrote:

Buddy, you are the very type of people digimatt was referring to -  you have no clue.

That is not helpful, and borders on offensive.  I politely asked for an answer to fill me in on why thinking about light per sensor element is not good, and total light on the sensor is more useful.

What I don't get is why you and many others care about total light instead of light per unit area.

See? You have no clue.

Yes, I admitted that.  I also see that you are not giving me a clue.

FF cameras have larger sensor sights, I claim THAT is why they have better dynamic range: because they get more light per sensor element.

Which of the following camera has more DR?

36mp D800 or 16mp D4?

16mp D7000 or 12mp D300s?

24mp D600 or 12mp D3s?

16mp OMD or 12mp GF3?

I have not done the research to answer these questions.  Since you're asking, I'll guess that the 16MP D7000 (from 2010) has more dynamic range than the 12MP D300s (from 2009).  However, since the D300s has a crop factor of about 1.6 it actually does have smaller sensor sites than a full frame 16MP sensor, and it's from a year before the D7000, so that example does not prove your point.

But what REALLY bothers me about saying f/2.8 on mFT is "equivalent" to f/5.6 on FF is that is misleads too many people who somehow think this talks about exposure.

It is about exposure, and it is not misleading.

I think the more important point is that at the same ISO,

It appears that you do not understand what ISO is all about.

I used to when I bought film.  In fact, I used to when it was ASA here (before ISO).

and the same shutter speed, f/2.8 on mFT gives the same exposure as f/2.8 on any other sized sensor.

It appears you do not understand what exposure is all about either.

Wow, you made it to the end only telling me what I don't know and not contributing at all to what I do know.  Amazing.

Since you claim that I don't know what exposure is all about, are you really saying that a normal 50mm lens on full frame and an equivalent coverage 25mm lens on 4/3 sensor would require different f stops with the cameras set to the same ISO?  If so, please try to prove it. I will enjoy that.

-- hide signature --

js

 JosephScha's gear list:JosephScha's gear list
Panasonic Lumix DMC-G10 Panasonic Lumix G Vario 45-200mm F4-5.6 OIS Panasonic Leica Summilux DG 25mm F1.4 +4 more
Reply   Reply with quote   Complain
boggis the cat
Veteran MemberPosts: 6,284Gear list
Like?
On evidence
In reply to Great Bustard, Apr 27, 2013

Great Bustard wrote:

boggis the cat wrote:

If you are arguing about 'equivalence' with Joe the "Great Bustard", then simply ask him why, after he started to sufficiently explain what he meant, nobody took issue with what he was saying.

Please link to an example where I failed to "sufficiently explain" what I meant.

I just replied to your previous post, but it disappeared when the moderator pulled your post.

Here is part of it (most of it was lost), regarding clear explanation:

Funny you say that, 'cause when I say it much more simply:

Equivalent photos have the same perpective [sic], framing, and DOF, which will result in the same total amount of light falling on the sensor, which will result in the same noise for equally efficient sensors.

Compare that to DPR's explanation:
Sigma's choice of F1.8 as maximum aperture isn't a coincidence; it means that the lens will offer the same control over depth of field as an F2.8 zoom does on full frame. What's more, it will also offer effectively the same light-gathering capability as an F2.8 lens on full frame. By this we mean that it will be able to project an image that's just over twice as bright onto a sensor that's slightly less than half the area, meaning the same total amount of light is used to capture the image. This is important as it's a major determinant of image quality. Essentially it means that APS-C shooters will be able to use lower ISOs when shooting wide open in low light and get similar levels of image noise, substantially negating one of the key advantages of switching to full frame.
DPR are setting out both the 'theory' (the ratios involved) and the practical effects.
Your short-form 'simple' snippet is likely to confuse people over what you are trying to say.  You talk about "perspective", "framing", and "DOF" when your subject is total light.  It makes far more sense to talk about total light in terms of exposure, and point out that the same exposure on a 135 sensor compared to a FourThirds sensor captures four times the light -- then go onto explain why that is a useful thing (e.g. in terms of noise reduction).

The problem is not that most people are ignorant fools, the problem is that some people tend to make simple things convoluted and indecipherable (then resist fiercely when you try to get them to explain what they are on about in comprehensible terms).

Funny you say it, 'cause I can link and quote quite a few examples of the exact opposite.  In fact, this just about sums it up (Crocodile Gena was one of my former IDs, in case you didn't know):

http://www.dpreview.com/forums/post/34732328

You have a huge number of former IDs, Joe.  That should tell you a lot about how effective your 'teaching style' is.

I did notice that when you relented and started using a complete explanation for what you mean by 'equivalence' there were suddenly no arguments in the offing.  People are not stupid, and they will acknowledge facts quite readily when they are clearly explained.  Ratios are not in dispute, nor is the advantage that a larger sensor can yield.  Creating a dispute takes either incompetent exposition or deliberate intent.  (Or both, I suppose.)

The OP here is testing your claim that, for some reason, users of small sensor systems are ignorant of the advantages of larger sensors.  I suggest that you let him gather his evidence then you can debate him with your evidence to the contrary.

 boggis the cat's gear list:boggis the cat's gear list
Olympus E-5 Olympus E-M1 Olympus Zuiko Digital ED 12-60mm 1:2.8-4.0 SWD Olympus Zuiko Digital ED 50-200mm 1:2.8-3.5 SWD Olympus 12-40mm F2.8 +10 more
Reply   Reply with quote   Complain
Great Bustard
Forum ProPosts: 22,372
Like?
Re: On evidence
In reply to boggis the cat, Apr 27, 2013

boggis the cat wrote:

Great Bustard wrote:

boggis the cat wrote:

If you are arguing about 'equivalence' with Joe the "Great Bustard", then simply ask him why, after he started to sufficiently explain what he meant, nobody took issue with what he was saying.

