Exposure basics, lesson two point one (& ISO)

Started Mar 19, 2013 | Discussions thread
OP texinwien Veteran Member • Posts: 3,326
Re: Exposure basics, lesson two point one (& ISO)

texinwien wrote: ...

I do not think that this is a given.

I am glad we agree on most issues. On the others we'll have to agree to disagree.



Excellent! We now agree on at least one more issue than we did an hour ago. You now agree with me that the example you came up with for the purposes of making your case in this thread is invalid.

We are making progress. I'm optimistic that you will soon clear up your remaining misconceptions and thinking errors, and we'll be on the same page.

Looking forward to it!



You miss the point, the bad example I was referring to is not mine - mine was clear in its intent and its conclusions on how a G3 and an EM5 would need to be set up to usufully compare their SNR performance in that situation.

I have to wonder what error in your logic caused you to pick up a flawed example and run with it (for several days, too, natch). The fact is, you had access to the sensorgen.info data on both sensors. You had access to the DxO data on both sensors. You had people pointing out errors with the example.

And yet, you barreled ahead for several days, unwilling to admit that the example was flawed. Let's see how long it takes for you to admit that the thinking that caused you to choose this example to run with is just as flawed.

I'm cautiously optimistic.

And you've been missing the point from the very beginning .

There are multiple points to this discussion - the first one I like to clear up when talking about the subject is what the standard says. I moved on to your next 'point' as soon as you accepted the above info

I don't care which camera is better.

Neither do I, for the purposes of this discussion.

I only care about incosistent ISO labelling and what that means for useful comparisons across cameras and manufacturers.

Here we agree - what we still disagree on is what the real-world effects of inconsistent ISO labeling might be. Obviously, the example you've been parroting for a couple of days as supportive of your contention that a camera manufacturer could use 'inconsistent ISO labeling' in a way that 'results in them looking better than the competition' is false, as you've (finally) admitted.

Could it be that the contention you were trying to support with that example was also false? Yes Jack, it certainly could. As a matter of fact, it most certainly is.

You only care about defending your bruised ego.

Ah, yes. Well, as soon as you actually prove me wrong in something, I'll let you know whether my ego is bruised. Until then, Jack doth protest too much, methinks



 texinwien's gear list:texinwien's gear list
Panasonic Lumix DMC-GM5 Olympus E-M5 II Olympus 12-40mm F2.8 OnePlus One Canon EOS 300D +20 more
Post (hide subjects) Posted by
Keyboard shortcuts:
FForum PPrevious NNext WNext unread UUpvote SSubscribe RReply QQuote BBookmark MMy threads
Color scheme? Blue / Yellow