Crop Factor, Low Light and Aperture with m4/3 lenses?

Started Jun 15, 2014 | Discussions thread
Anders W Forum Pro • Posts: 21,468
Re: And this week ..

Sergey_Green wrote:

Anders W wrote:

Sergey_Green wrote:


I think that is why you are so un-accomplished as a photographer, as obvious simply eludes you.

Fortunately, noone here cares much about what you "think" about anything.

You are not noone.

Right. I am someone.

Would you like me to demonstrate why I said what I said?

Such documentation of your "thought" processes are entirely superfluous for reasons already indicated.

Let's start with this example you linked, and why it does not show what potential differences (between the cameras) there are. First, if the images are to be judged by this tone alone (very unlikely, unless you done something wrong from the start with it) there is not much difference between them. And if these blotches are offending, they all need to be cleaned up in one way or the other.

You missed the point. You said that dark areas can be "cleaned" without ill effects. I just showed they cannot.

There can be two outcomes from it,

  1. Noise can be cleaned where it does not hinder the detail, the important detail is usually not where the the noise offends the most.

And I just showed that is wrong.

  1. Image is not worth keeping as it is badly captured already.

This outcome is of little interest for present purposes.

There is a third option, where image can have a potential value to viewer (memories, important event, etc.), but that is outside the quality discussion, and can simply be omitted.


Secondly, (now you need to think as a photographer, just pretend you are one)

No need for me to pretend that.

No, not really .


every good image will have some central point in it, where you want your viewer to look at first.

That's a rule with exceptions, but I realize you are hard pressed to understand that. You appear to compose in a rather stereotypical fashion.

My stereotypical type vs. your creative one ?

Exactly! Thank you!

Do you remember what I said above? - It is mid-Gray.

Yes, I remember you said that. And since it is obviously wrong, it is stupid to repeat it. The central point, if there is one, can, and often does, have tones ranging all the way from very dark to very bright.

Usually yes, but that is not where it offends the most.

Right. As we know the noise offends the worst where the signal-noise performance is lowest: In the dark tones.

That is how we see what is in the light, and that is how the cameras are designed to meter, unless you over-write it to fit your specific as you see it needs. You meter on the dark, it becomes gray. You meter on highlights, they become gray. That is just the way it is. Regardless how dim the light may appear, if you meter correctly, the most important parts of your image(s) will inevitably become gray.

If you meter like you do. I use better methods. But how the two of us determine exposure is obviously beside the point in this discussion.


Right. Better think (to the extent that you can) before you post.

As the series of images in this link demonstrate,

If it is not so obvious, let us look at few others. Camera phones are not known to prodice clean images (regardless of ISO), especially when pushed outside their comfort zones, but should we even care. Here's where noise was cleaned up, and only what matters is left intact (would you even know about it?),

Current phone cams do perfectly well at low ISOs (which you used here), especially at the very small display sizes you prefer to use. No need to clean any noise here.

Phone cams are known to produce noisy images when pushed regardless of ISO. I do not usually shoot high ISO images with other cameras, and so the phone cam is the best alternative to back my point.

Those do not look pushed to me.

It would have been very different had the image had noise in the areas where it matters the most.

Here is another one, taken rather early, and when the sun just only started showing up from over the mountains. Again, should the noise in the deepest of the shadows ever bother anyone, it is easily removed with no ill-effects to the image.

Yes, that's an example of a scene where there isn't any important detail in the dark areas. Sometimes that's true in bright areas too, e.g., the sky. In both cases, we can then "clean" with relative ease (although your image doesn't really need any at this ISO and display size). In other cases, like the one I exemplified, we have difficulties with the "cleaning" and this happens in dark and bright areas alike. So no significant difference in this regard.

The link you call an example is strictly academic, it has no value when you think what you are doing with your camera.

So you never take pictures of dark-haired people?

It demonstrates very little, except gives ground for the arguments you are now engaging in. Get over it.

See above.

As always, did you use your camera this week?

Sure. Any other irrelevant things on your mind?

 Anders W's gear list:Anders W's gear list
Panasonic Lumix DMC-G1 Olympus OM-D E-M5 Olympus E-M1 Panasonic Lumix G Vario 14-45mm F3.5-5.6 ASPH OIS Panasonic Lumix G Vario 7-14mm F4 ASPH +28 more
Post (hide subjects) Posted by
Keyboard shortcuts:
FForum PPrevious NNext WNext unread UUpvote SSubscribe RReply QQuote BBookmark MMy threads
Color scheme? Blue / Yellow