Please link to an example where I failed to "sufficiently explain" what I meant.

I just replied to your previous post, but it disappeared when the moderator pulled your post.

Disappointing, isn't it?

Here is part of it (most of it was lost), regarding clear explanation:

Funny you say that, 'cause when I say it much more simply:

Equivalent photos have the same perpective [sic], framing, and DOF, which will result in the same total amount of light falling on the sensor, which will result in the same noise for equally efficient sensors.

Compare that to DPR's explanation:
Sigma's choice of F1.8 as maximum aperture isn't a coincidence; it means that the lens will offer the same control over depth of field as an F2.8 zoom does on full frame. What's more, it will also offer effectively the same light-gathering capability as an F2.8 lens on full frame. By this we mean that it will be able to project an image that's just over twice as bright onto a sensor that's slightly less than half the area, meaning the same total amount of light is used to capture the image. This is important as it's a major determinant of image quality. Essentially it means that APS-C shooters will be able to use lower ISOs when shooting wide open in low light and get similar levels of image noise, substantially negating one of the key advantages of switching to full frame.

Did you, or did you not, say that my explanations were too long and incomprehensible?  Seems my explanation above is even shorter than DPR's (not that I am complaining against DPR's excellent wording).

The problem is not that most people are ignorant fools, the problem is that some people tend to make simple things convoluted and indecipherable (then resist fiercely when you try to get them to explain what they are on about in comprehensible terms).

Funny you say it, 'cause I can link and quote quite a few examples of the exact opposite.  In fact, this just about sums it up (Crocodile Gena was one of my former IDs, in case you didn't know):

http://www.dpreview.com/forums/post/34732328

You have a huge number of former IDs, Joe.  That should tell you a lot about how effective your 'teaching style' is.

I was hoping you would bring that up.  One of my former ID's, "g r e e n p e a" was permanently banned after responding to this post of yours:

http://www.dpreview.com/forums/post/35689971

The entire content of the reply to that post of yours was:

Not just DOF, boggis, but the total amount of light projected on the sensor, which will result in the same noise for equally efficient sensors.

Funny how I was permanently banned for posting that, don't you think?  'Course, that was back in the day when Phil Askey was running the show, and, well, he had problems with not only Equivalence, but understanding pixel density as well.

I wonder who filed the complaint on that post, anyway?  Any ideas?  Could have been anyone, I suppose.  More to the point is why that post got me a permanent ban.  I wonder if it's just coincidence that my permanent bans stopped after Phil Askey stepped down.  What do you think?

I did notice that when you relented and started using a complete explanation for what you mean by 'equivalence' there were suddenly no arguments in the offing.

What you say, and what happened, are two different things, boggis.  Unless you can link and quote an example, I'll just have to say it's another example of someone intentionally misrepresenting me.

People are not stupid, and they will acknowledge facts quite readily when they are clearly explained.

Boggis, in the deleted posts, I linked you acting exactly opposite that.  Would you like me to link it again?

Ratios are not in dispute, nor is the advantage that a larger sensor can yield.  Creating a dispute takes either incompetent exposition or deliberate intent.  (Or both, I suppose.)

Link and quote where I created a dispute.  Again, in the deleted posts, I was able to link and quote where it was you, not I, who was doing exactly that.  Again, please ask if you need the link.

The OP here is testing your claim that, for some reason, users of small sensor systems are ignorant of the advantages of larger sensors.  I suggest that you let him gather his evidence then you can debate him with your evidence to the contrary.

Honestly, I have no special knowledge of what mFT users know or don't know.  But I do know what I've said, and I do know what you've said.  And let's just say that the evidence clearly supports my side.

However, if you disagree, please, post a link and quote of me making Equivalence "too complicated" or "unclear".

Reply   Reply with quote   Complain
Guy Parsons
Forum ProPosts: 18,275Gear list
Like?
Re: OT, backups ..... Jeff......
In reply to Jeff Tokayer, Apr 27, 2013

Jeff Tokayer wrote:

Wow, what a job. Don't tell me you have one of those fire proof safe boxes on the sidewalk, where you store a backup. I remember in the 70's the company I was working for, had a safe outside the building, to protect a "5 Meg" backup of the company's data.

As much as 5 megs? Those were the days.

No safe here, just move stuff around when I think there's a risk.

My last employer before I retired early about 25 years ago was DEC and a really big VAX computer had 16 megs of memory, the base model was 4 megs. Used to work OK with maybe a hundred dumb terminals connected. Now we can't survive with less than 8 gigs of memory in a notebook it seems and endless storage Terabytes.

As for Sylkypix, do you use the full version? or the Panasonic SE version. How do you like it? How would you compare it to Viewer?

Full V5 Pro version, been using since V2 came in English and updated along the way. That's a great thing about Silkypix, endless updates as they promptly add new cameras and the latest was an update to better handle those peculiar Fuji sensors I think it was. They just keep coming. And a long time between major version updates that need more Yen.

