the meaning of equivalence

gianstam · Jul 18, 2008

simpy said:
gianstam said:

Someone needs the equivalence just becouse he is familiar with a
format and cannot "feel" how a diferent format works. But just in a
theoretical level

Click to expand...

Two answers to that:
1) That still doesn't explain why people who have no use for it keep
slamming it, saying that it's 'obviously wrong'

My feeling (and it is not even an opinion but a feeling from all these posts) is that the bigger formats users are, just a little, trying to show how better format they use. The smaller format users are trying to that is not correct.

simpy said:
2) For some - technically inclined - people, knowing the theory
actually helps in getting better photos from their equipment. I'm one
of them.

I cannot dissagree. it is you

simpy said:
simpy said:

If
someone can say me that counts the Dof of a 35mm camera, then makes
his settings using equivalence for his equipment, I will laugh (LOL).

Click to expand...

This proves that it may have been a tactical mistake to introduce
equivalence in a way that needs a reference format. It is not about
35mm cameras, it's about using a common reference point for
comparisons.

simpy said:
And let's be honest here, this site is 50% about
comparisons with other brands and sensor sizes.

Ok, it's true

simpy · Jul 18, 2008

gianstam said:
My feeling (and it is not even an opinion but a feeling from all
these posts) is that the bigger formats users are, just a little,
trying to show how better format they use. The smaller format users
are trying to that is not correct.

To make my position perfectly clear, I'm using two cameras at the moment, one with a 4/3 sensor, and one with a 1/1.75 sensor. Both qualify as small, I'd say.

At the time, I figured out this equivalence business for myself because I wanted to make an informed decision about the consequences of a choice for a particular format. If done right, equivalence not only tells you that larger formats are better at shallow DOF, but also that it doesn't make a lot of difference in those cases where you don't want shallow DOF.

I decided that 4/3 was good enough at ISO100 and that I could live with the DoF restrictions for the moment. That's it. To me, photographic equivalence is all about full disclosure.

Simon

Barrie Davis · Jul 18, 2008

John King said:
Barrie Davis said:

Huh!! D'you mean ignorant like YOU ???!!!

[Sorry, John. With all the respect I can muster, I do think you
should deepen your own knowledge a little before pontificating and
criticising.]

Click to expand...

John King said:
This is a near-perfect example of failing to treat others with
dignity, courtesy and respect that I constantly rabbit on about.

On the contrary. I think I was gentle with you, considering the degree of your error, and the arrogance you used in putting down other people for not knowing what you THOUGHT you knew.... (but didn't).

After all, I did write "Sorry, John" and I did at least mention "respect", which was more than you were entitled to, I think.

John King said:
Your "little" error seems to be mixing up printing plates with
photographic plate sizes ... sorry ...

It's not me mixing up sizes, I promise you.

I USED those Imperial film sizes (1/1 Plate and 1/2 Plate) alongside the 10x8" and 5x4" that were growing in popularity at that time. I DO know the difference.... and printiing with plates was nothing to do with the operation.....

I worked in a London studio during the legendary 'swinging 60s', shooting same size to layout for mail order catalogues,. The experience turned out to be a rather good grounding in studio lighting techniques, which is where my skills have grown over the years.

The quarter plate I used only at college, because it was cheaper than 5x4", but I didn't use it after that.

So, on this matter you are wrong...

Would you care to apologise straight away, or do you feel you need more evidence? I dunno for sure, but I might find a few old 1/1 Plate negatives tucked away somewhere in the loft. If so, I suppose I could shoot one and show it with a ruler, if you absolutely insist....(sigh)

Or will you take wikipedia's word for it....?

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Film_format

Scroll down to "Single image" and note the large numbers of sizes there, amongst which is Whole-Plate/Full-Plate sized exactly as I recall. However, it seems I was 1/4" out in my memory of 1/2 Plate size after 40 years.... 1/4 Plate was remembered well enough.

Or from here......

http://www.edinphoto.org.uk/1_early/1_early_photography_-_sizes.htm

we find.......

