Fygaren

Fygaren

Lives in Norway Norway
Joined on May 22, 2012

Fygaren's recent activity

  • mostlyboringphotog, Let me show you "The Great Master Suppressor" I elaborated to GB after request about f-number and DOF: http://www.dpreview.com/forums/post/54033596 Fygaren: Some place in there ...
  • It changes the apropriate exposure. Read the post you replied to or even the cited text.
  • Lol, what are you talking about? Ill quote Great Bustard: Equivalent photos are photos of a given scene that have the: (1) Same Perspective (2) Same Framing (3) Same DOF , Diff ...
  • Interesting! Noise-equivalent ISO sounds useful. I like the SNR-comparison, as than you can compare different generations of sensors. Cheers! n
  • I ebrace equivalence, I think equivalence every time I take a photo, I think its the best tool for undertanding the diffrences between format ever invented, I have never said I have a problem with ...
  • ok But then I went; - Wait a minute! that was a very clymsy way of saying it, f/2 is after all equivalent to f/2, why didnt he just refer to the diameter right away... after all, I dont see ...
  • Good initiative! I have a suggestion I consider a little easier: "f/2 on mFT is size-equivalent to f/4 on FF" With "size-equivalent" there can be no mistaking a connection with physical aperture ...
  • So what are we talking about again? Was that a Yes or a No to my original question?
  • No, but its correct. Why would you try to give a different meaning to what I say I wonder. Just trying to elaborate to those that are getting in to equivalence what the benefits are with a bigger ...
  • For comparison one can add something like this: The advantages of a bigger camera from an equivalent photo standpoint and total light: Camera 1 smaller sensor: 25mm, f/4, ISO 100, 1/100s Camera 2 ...
  • ...so because the mFT and the FF have the same size physical aperture, it will lead to the same DOF, total light etc. However, f/2 on mFT is not equivalent to f/4 on FF, so you have to raise the ...
  • mostly, My original reply was with a suggestion, what do you think? "So how about f/2 is size-equivalent to f/4? The size of the aperture is after all what determins total light, diffraction, DOF ...
  • The question only said brightness and total light, but Id be happy to elaborate. Maby this time Ill get through :) Some place in there I could have said: ...so because the mFT and the FF have the ...
  • The brightness will be the same on all 3 examples, but the 100mm f/2 1/100 ISO 400 on FF has an aperture diameter that is twice that of the other two resulting in 4 times as mutch light hitting the ...
  • Was that a poor attempt of using domination techniques? Its not working. You may "change the f-number on your camera" but whats happening on a more tecnical level is this: f-number can only be a ...
  • The original one does not contain f-number. As I have explained: Changing aperture diameter changed both the resulting f-number and resulting DOF. The resulting f-number is not what changes the ...
  • In my opinion its ISO 80000-4(2006)
  • Replied in How about...
    This is because CoC is subjective, it doesnt change any formula. f-number and DOF are both seperate results of aperture diameter. Two seperate results of the same body cant be dependent on each ...
  • Of course its the same result, the last one is a rewriting based on the first one like I said. This is already done in your wikipedia link. Scroll down to "History - Derr 1906" Another rewriting of ...
Activity older than 12 months is not displayed.
Total messages 125
Threads started 3
Last post 1 week ago
Total comments 67
Total likes 39
Last post 1 week ago
Total reviews 0
Entries 12
Votes cast 545
Last entry 4 months ago
Photos uploaded 10
Last upload 4 months ago