Meanwhile I did buy Corel AfterShot Pro when it was $29.99 and I think it's even a bit better than Silkypix at default settings, extremely fast to develop RAWs but sadly the slothful Corel has not yet added the E-PL5 to the list, boo hiss!

Over the years Silkypix has been cheaper to own than any Adobe product and in my trials works better than Lightroom except for the fact it not quite as good as Lightroom for recovering extreme highlights, that makes me expose more sensibly.

The default settings provide a slightly better looking jpeg than the camera or Viewer 2/3 can provide. Just nicer colours, better looking skin tones, but it is close. With a bit of tinkering then it is definitely better than Viewer.

Cable is still the way to go. I wired my house with CAT-6 wiring. To access the internet, all my devices are on wifi, but for transferring data between devices, gigabit is the way to go.

Cat-5 here for the few cables run, fast enough for anything large I do. WiFi mostly though for everyday tinkering on the 'net. Now my monster 250 gig initial whole partition backup is done then it reverts to those little 30 minute updates so is easier to manage and WiFi will handle that OK.

Regards........ Guy

 Guy Parsons's gear list:Guy Parsons's gear list
Olympus PEN E-PL5 Panasonic Lumix G Vario 45-150mm F4-5.6 ASPH Mega OIS Olympus 12-40mm F2.8 Panasonic Lumix DMC-LX3 Casio Exilim EX-ZR1000 +16 more
Reply   Reply with quote   Complain
JosephScha
Veteran MemberPosts: 4,210Gear list
Like?
OK, I've read Great Bustard's "Equivalence FAQ"
In reply to dinoSnake, Apr 27, 2013

Its URL was given in a previous post in this thread.  (It was posted on the Olympus forum, under a previous user name for the same person)

I am now enlightened.

As he clearly defines it, "Equivalent images are simply images which have the same perspective, framing, DOF, shutter speed and display dimensions."  and "Fully equivalent images will be made from the same total amount of light.  ... the noise will be the same for equivalent images, but not for the same exposure."

So, that is clear.  Now, it is up to each of us to decide whether this is worth our time to think about.  Clearly, I was thinking about  50mm lens on FF and 25mm lens on 4/3 to span the same angle, but that is not what he's aiming at.  I was aiming at having equally bright images - I would say equal exposures, but then we'd have to argue about that - which would require the same f stop at the same shutter speed and ISO.  The images would have different noise.

So, now that I understand that equivalent images on same efficiency sensors will have the same noise but not the same exposure, it's clear that I was not talking about the same thing at all.

I am very sure that whatever you call the concept I'm thinking of it is useful to me.  I'll work on understanding how equivalence as defined in the FAQ is useful to me.

-- hide signature --

js

 JosephScha's gear list:JosephScha's gear list
Panasonic Lumix DMC-G10 Panasonic Lumix G Vario 45-200mm F4-5.6 OIS Panasonic Leica Summilux DG 25mm F1.4 +4 more
Reply   Reply with quote   Complain
ultimitsu
Veteran MemberPosts: 5,437
Like?
Re: SURVEY - Do FT / mFT users know the difference from "full frame"? Replies wanted!!
In reply to JosephScha, Apr 27, 2013

JosephScha wrote:

ultimitsu wrote:

Buddy, you are the very type of people digimatt was referring to -  you have no clue.

That is not helpful, and borders on offensive.

You are right, that was somewhat uncalled for. My grip with you was that you held out to be an expert yet you have some quite significant misunderstanding of the matters in hand. I also  replied to you in another thread where you claimed m43's AF is as good as FFDSLR. In anycase i apologise for being harsh.

Which of the following camera has more DR?

36mp D800 or 16mp D4?

16mp D7000 or 12mp D300s?

24mp D600 or 12mp D3s?

16mp OMD or 12mp GF3?

I have not done the research to answer these questions.  Since you're asking, I'll guess that the 16MP D7000 (from 2010) has more dynamic range than the 12MP D300s (from 2009).  However, since the D300s has a crop factor of about 1.6 it actually does have smaller sensor sites than a full frame 16MP sensor, and it's from a year before the D7000, so that example does not prove your point.

In each case above two cameras have the same sized sensor (for example both D300s and D7000 have x1.5 APS-C sensor); in each the camera with higher MP has more DR.

That does not however mean higher MP always result in more DR, I was simply showing you that "less mp / bigger pixel means more DR" is fallacious.

I used to when I bought film.  In fact, I used to when it was ASA here (before ISO).

The definition of ISO has never changed, ISO is somewhat misunderstand in the age of digital photography. You should read this article for a comprehensive explanation:

http://www.dpreview.com/articles/8148042898/exposure-vs-brightening

Since you claim that I don't know what exposure is all about, are you really saying that a normal 50mm lens on full frame and an equivalent coverage 25mm lens on 4/3 sensor would require different f stops with the cameras set to the same ISO?  If so, please try to prove it. I will enjoy that.

The answer to this question require a better understanding of what "ISO" is, I suggest you read that article I linked above and then we can continue this discussion.

Reply   Reply with quote   Complain
AllMankind
Contributing MemberPosts: 564
Like?
And people over exaggerate the weight of FF (nt)
In reply to Bluephotons, Apr 27, 2013
No text.
Reply   Reply with quote   Complain
Great Bustard
Forum ProPosts: 22,372
Like?
Re: OK, I've read Great Bustard's "Equivalence FAQ"
In reply to JosephScha, Apr 27, 2013

JosephScha wrote:

Its URL was given in a previous post in this thread.  (It was posted on the Olympus forum, under a previous user name for the same person)

I am now enlightened.