8.5 ins x 6.5 ins (whole plate) OR
6.5 ins x 4.75 ins (half-plate)
4.25 ins x 3.25 ins (quarter-plate)

Now do you believe me?

Look John, we can still learn, and still be corrected, even after 45 years. Just be grateful for the fact that somebody bothered to put you right.....

I know I usually am, when it happens to me, and as you will have gathered, I'm much the same age as you!

--
Regards,
Baz

Barrie Davis · Jul 18, 2008

mamallama said:
simpy said:

What I do object to, however, is that people who either cannot
grasp the equivalency or can't be bothered to use it, start making
loud statements that it's all wrong.

Click to expand...

Get over it. The Catholic Church said Galileo was all wrong about
heliocentrism and you know what happened to to the Catholic Church.

Yes. The Catholic Church continued to be wrong on the matter, right up 'till 1992, when the Vatican "belatedly" (which is hardly the word for it) apologised to Galileo Galilei.
--
Regards,
Baz

natureman · Jul 18, 2008

Azures said:
natureman said:

Azures said:

Azures said:

An "experienced photographer" would know which camera and lens (and
settings) to choose simply because of his/her experience, and
familiarity with their gear, without doing any complicated
mathematical calculations at all.

Click to expand...

But how do I explain why I get different looking images when I use
full frame, 4/3rds, and compact cameras from the same spot and with
the same focal length and aperture settings? Or do you think all
should look the same?

Click to expand...

And why on earth would anyone take the same picture from the same
spot with more than one type of camera, with the same focal length
and aperture setting, unless they actually want the pictures to look
different?

Click to expand...

I did not ask you that. I asked you [repeated] " how do I explain why
I get different looking images when I use full frame, 4/3rds, and
compact cameras from the same spot and with the same focal length and
aperture settings? ".

Hmm, probably about the same way you could try to explain the difference in the taste between a chocolate milkshake and a strawberry milkshake. They're different, so they have a different taste. It's that simple. Duh.

Why do you have to explain it? Who do you have to explain it to? Why does it matter?

natureman · Jul 18, 2008

Barrie Davis said:
natureman said:

And why on earth would anyone take the same picture from the same
spot with more than one type of camera, with the same focal length
and aperture setting, unless they actually want the pictures to look
different?

Click to expand...

How's about...

Because they needed to duplicate a shot that already existed, but
didn't have precisely the same set of original equipment to call on.

If the shot already exists, why does someone need to duplicate it? Why not just use the shot that already exists?

Barrie Davis said:
Please note, this is a situation that comes up all the time in
professional photography.

What, copying (duplicating) other people's work, but with different gear?

Barrie Davis said:
Barrie Davis said:

Nonsensical points make for a weak argument.

Click to expand...

And so do silly questions that could have been answered by a moment's
thought on the part of the questioner!

Silly to you, but not silly to me.

Barrie Davis said:
--
Regards,
Baz

John King · Jul 18, 2008

Azures said:
John King said:

Azures said:

DEFINITION OF "EQUIVALENCE":

Equivalent images are images from two different cameras that look as
similar as they possibly can. It is critical to note that
"equivalent" does not mean "equal" -- I cannot stress this point
enough.

Click to expand...

Sorry. I do not accept that:

Click to expand...

There is no such expectation. Unless you can explain something that
is very simple, as why in this post the image on both sides look so
similar

This sort of selective quotation would get you into a lot of trouble were you to present it somewhere where intellectual rigor applies - for example, as a document in a court of law.

One does not present half a document, or half a statement.

I really do not care how similar a person can make two photos. This is sublimely irrelevant to me. If I want one photo, I use my OMs, my Rolleiflex, my Minox - whichever is appropriate. If I want to use my digital cameras, I will use my 4/3rds (E-510, hopefully an E-1 will join the kit soon ... ), or my Coolpix E5000 in TIFF, RAW or JPEG mode, or my digicam for basic movies.

