Klipsen wrote:

We are all guilty. Just some more than others.

Nah, just you.

Your denial is just the first step...

You don't get clean by washing yourself in other people's dirt.

It's easier to judge others than it is to judge yourself. By your feeling the need to involve yourself and place judgement of others, your hands are just as dirty. Let's just leave it like that.

You are making out what is no more than a strong minded debate into something it is not, which just drags the whole conversation piece down. Can we kindly get back to the original topic?

There's nothing wrong with your comparative test of the two formats ... except that you try to use a strict mathematical formula with fixed values for the CoC of different sensor sizes - and when people tell you this cannot be done, because there are so many variables, not least the CoC itself, you get up in arms and write endlessly long posts with the sole purpose of saying that no matter how wrong you are, you're still right.

I'll admit that I am wrong if you can prove that I am, I have no problem with that. But when you don't give me an actual example that shows as such, I have a right to defend my stance as well as my work.

All I am hearing is "you are wrong" because you didn't factor in every little detail for what was suppose to be an observation through the use of existing standard models and published benchmark results. I then get accused of making stuff up when in fact again, I used what is already out there and is considered the accepted standard of measurement.

But yet again, apparently to others that isn't the right way. So then I ask, what is the right way?

The way you and some others are explaining it, there is no right way and the results will vary from person to person. And if then there is no right way, then should we assume there is no wrong way too?

How granular do you want to get?

Meaning what?

Clearly you think that I am not being detailed enough and not factoring in every possibility. So where do you draw the line of where you consider there is enough details to give a fair assessment?

We might as well then throw this in along with the circumference of a circle and pi.

Now, that's utter nonsense. You need to shorten pi, because there's an infinite number of decimals, but you can only round it off, not choose your own value (3 is an easy number for mental calculations if you can live with a 5 % error margin (or add half one tenth for more precision). Other than that, it's not a measure, but a factor - and it's not user defined.

How is it nonsense?

You are stating that I am not being detailed enough and not factoring in every minor variable (one's mind you, the standard DoF calculations don't factor either). I am seeing this as you are saying I am estimating with large inaccuracies.

Determining the circumference of a circle and the use of pi you are essentially estimating. Your accuracy will depend on how many decimal places you want to count out to. But at some point you have to draw the line and say "that is accurate enough".

So I see the two as falling in the same boat.

That has little (in fact nothing) to do with the CoC, which is user defined - although there is a general acceptance of values around 0.03 mm for 24x36 mm sensors.

.029mm or .0288mm or .0288444mm, but who's counting?

It seems that most of the online calculators are rounding to the nearest .005mm.

No ifs and buts. You try to make strict rules where there are none. If part of a picture is out of focus, no mathematical formula can force it to be sharp in the eyes of the beholder.

But it isn't me making the rules, that is where your claims are false. I am only following the rules laid out by those that created the models. If you think they are wrong, then take it up with them and have them change it.

Meanwhile, I will continue to use their models since that is what many others will be using and can use to get the same results as me.