As he clearly defines it, "Equivalent images are simply images which have the same perspective, framing, DOF, shutter speed and display dimensions."

Yep:

http://www.josephjamesphotography.com/equivalence/index.htm#equivalence

and "Fully equivalent images will be made from the same total amount of light.  ... the noise will be the same for equivalent images...

For equally efficient sensors.

...but not for the same exposure."

Correct, where the exposure is the density of the light falling on the sensor as opposed to the total amount of light falling on the sensor:

http://www.josephjamesphotography.com/equivalence/index.htm#exposure

So, that is clear.  Now, it is up to each of us to decide whether this is worth our time to think about.

Equivalence is only relevant if you are comparing different formats.  If you are working within a format, there's no reason to invoke Equivalence.

Clearly, I was thinking about 50mm lens on FF and 25mm lens on 4/3 to span the same angle, but that is not what he's aiming at.

But it is part of it.

I was aiming at having equally bright images - I would say equal exposures, but then we'd have to argue about that - which would require the same f stop at the same shutter speed and ISO.

See gollywop's outstanding article on this point:

http://www.dpreview.com/articles/8148042898/exposure-vs-brightening

The images would have different noise.

And different DOF.

So, now that I understand that equivalent images on same efficiency sensors will have the same noise but not the same exposure...

Yes.

...it's clear that I was not talking about the same thing at all.

I am very sure that whatever you call the concept I'm thinking of it is useful to me.  I'll work on understanding how equivalence as defined in the FAQ is useful to me.

This post in the mFT forum, which is a more up-to-date version of the Equivalence FAQ you read, was received well:

http://www.dpreview.com/forums/post/51203390

Reply   Reply with quote   Complain
JosephScha
Veteran MemberPosts: 4,210Gear list
Like?
Re: SURVEY - Do FT / mFT users know the difference from "full frame"? Replies wanted!!
In reply to ultimitsu, Apr 27, 2013

Thank you for a much more useful answer.  I read the article on ISO and I understand it.  I don't think I disagreed with it ever but I was not using the terminology it suggests.  I will from now on.  So, exposure is what happens at the sensor, in-camera ISO or brightness as adjusted in a raw converter is called brightening. Good term.  Intuitive.  Let me say in my defense that as the article points out even much of the literature (and in fact the slider in Adobe Camera Raw that affects brightening) still uses the word "Exposure" where it should be "Brightening" (or perhaps for ACR's slider it could be "ISO adjust").

I've also read the "FAQ" on Equivalence that Great Bustard posted on the Oly forum under a previous user name.   I understand now that this has nothing to do with equivalent brightness but it does have to do with equivalent exposure (light on the sensor).

I am not yet sure that "Equivalence" as defined in the faq is worth my effort to consider, but I do understand what it is - he spells it out clearly.  I'll read the FAQ again in the morning.

BTW: Even that article on ISO spoke about light intensity (light per unit area) on the sensor. Made good sense to me.  Talking about total light on different sized sensors ...  again, I'll have to reread the FAQ in the morning.

-- hide signature --

js

 JosephScha's gear list:JosephScha's gear list
Panasonic Lumix DMC-G10 Panasonic Lumix G Vario 45-200mm F4-5.6 OIS Panasonic Leica Summilux DG 25mm F1.4 +4 more
Reply   Reply with quote   Complain
Great Bustard
Forum ProPosts: 22,372
Like?
Re: SURVEY - Do FT / mFT users know the difference from "full frame"? Replies wanted!!
In reply to JosephScha, Apr 27, 2013

JosephScha wrote:

Thank you for a much more useful answer.  I read the article on ISO and I understand it.  I don't think I disagreed with it ever but I was not using the terminology it suggests.  I will from now on.  So, exposure is what happens at the sensor, in-camera ISO or brightness as adjusted in a raw converter is called brightening. Good term.  Intuitive.  Let me say in my defense that as the article points out even much of the literature (and in fact the slider in Adobe Camera Raw that affects brightening) still uses the word "Exposure" where it should be "Brightening" (or perhaps for ACR's slider it could be "ISO adjust").

I've also read the "FAQ" on Equivalence that Great Bustard posted on the Oly forum under a previous user name.   I understand now that this has nothing to do with equivalent brightness but it does have to do with equivalent exposure (light on the sensor).

Here's a good summary of Equivalance:

http://www.josephjamesphotography.com/equivalence/index.htm#introduction

A 50mm f/1.4 lens is a 50mm f/1.4 lens regardless of the sensor that sits behind it.  However, the effect of 50mm f/1.4, in terms of the visual properties of the recorded photo, depend very much on the sensor that sits behind the lens:

25mm f/1.4 on mFT (4/3) is equivalent to 31mm f/1.8 on 1.6x (Canon APS-C), 33mm f/1.9 on 1.5x (APS-C for everyone else), and 50mm f/2.8 on FF (FX), where "equivalent to" means:

  • The photos all have the same AOV (diagonal angle of view) and aperture (entrance pupil) diameter: 25mm / 1.4 = 31mm / 1.8 = 33mm / 1.9 = 50mm / 2.8 = 18mm.