ALL of these cameras will give different results. For some strange reason, this is why I have them ... If they all produced the same results, I would sack most of them ...

Since I cannot obtain the images I want from a camera such as JJ's beloved 5D (insufficient DoF ... ) unless I go to f64, or something ... I DO NOT WANT** 'razor-thin DoF' EVER .

This image taken at a distance of around 5 feet has a DoF of about 6 inches. The in-body IS allowed me to use the low shutter speed while holding the camera at an awkward angle/position. It is taken with an OM f3.5/28mm lens at f5.6 (IIRC), ISO200.

Use your beloved "equivalence theory" to work out that this image would have been all but impossible with a 5D and 56mm lens ... (no IS on Canon primes ... ). Flash would have ruined the shot, and not permitted anyway. Add double the shutter speed (at least) for no IS = +1 stop; +2 stops to get the required DoF; total increase in f-stops required = 3 stops. Counting on my fingers, that makes f16, well into diffraction territory for a 36x24 lens. Changing the ISO achieves nothing, as we are needing higher shutter speeds to control camera shake, and need to open the aperture up to compensate = -1 stop DoF, or ramp the ISO to keep the aperture the same, while increasing the shutter speed = more noise. No matter, because we need to stop down to achieve the required DoF at close range, something that 36x24 lenses are not so good at ... so we increase the f-stop, way past the optimum for the lenses available for "FF" Canon cameras.

OTOH, the 40 year old OM lens is right at its optimum aperture at low ISO, and the in-body IS is allowing me to use the low shutter speed required. Examining the RAW, this image will print razor sharp to at least A2 size, and probably beyond. Not bad for such a "challenged" "tiny" sensor, is it. Even the Bucket is OK (bouquet? bokeh? b/s?).

Here is the image:

Large JPEG 1.6MB

http://canopuscomputing.com.au/gallery2/d/3553-3/_7052485_from_RAW_1-4.jpg

Smaller JPEG:

What looks like chroma noise in the OoF areas is actually very fine dust on the bonnet (and radiator cowl). In PS2 processing, I set chroma/luminance noise reduction to zero ...

I got this image because I have some vague idea of what I am doing. I also have some vague idea that there is not lens camera combination in "FF" that would have allowed me to make this capture. Look at the total lack of vignetting, blur or CA in the all-important corners of this image. etc etc etc.

DoF control? Well, we are all told endlessly that 4/3rds cannot do this but "FF" can. I would respectfully suggest that at the f-stop required for the "FF" to get this DoF, diffraction would have destroyed the image. Also the V/B/CA would destroy the detail in the corners ... I have another image where the entire 20 odd feet of the car is in focus ...

Who wants 'razor-thin' DoF? I don't. But I can get it if I do:

--
Regards, john from Melbourne, Australia.
-----

The Camera doth not make the Man (or Woman) ...
Perhaps being kind to cats, dogs & children does ...

http://canopuscomputing.com.au/gallery2/main.php

Bird Control Officers on active service.

natureman · Jul 18, 2008

simpy said:
gianstam said:

Someone needs the equivalence just becouse he is familiar with a
format and cannot "feel" how a diferent format works. But just in a
theoretical level

Click to expand...

Two answers to that:
1) That still doesn't explain why people who have no use for it keep
slamming it, saying that it's 'obviously wrong'
2) For some - technically inclined - people, knowing the theory
actually helps in getting better photos from their equipment. I'm one
of them.

Let's see a photo of yours that is better because of "equivalence". Not a comparison between two or more photos, just ONE photo that is better because of "equivalence".

In other words, a photo that actually shows equivalence. You know, like colors, depth of field, sharpness, contrast, composition, or anything else that is visible in a photo. Let's see how "equivalence" makes a photo better. Let the "equivalence" speak for itself.

Remember now, no comparisons.

simpy said:
simpy said:

If
someone can say me that counts the Dof of a 35mm camera, then makes
his settings using equivalence for his equipment, I will laugh (LOL).

