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
Re: On evidence

Great Bustard wrote:

boggis the cat wrote:

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.

Disappointing, isn't it?

It was up for a long while, so I assumed that the moderators must have been "OK" with it.

While it is annoying to have time wasted, overall it is better to have moderation (even if it is somewhat tardy).

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.

Did you, or did you not, say that my explanations were too long and incomprehensible?

An earlier bit from my response to the 'disappeared' post:

Compare the careful and clear wording that DPR used to explain what they meant with respect to the utility of the fast Sigma lens on APS-C with your rambling and incoherent website.  A lot of the time 'less is more'; but you seem to think that it has to be either a confusing statement with no context or unnecessary complexity and excessive exposition.

Seems my explanation above is even shorter than DPR's (not that I am complaining against DPR's excellent wording).

Well, read what I said in the previous post:

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).

You don't have to choose between 'concise but difficult to comprehend' or 'rambling and confusing' -- or a confusing statement with no context or unnecessary complexity and excessive exposition, if you prefer.  DPR's attempt at explaining the utility of a faster lens on a smaller sensor system is much easier to understand than your attempts at the same principle.  You seem to be (back-handedly) acknowledging that fact.

You have a huge number of former IDs, Joe.  That should tell you a lot about how effective your 'teaching style' is.

I was hoping you would bring that up.  One of my former ID's, "g r e e n p e a" was permanently banned after responding to this post of yours:

The entire content of the reply to that post of yours was:

Not just DOF, boggis, but the total amount of light projected on the sensor, which will result in the same noise for equally efficient sensors.

Funny how I was permanently banned for posting that, don't you think?  'Course, that was back in the day when Phil Askey was running the show, and, well, he had problems with not only Equivalence, but understanding pixel density as well.

You were more likely banned for immediately opening a new account after getting banned for misbehaving when using the former.

I wonder who filed the complaint on that post, anyway?  Any ideas?

Perhaps you should ask DPR, instead of making insinuations?

I have no problem with them disclosing any complaints I have filed in the past -- or future, come to that.

Could have been anyone, I suppose.  More to the point is why that post got me a permanent ban.  I wonder if it's just coincidence that my permanent bans stopped after Phil Askey stepped down.  What do you think?

You seem to be getting posts pulled down.  What does that suggest?

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.

What you say, and what happened, are two different things, boggis.  Unless you can link and quote an example, I'll just have to say it's another example of someone intentionally misrepresenting me.

If I spend the time hunting down an example you'll simply dispute it.

People are not stupid, and they will acknowledge facts quite readily when they are clearly explained.

Boggis, in the deleted posts, I linked you acting exactly opposite that.  Would you like me to link it again?

Go ahead.  I won't respond though, because it appears that the moderators must be a reincarnation of 'Phil Askey'.

(We need a 'rolls eyes' emoticon.)

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.)

Link and quote where I created a dispute.  Again, in the deleted posts, I was able to link and quote where it was you, not I, who was doing exactly that.  Again, please ask if you need the link.

Refer to above two responses.

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.

Honestly, I have no special knowledge of what mFT users know or don't know.  But I do know what I've said, and I do know what you've said.  And let's just say that the evidence clearly supports my side.

However, if you disagree, please, post a link and quote of me making Equivalence "too complicated" or "unclear".

Refer to my reinstated reply above, where I explain why your 'explanation' is both poor (for choosing secondary factors -- "perspective", "framing", "DOF"; when referring to light?) and misleading (due to those secondary factors causing the reader to focus on them, and missing the actual point: which is about the differing practical effect of exposure on different size sensors).

I understand that you disagree, but there is a good reason why 'your genius is not being recognised' -- this seems to be your actual beef.  You'd be better served working on your explanatory methods instead of attempting to start arguments.

 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