  • The photos all have the same DOF (as well as diffraction softening) when they have same perspective (subject-camera distance), AOV, aperture diameter, and display size.

  • The photos all have the same motion blur and the same total amount of light falls on the sensor when the aperture diameter and shutter speed are the same. which means the larger the sensor, the lower the exposure (same total light over a larger area) and thus a higher ISO setting for a given brightness).

  • The photos all have the same same noise when the same total amount of light falls on the sensor if the sensors are equally efficient (less noise if the sensor is more efficient, more noise if the sensor is less efficient).

  • Other elements of IQ, such as resolution, bokeh, flare resistance, etc., as well as elements of operation, such as AF speed/accuracy, size, weight, etc., are not covered in this use of the term "equivalent".

Note the fourth bullet where total light, exposure, brightness, and ISO are discussed.

I am not yet sure that "Equivalence" as defined in the faq is worth my effort to consider, but I do understand what it is - he spells it out clearly.  I'll read the FAQ again in the morning.

I recommend the full monty:

http://www.josephjamesphotography.com/equivalence/index.htm

or, at least, this post in this forum:

http://www.dpreview.com/forums/post/51203390

BTW: Even that article on ISO spoke about light intensity (light per unit area) on the sensor.

Yes -- that's what exposure is.

Made good sense to me.  Talking about total light on different sized sensors ...

Total Light = Exposure x Sensor Area.  Kinda intuitive, once you understand that the exposure is the density of the light falling on the sensor.

again, I'll have to reread the FAQ in the morning.

Enjoy!  But keep in mind that Equivalence is mainly useful for comparing different formats, although there's plenty of other "good stuff" in the essay.

Reply   Reply with quote   Complain
boggis the cat
Veteran MemberPosts: 6,284Gear list
Like?
Re: On evidence
In reply to Great Bustard, Apr 27, 2013

Great Bustard wrote:

boggis the cat wrote:

Great Bustard wrote:

boggis the cat wrote:

If you are arguing about 'equivalence' with Joe the "Great Bustard", then simply ask him why, after he started to sufficiently explain what he meant, nobody took issue with what he was saying.

Please link to an example where I failed to "sufficiently explain" what I meant.

I just replied to your previous post, but it disappeared when the moderator pulled your post.

Disappointing, isn't it?

It was up for a long while, so I assumed that the moderators must have been "OK" with it.

While it is annoying to have time wasted, overall it is better to have moderation (even if it is somewhat tardy).

Here is part of it (most of it was lost), regarding clear explanation:

Funny you say that, 'cause when I say it much more simply:

Equivalent photos have the same perpective [sic], framing, and DOF, which will result in the same total amount of light falling on the sensor, which will result in the same noise for equally efficient sensors.

Compare that to DPR's explanation:
Sigma's choice of F1.8 as maximum aperture isn't a coincidence; it means that the lens will offer the same control over depth of field as an F2.8 zoom does on full frame. What's more, it will also offer effectively the same light-gathering capability as an F2.8 lens on full frame. By this we mean that it will be able to project an image that's just over twice as bright onto a sensor that's slightly less than half the area, meaning the same total amount of light is used to capture the image. This is important as it's a major determinant of image quality. Essentially it means that APS-C shooters will be able to use lower ISOs when shooting wide open in low light and get similar levels of image noise, substantially negating one of the key advantages of switching to full frame.

Did you, or did you not, say that my explanations were too long and incomprehensible?

An earlier bit from my response to the 'disappeared' post:

Compare the careful and clear wording that DPR used to explain what they meant with respect to the utility of the fast Sigma lens on APS-C with your rambling and incoherent website.  A lot of the time 'less is more'; but you seem to think that it has to be either a confusing statement with no context or unnecessary complexity and excessive exposition.

Seems my explanation above is even shorter than DPR's (not that I am complaining against DPR's excellent wording).

Well, read what I said in the previous post:

DPR are setting out both the 'theory' (the ratios involved) and the practical effects.

Your short-form 'simple' snippet is likely to confuse people over what you are trying to say.  You talk about "perspective", "framing", and "DOF" when your subject is total light.  It makes far more sense to talk about total light in terms of exposure, and point out that the same exposure on a 135 sensor compared to a FourThirds sensor captures four times the light -- then go onto explain why that is a useful thing (e.g. in terms of noise reduction).

You don't have to choose between 'concise but difficult to comprehend' or 'rambling and confusing' -- or a confusing statement with no context or unnecessary complexity and excessive exposition, if you prefer.  DPR's attempt at explaining the utility of a faster lens on a smaller sensor system is much easier to understand than your attempts at the same principle.  You seem to be (back-handedly) acknowledging that fact.

You have a huge number of former IDs, Joe.  That should tell you a lot about how effective your 'teaching style' is.

I was hoping you would bring that up.  One of my former ID's, "g r e e n p e a" was permanently banned after responding to this post of yours:

http://www.dpreview.com/forums/post/35689971

The entire content of the reply to that post of yours was:

Not just DOF, boggis, but the total amount of light projected on the sensor, which will result in the same noise for equally efficient sensors.

Funny how I was permanently banned for posting that, don't you think?  'Course, that was back in the day when Phil Askey was running the show, and, well, he had problems with not only Equivalence, but understanding pixel density as well.

You were more likely banned for immediately opening a new account after getting banned for misbehaving when using the former.