Click to expand...

This proves that it may have been a tactical mistake to introduce
equivalence in a way that needs a reference format. It is not about
35mm cameras, it's about using a common reference point for
comparisons. And let's be honest here, this site is 50% about
comparisons with other brands and sensor sizes.

Barrie Davis · Jul 18, 2008

natureman said:
Barrie Davis said:

Because they needed to duplicate a shot that already existed, but
didn't have precisely the same set of original equipment to call on.

Click to expand...

natureman said:
If the shot already exists, why does someone need to duplicate it?
Why not just use the shot that already exists?

That, at least, is a sensible question, to which the answer is... because the original is unavailable, for some reason. It may be a copyright question, or a matter of costs, usage, territories, ... all sorts of things can make it easier/cheaper/quicker to reshoot.... and, except under very unusual circumstances, you cannot patent a camera position.

natureman said:
natureman said:

Please note, this is a situation that comes up all the time in
professional photography.

Click to expand...

What, copying (duplicating) other people's work, but with different
gear?

Yeah! Don't you know that? Well, you do now!! ;-)

Besides, we are not talking about copying, we are talking about reshooting to be as similar as possible , or, sometimes, even improve on the original, if possible.... [it will depend if the new picture is required to match in with existing shots.]

natureman said:
natureman said:

natureman said:

Nonsensical points make for a weak argument.

Click to expand...

Click to expand...

natureman said:
Silly to you, but not silly to me.

Quite! (sigh)
--
Regards,
Baz

simpy · Jul 18, 2008

natureman said:
Let's see a photo of yours that is better because of "equivalence".
Not a comparison between two or more photos, just ONE photo that is
better because of "equivalence".

In other words, a photo that actually shows equivalence. You know,
like colors, depth of field, sharpness, contrast, composition, or
anything else that is visible in a photo. Let's see how "equivalence"
makes a photo better. Let the "equivalence" speak for itself.

I did NOT say that equivalence makes a photo better. I said that knowing about equivalence helps me to pick the right settings for a certain effect, especially when using cameras of different formats alongside each other.

It follows that I can never prove that to you by showing you an image. I won't bother trying, either.

Simon

simpy · Jul 18, 2008

John King said:
ALL of these cameras will give different results. For some strange
reason, this is why I have them ... If they all produced the same
results, I would sack most of them ...

Well, for all intents and purposes, shooting RAW, the ones with larger sensors can produce the same images as the smaller ones, although they may be physically larger. That's why I have two cameras: one large and one small.

John King said:
Since I cannot obtain the images I want from a camera such as JJ's
beloved 5D (insufficient DoF ... ) unless I go to f64, or something
... I DO NOT WANT** 'razor-thin DoF' EVER .

If you don't want very shallow DoF, 4/3 is indeed a perfect DSLR format for you.

John King said:
This image taken at a distance of around 5 feet has a DoF of about 6
inches. The in-body IS allowed me to use the low shutter speed while
holding the camera at an awkward angle/position. It is taken with an
OM f3.5/28mm lens at f5.6 (IIRC), ISO200.

Use your beloved "equivalence theory" to work out that this image
would have been all but impossible with a 5D and 56mm lens ... (no IS
on Canon primes ... ).

Except, of course, for the fact that you can find a bunch of Canon zooms that have IS and offer 56mm@f/11. But, you are right, you don't need a larger format for a shot like this. In fact, you could also have used a 2/3 sensor @ f/2.8.

Simon

natureman · Jul 18, 2008

Barrie Davis said:
natureman said:

Barrie Davis said:

Because they needed to duplicate a shot that already existed, but
didn't have precisely the same set of original equipment to call on.

Click to expand...

Click to expand...

Barrie Davis said:

If the shot already exists, why does someone need to duplicate it?
Why not just use the shot that already exists?

Click to expand...

That, at least, is a sensible question, to which the answer is...
because the original is unavailable, for some reason. It may be a
copyright question, or a matter of costs, usage, territories, ... all
sorts of things can make it easier/cheaper/quicker to reshoot....
and, except under very unusual circumstances, you cannot patent a
camera position.

