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

Started Apr 26, 2013 | Discussions thread
boggis the cat Veteran Member • Posts: 6,329
On evidence

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):

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 +7 more
Post (hide subjects) Posted by
(unknown member)
Keyboard shortcuts:
FForum PPrevious NNext WNext unread UUpvote SSubscribe RReply QQuote BBookmark MMy threads
Color scheme? Blue / Yellow