I wonder who filed the complaint on that post, anyway?  Any ideas?

Perhaps you should ask DPR, instead of making insinuations?

I have no problem with them disclosing any complaints I have filed in the past -- or future, come to that.

Could have been anyone, I suppose.  More to the point is why that post got me a permanent ban.  I wonder if it's just coincidence that my permanent bans stopped after Phil Askey stepped down.  What do you think?

You seem to be getting posts pulled down.  What does that suggest?

I did notice that when you relented and started using a complete explanation for what you mean by 'equivalence' there were suddenly no arguments in the offing.

What you say, and what happened, are two different things, boggis.  Unless you can link and quote an example, I'll just have to say it's another example of someone intentionally misrepresenting me.

If I spend the time hunting down an example you'll simply dispute it.

People are not stupid, and they will acknowledge facts quite readily when they are clearly explained.

Boggis, in the deleted posts, I linked you acting exactly opposite that.  Would you like me to link it again?

Go ahead.  I won't respond though, because it appears that the moderators must be a reincarnation of 'Phil Askey'.

(We need a 'rolls eyes' emoticon.)

Ratios are not in dispute, nor is the advantage that a larger sensor can yield.  Creating a dispute takes either incompetent exposition or deliberate intent.  (Or both, I suppose.)

Link and quote where I created a dispute.  Again, in the deleted posts, I was able to link and quote where it was you, not I, who was doing exactly that.  Again, please ask if you need the link.

Refer to above two responses.

The OP here is testing your claim that, for some reason, users of small sensor systems are ignorant of the advantages of larger sensors.  I suggest that you let him gather his evidence then you can debate him with your evidence to the contrary.

Honestly, I have no special knowledge of what mFT users know or don't know.  But I do know what I've said, and I do know what you've said.  And let's just say that the evidence clearly supports my side.

However, if you disagree, please, post a link and quote of me making Equivalence "too complicated" or "unclear".

Refer to my reinstated reply above, where I explain why your 'explanation' is both poor (for choosing secondary factors -- "perspective", "framing", "DOF"; when referring to light?) and misleading (due to those secondary factors causing the reader to focus on them, and missing the actual point: which is about the differing practical effect of exposure on different size sensors).

I understand that you disagree, but there is a good reason why 'your genius is not being recognised' -- this seems to be your actual beef.  You'd be better served working on your explanatory methods instead of attempting to start arguments.

 boggis the cat's gear list:boggis the cat's gear list
Olympus E-5 Olympus E-M1 Olympus Zuiko Digital ED 12-60mm 1:2.8-4.0 SWD Olympus Zuiko Digital ED 50-200mm 1:2.8-3.5 SWD Olympus 12-40mm F2.8 +10 more
Reply   Reply with quote   Complain
Lights
Veteran MemberPosts: 3,300Gear list
Like?
Re: Simple for me
In reply to dinoSnake, Apr 27, 2013

1. Size weight and unobtrusiveness for 'street' or people shooting, which I wanted to try.

2. The registry distance of my Canon would not allow me to use my number of good manual focus Minolta lenses (which I've added to since).

3. Having had a high end digicam, besides my other cameras, I got used to seeing a live histogram on the EVF 'before' the shot, and found it invaluable...and because the EVF indicated scene brightness gave a feel for the finished photo. Yes OVFs also have strengths that EVFs lack.

4. For my type of shooting (although I like limiting DOF occasionally - I use extended DOF more, so while realizing that that option was available on larger formats, I didn't find it limiting so much for my style of shooting).

5. For other types of shots, have other formats available, including film. ..but like the "balance" of M43.

6. Found focusing for considered shots very accurate, but not fast or able to track as well a DSLR. (I think the 'fast' part has been addressed in later models of M43 than mine)

7. With my 12mp sensor, low light shooting isn't a priority, and if it is, I've got quite a few flash units, which I find interesting in learning to use. For practical purposes the newer 16mp M43 sensors seem to be making up some of the gap, in 'real world' situations between M43 and larger formats...at least for many applications and uses.

-- hide signature --

My Gallery is here -
http://www.pbase.com/madlights
Why so serious? :The Joker

Reply   Reply with quote   Complain
Great Bustard
Forum ProPosts: 22,372
Like?
And there we have it.
In reply to boggis the cat, Apr 27, 2013

boggis the cat wrote:

Great Bustard wrote:

boggis the cat wrote:

Here is part of it (most of it was lost), regarding clear explanation:

Funny you say that, 'cause when I say it much more simply:

Equivalent photos have the same perspective, framing, and DOF, which will result in the same total amount of light falling on the sensor, which will result in the same noise for equally efficient sensors.

Compare that to DPR's explanation:
Sigma's choice of F1.8 as maximum aperture isn't a coincidence; it means that the lens will offer the same control over depth of field as an F2.8 zoom does on full frame. What's more, it will also offer effectively the same light-gathering capability as an F2.8 lens on full frame. By this we mean that it will be able to project an image that's just over twice as bright onto a sensor that's slightly less than half the area, meaning the same total amount of light is used to capture the image. This is important as it's a major determinant of image quality. Essentially it means that APS-C shooters will be able to use lower ISOs when shooting wide open in low light and get similar levels of image noise, substantially negating one of the key advantages of switching to full frame.

Did you, or did you not, say that my explanations were too long and incomprehensible?