Barrie Davis said:

Barrie Davis said:

Please note, this is a situation that comes up all the time in
professional photography.

Click to expand...

What, copying (duplicating) other people's work, but with different
gear?

Click to expand...

Yeah! Don't you know that? Well, you do now!! ;-)

Besides, we are not talking about copying, we are talking about
reshooting to be as similar as possible , or, sometimes, even
improve on the original, if possible.... [it will depend if the new
picture is required to match in with existing shots.]

Barrie Davis said:

Barrie Davis said:

Barrie Davis said:

Nonsensical points make for a weak argument.

Click to expand...

Click to expand...

Click to expand...

Barrie Davis said:

Silly to you, but not silly to me.

Click to expand...

Quite! (sigh)
--
Regards,
Baz

There are several things I could say about your statements but I'll just ask this for now. What if the photographer who wants to duplicate (copy) the image doesn't know which camera, lens, f-stop, shutter speed, picture style, color settings, contrast setting, sharpness setting, filters, white balance setting, focal length, focus point, or any other setting or gear the original photographer used? How is the theory of equivalence going to help the copier figure all that out? That stuff would be important if someone wants to "duplicate" the image.

And what if the copier doesn't know the exact original camera position?

And what if the copier doesn't know which file format the original was shot in (jpg, raw, tif) and/or compression setting, or the raw converter used and all the settings applied to the image, or if shot in jpg all the settings applied in post processing, and the program used to apply those settings?

And will the theory of equivalence figure out whether the original photographer was using a tripod, or standing up, or sitting down, or squatting, or lying on the ground, or holding the camera over his head, or standing on a step ladder, etc.?

And how about the differences in light, shadows, etc. because of the time of day, the weather, the time of year, etc.?

How will the theory of equivalence fill in all those blanks?

I don't know, maybe those are just "silly" questions.

John King · Jul 18, 2008

Gidday Simon

simpy said:
John King said:

Since I cannot obtain the images I want from a camera such as JJ's
beloved 5D (insufficient DoF ... ) unless I go to f64, or something
... I DO NOT WANT** 'razor-thin DoF' EVER .

Click to expand...

If you don't want very shallow DoF, 4/3 is indeed a perfect DSLR
format for you.

I have just posted one ... Geez, Simon, what exactly does it take for you to realise that anything** someone can do with a "FF" monster, I can do with my Olympus kit? With one** exception - I cannot take a picture of a black cat in a coal mine at ISO 64x10^6. That is what a flash gun is for ...

simpy said:
simpy said:

This image taken at a distance of around 5 feet has a DoF of about 6
inches. The in-body IS allowed me to use the low shutter speed while
holding the camera at an awkward angle/position. It is taken with an
OM f3.5/28mm lens at f5.6 (IIRC), ISO200.

Use your beloved "equivalence theory" to work out that this image
would have been all but impossible with a 5D and 56mm lens ... (no IS
on Canon primes ... ).

Click to expand...

Except, of course, for the fact that you can find a bunch of Canon
zooms that have IS and offer 56mm@f/11.

And they cost HOW MUCH???? This was taken with a 40 year old lens. AND it doesn't vignette like there is not tomorrow; CA; blur in the all-important corners ...

simpy said:
But, you are right, you don't
need a larger format for a shot like this.

Thank you. Nor for almost any other shot ...

simpy said:
In fact, you could also
have used a 2/3 sensor @ f/2.8.

I doubt it. Particularly as this camera does not exist, with inter-changeable lenses and a 2/3rds sensor. My Coolpix has a 2/3rds sensor, and ISO200 is not its finest attribute ...

NOW, I have shown you images that prove that I do not need or want JJ's "equivalence ". BUT you have admitted that you cannot show an image that proves the opposite; that is, what JJ has been spruiking all over the DPR site for donkey's ages.