An earlier bit from my response to the 'disappeared' post:

Compare the careful and clear wording that DPR used to explain what they meant with respect to the utility of the fast Sigma lens on APS-C with your rambling and incoherent website.

Here's what it says on my "rambling and incoherent website":

http://www.josephjamesphotography.com/equivalence/index.htm#introduction

A 50mm f/1.4 lens is a 50mm f/1.4 lens regardless of the sensor that sits behind it.  However, the effect of 50mm f/1.4, in terms of the visual properties of the recorded photo, depend very much on the sensor that sits behind the lens:

25mm f/1.4 on mFT (4/3) is equivalent to 31mm f/1.8 on 1.6x (Canon APS-C), 33mm f/1.9 on 1.5x (APS-C for everyone else), and 50mm f/2.8 on FF (FX), where "equivalent to" means:

  • The photos all have the same AOV (diagonal angle of view) and aperture (entrance pupil) diameter: 25mm / 1.4 = 31mm / 1.8 = 33mm / 1.9 = 50mm / 2.8 = 18mm.

  • The photos all have the same DOF (as well as diffraction softening) when they have same perspective (subject-camera distance), AOV, aperture diameter, and display size.

  • The photos all have the same motion blur and the same total amount of light falls on the sensor when the aperture diameter and shutter speed are the same. which means the larger the sensor, the lower the exposure (same total light over a larger area) and thus a higher ISO setting for a given brightness).

  • The photos all have the same same noise when the same total amount of light falls on the sensor if the sensors are equally efficient (less noise if the sensor is more efficient, more noise if the sensor is less efficient).

  • Other elements of IQ, such as resolution, bokeh, flare resistance, etc., as well as elements of operation, such as AF speed/accuracy, size, weight, etc., are not covered in this use of the term "equivalent".

Now we have a context for what you consider "rambling" and "incoherent".  I must say, this seems to support what I've been saying about your "perspective" all along.

You have a huge number of former IDs, Joe.  That should tell you a lot about how effective your 'teaching style' is.

I was hoping you would bring that up.  One of my former ID's, "g r e e n p e a" was permanently banned after responding to this post of yours:

http://www.dpreview.com/forums/post/35689971

The entire content of the reply to that post of yours was:

Not just DOF, boggis, but the total amount of light projected on the sensor, which will result in the same noise for equally efficient sensors.

Funny how I was permanently banned for posting that, don't you think?  'Course, that was back in the day when Phil Askey was running the show, and, well, he had problems with not only Equivalence, but understanding pixel density as well.

You were more likely banned for immediately opening a new account after getting banned for misbehaving when using the former.

Quite the coincidence that I was found out while "misbehaving" by responding to your post by explaining that Equivalence was not just about DOF, but the total amount of light projected on the sensor.

I did notice that when you relented and started using a complete explanation for what you mean by 'equivalence' there were suddenly no arguments in the offing.

What you say, and what happened, are two different things, boggis.  Unless you can link and quote an example, I'll just have to say it's another example of someone intentionally misrepresenting me.

If I spend the time hunting down an example you'll simply dispute it.

We'll never know until you post an example.  Would you like me to post one?

People are not stupid, and they will acknowledge facts quite readily when they are clearly explained.

Boggis, in the deleted posts, I linked you acting exactly opposite that.  Would you like me to link it again?

Go ahead.  I won't respond though, because it appears that the moderators must be a reincarnation of 'Phil Askey'.

Note to mods:  he did say, "Go ahead."  My, my -- so many to choose from.  Well, let's go with the same from last time.  Here's my OP:

http://www.dpreview.com/forums/post/39612858

Dynamic Range -- what it is, what it's good for, and how much you 'need'

Click on it.  It's a technical thread.  Here's your entry into that thread:

http://www.dpreview.com/forums/post/39616072

What Joe's good for, and how much we don't need him

Hmm.  What does this tell us?

Ratios are not in dispute, nor is the advantage that a larger sensor can yield.  Creating a dispute takes either incompetent exposition or deliberate intent.  (Or both, I suppose.)

Link and quote where I created a dispute.  Again, in the deleted posts, I was able to link and quote where it was you, not I, who was doing exactly that.  Again, please ask if you need the link.

Refer to above two responses.

I'll take that as a "no can do".

The OP here is testing your claim that, for some reason, users of small sensor systems are ignorant of the advantages of larger sensors.  I suggest that you let him gather his evidence then you can debate him with your evidence to the contrary.

Honestly, I have no special knowledge of what mFT users know or don't know.  But I do know what I've said, and I do know what you've said.  And let's just say that the evidence clearly supports my side.

However, if you disagree, please, post a link and quote of me making Equivalence "too complicated" or "unclear".

Refer to my reinstated reply above, where I explain why your 'explanation' is both poor (for choosing secondary factors -- "perspective", "framing", "DOF"; when referring to light?)... and misleading (due to those secondary factors causing the reader to focus on them, and missing the actual point: which is about the differing practical effect of exposure on different size sensors).

Classic!  Absolutely classic!  Equivalent photos are photos with the same perspective, framing, DOF, shutter speed, and display size.  A consequence of Equivalent photos is that the same total amount of light will fall on the sensor.  A consequence of the same total amount of light falling on the sensor is that the noise will be the same for equally efficient sensors.

Let's recall your entry into this thread:

http://www.dpreview.com/forums/post/51360288

If they are explained correctly, then nobody disputes facts

Huh.  How about that?

I understand that you disagree, but there is a good reason why 'your genius is not being recognised' -- this seems to be your actual beef.  You'd be better served working on your explanatory methods instead of attempting to start arguments.

Quoting again from your entry into this thread:

The problem is not that most people are ignorant fools, the problem is that some people tend to make simple things convoluted and indecipherable (then resist fiercely when you try to get them to explain what they are on about in comprehensible terms).

I'm seeing a pattern here.

Reply   Reply with quote   Complain
Great Bustard
Forum ProPosts: 22,372
Like?
Apologies!
In reply to JosephScha, Apr 27, 2013

JosephScha wrote:

Great Bustard wrote:

JosephScha wrote:

yes, I do know. I used to actually join in equivalence discussion but gave up when told that despite equal light intensity at the sensor f stops were not equivalent on m43 because total light was less... so wrong.

It's a shame that you can't understand that f/2.8 on mFT puts the same amount of light on the sensor as f/5.6 on FF for a given shutter speed, which, in turn, results in the same noise for equally efficient sensors.

Let's see.  f/2.8 on mFT puts the same amount of light on a 1/4 ff size sensor, which means the light per unit area is quadrupled, compared to f/5.6 on FF.  I get that.  What I don't get is why you and many others care about total light instead of light per unit area.  I read your post "DPR mans up and nails it".

Apologies for not having seen your post until now, which is ironic, 'cause I responded at the tail of the subthread (I often read the tail end of subthreads and skip the posts prior).

To answer your question, the photon noise, which is the dominant source of noise in a photo except for the deep shadows, is a function of the total amount of light that makes up the photo.

A 12MP 4/3 sensor is 4000x3000 light sensitive sights.  If I remember correctly, they are about 4 micro inches square.  An "equally efficient" full frame sensor with the same light sensitive element size, if it's 4x larger, would be about 48MP. But no one makes that.  FF cameras have larger sensor sights, I claim THAT is why they have better dynamic range: because they get more light per sensor element.   More light in total over the sensor I claim does not matter.

By "equally efficient" I mean:

  • Same QE
  • Same read noise / µphoto

The QE is the Quantum Efficiency of the sensor -- the proportion of light falling on the sensor that is recorded.  For example, most modern sensors have a QE of around 50%, which means they record half the light falling on them.

The read noise is the additional noise added by the sensor and supporting hardware.  The "/ µphoto" is "per microphoto", where a microphoto is one-millionth of the photo.  So, for example, we don't compare the read noise of one pixel of a 36 MP sensor to one pixel of a 16 MP sensor, but the aggregate read noise of 36 pixels from a 36 MP sensor to 16 pixels from a 16 MP sensor, as they cover the same are of the photo.

As a thought experiment, let's assume that Nikon goes nuts and decides to make a 256MP FF sensor.  The photo sites would be tiny - much smaller than m43. Even at the same f/stop, there is less light falling on each of those small photo sites than on a 16MP m43 sensor's photo slites.   Would you still claim that that FF sensor will have better dynamic range than an m43 sensor because in total it receives more light?  Or will it have less because each photo sensor receives far less light?

Now we'd be comparing 256 of those pixels from the 256 MP sensor to 16 pixels on the 16 MP sensor.  QE doesn't seem to be affected by pixel size at all.  The issue, then, is read noise, which can vary considerably from sensor to sensor, regardless of sensor size or pixel count, as well as the ISO setting.

Obviously, I think the latter (less dynamic range because less light at each photo site).  I suppose in software you could average pixels together, to compensate ... but why would you have to do that if it's total light on the sensor that matters?  I think it's light on each photo site that matters.  I think it is just too simple to say f/2.8 on mFT is "equaivalent" for noise to f/5.6 on FF for a given shutter speed.

We compare the IQ of photos area for area, not pixel for pixel.

But what REALLY bothers me about saying f/2.8 on mFT is "equivalent" to f/5.6 on FF is that is misleads too many people who somehow think this talks about exposure.  I think the more important point is that at the same ISO, and the same shutter speed, f/2.8 on mFT gives the same exposure as f/2.8 on any other sized sensor.  This does not consider dynamic range effects.

The problem is that exposure is irrelevant in cross-format comparisons -- it's the total amount of light that made up the photo that matters.

I used to have a pany FZ7 with a 1/2.5" sensor that had pretty poor dynamic range and egregious noise at is 200.

That's because so little light fell on the sensor compared to larger sensor systems for a given exposure.

Well... you must know I think it's because very little light fell on each of the very tiny photo sites on that 6MP teeny sensor.  Given the same total light, I'll bet a 1MP sensor (which wouldn't have been a sellable product) would have had significantly better dynamic range, because each photo site would collect a lot more "signal" (photons).  Dynamic range is basically signal to noise ratio.

You would lose that bet.  For example, which camera has a greater DR, the D800 or the D600?

I was looking for a similar size and weight camera with better image quality and m43 fit my needs. ...

Makes perfect sense.

Thanks.

I honestly do look forward to your reply.  I want to understand why total light on the sensor means more than light per photo site, which if photo sites are the same size on the sensors being compared means we can compare light per unit area.

Read this:

http://www.josephjamesphotography.com/equivalence/index.htm#noise

It answers all of that.

Reply   Reply with quote   Complain
Keyboard shortcuts:
FForum MMy threads