I rest my case, yet again, M'Lud ...

I think it may be an opportune time for us all to 'give it a rest'. We all have better things to do with our lives.

I want to play with an E-1 and 14~54 that a friend has very kindly loaned me - I think his middle name is Mephistopheles ...

Regards, john from Melbourne, Australia.
-----

The Camera doth not make the Man (or Woman) ...
Perhaps being kind to cats, dogs & children does ...

http://canopuscomputing.com.au/gallery2/main.php

Bird Control Officers on active service.

natureman · Jul 18, 2008

simpy said:
natureman said:

Let's see a photo of yours that is better because of "equivalence".
Not a comparison between two or more photos, just ONE photo that is
better because of "equivalence".

In other words, a photo that actually shows equivalence. You know,
like colors, depth of field, sharpness, contrast, composition, or
anything else that is visible in a photo. Let's see how "equivalence"
makes a photo better. Let the "equivalence" speak for itself.

Click to expand...

I did NOT say that equivalence makes a photo better. I said that
knowing about equivalence helps me to pick the right settings for a
certain effect, especially when using cameras of different formats
alongside each other.

That's strange. I could have sworn you said this: ".......... knowing the theory actually helps in getting better photos from their equipment. I'm one of them."

I'd really like to see one of those "better photos".

simpy said:
It follows that I can never prove that to you by showing you an
image. I won't bother trying, either.

Simon

Basiley · Jul 18, 2008

and in good time(looks like - how many poeple swithing to DSLR just NOW(and their Q all over here(includes my

))

anyway - sensitivity and DR related to sensor-size only as long(until) as vendor cannot improve both ,without affecting dc simplicity, cost and "ease of use".
if vendor can - you can do can-can

simpy · Jul 18, 2008

John King said:
John King said:

If you don't want very shallow DoF, 4/3 is indeed a perfect DSLR
format for you.

Click to expand...

I have just posted one ... Geez, Simon, what exactly does it take for
you to realise that anything** someone can do with a "FF" monster,
I can do with my Olympus kit? With one** exception - I cannot take
a picture of a black cat in a coal mine at ISO 64x10^6. That is what
a flash gun is for ...

Excuse me, you just came up with another example yourself: 'razor-thin DoF' - that you have no need for.

John King said:
John King said:

Except, of course, for the fact that you can find a bunch of Canon
zooms that have IS and offer 56mm@f/11.

Click to expand...

And they cost HOW MUCH???? This was taken with a 40 year old lens.
AND it doesn't vignette like there is not tomorrow; CA; blur in the
all-important corners ...

Well, there's the 28-135 for less than 400 euros. Pretty decent for a mid-range zoom. Also, you'd be hard pressed to find a lens that vignettes, blurs and CAs a lot at f/11.

John King said:
John King said:

But, you are right, you don't
need a larger format for a shot like this.

Click to expand...

Thank you. Nor for almost any other shot ...

As I have often said, there are two exceptions:

1) if you need very shallow DOF or extreme low-light performance (these go hand in hand)
2) if you need better image quality at base ISO

John King said:
John King said:

In fact, you could also
have used a 2/3 sensor @ f/2.8.

Click to expand...

I doubt it. Particularly as this camera does not exist, with
inter-changeable lenses and a 2/3rds sensor. My Coolpix has a 2/3rds
sensor, and ISO200 is not its finest attribute ...

You would be using ISO50 using these settings. ISO50-100 gives a fairly good image on most modern compacts.

John King said:
NOW, I have shown you images that prove that I do not need or want
JJ's "equivalence ". BUT you have admitted that you cannot
show an image that proves the opposite; that is, what JJ has been
spruiking all over the DPR site for donkey's ages.

In this case, a single image cannot constitute a proof. The closest thing to it would be a comparison between different formats and ISO settings, along the lines of http://www.clarkvision.com/photoinfo/dof_myth/index.html

Oh, and I believe that you do not have a purpose for equivalence. Still doesn't make it wrong, eh?

John King said:
I want to play with an E-1 and 14~54 that a friend has very kindly
loaned me - I think his middle name is Mephistopheles ...

It's my primary setup, I like it a lot. Enjoy.

Simon

simpy · Jul 18, 2008

natureman said:
That's strange. I could have sworn you said this: ".......... knowing
the theory actually helps in getting better photos from their
equipment. I'm one of them."

Read carefully: I said that it helps me (implicit in the sentence) to get better photos. Better than I would have gotten without this level of understanding of my gear. That's all.

As said, I can not prove this with any particular image, so I won't try. Give it a rest, ok?

Simon

Barrie Davis · Jul 18, 2008

natureman said:
What if the photographer who wants to
duplicate (copy) the image doesn't know which camera, lens, f-stop,
shutter speed, picture style, color settings, contrast setting,
sharpness setting, filters, white balance setting, focal length,
focus point, or any other setting or gear the original photographer
used?

Well the photographer doesn't HAVE to know, does he? The shot itself will provide all the information he needs, just by looking. Then he goes ahead and uses an equivalent for all identified factors, or something that looks similar for all factors not identified.

That's the point about equivalences in this context... always has been, ever since we used film.

Of course, he may end up using exactly the SAME gear, quite by happenstance. In these circumstance nobody is using different gear just in order to be perverse. As always, the gear you shoot with is either the gear you happen to have already, or the gear you DON'T have, but beg, borrow, hire or otherwise outsource.

(Jeeeze! I can hardly believe that something this obvious needs to be said!)

natureman said:
How is the theory of equivalence going to help the copier
figure all that out?

I think "theory" is crediting the concept with too much formality, but yes, it does help work it out, IF you know what combination of equipment(s) was used in the first case.... whereas a more general knowledge of those cross-format equivalences will help you match if you don't have the specifics, as mentioned in response to your first enquiry above.

natureman said:
That stuff would be important if someone wants
to "duplicate" the image.

And what if the copier doesn't know the exact original camera position?

Crumbs! Is asking silly questions a special hobby of yours?!?

Quite obviously, if there isn't a difference to be seen, then any difference is invisible. In photography that's equivalent. [Get a grip, please.]

natureman said:
And what if the copier doesn't know which file format the original
was shot in (jpg, raw, tif) and/or compression setting, or the raw
converter used and all the settings applied to the image, or if shot
in jpg all the settings applied in post processing, and the program
used to apply those settings?

Dear me! Enough is enough, I think.
Goodbye. Good Luck

--
Regards,
Baz

Martin Frost · Jul 18, 2008

Just to count my vote.

There are simply more things in the "equal" equation than
sensor size, aperture and focal length.

For example lens sharpness, mount size, antishake, lenght of analog signal processing wires, thermal noise, color artefacts, ad conversion noise, and ( not too important but also to be mentioned ) telecentricity and the possible strength of the microlenses.

He was wrong.

He also was an diot, using his wild theory for claiming that the image quality of his* camera would be always better.

We then tried to clarify whats "image quality" and how we can define image quality and how it depends of iso and lenses and perhaps (but not necessary) also the photographer, but no he claimed the image quality of his sensor is always better, using the "equivalence theory".

With this he spammed whole threads.

I am glad that he is banned.

regards
Martin F.

-----------------------
Typing errors are intended to provide a basis for global amusement

simpy · Jul 18, 2008

Martin Frost said:
He was wrong.

He also was an diot, using his wild theory for claiming that the
image quality of his* camera would be always better.
-snip-
With this he spammed whole threads.

Funny to read this from the poster formerly known as marf.

the meaning of equivalence

Senior Member

Senior Member

Forum Pro

Forum Pro

Senior Member

Senior Member

Forum Pro

Senior Member

Forum Pro

Senior Member

Senior Member

Senior Member

Forum Pro

Senior Member

Forum Enthusiast

Senior Member

Senior Member

Forum Pro

Senior Member

Senior Member

Similar threads

Keyboard shortcuts