TL;DR: see closing paragraph.
Tommi K1 wrote:
Great Bustard wrote:
Tommi K1 wrote:
Okapi001 wrote:
Fun 4 all wrote:
Most of the time M43 does provide the IQ shooters want. But there are some times when people need more and that is what FF is for. But it is a relatively small amount of the time.
Sure, but you need good and fast lenses if you want to take advantage of the larger sensor. It's the same problem with mirrorless medium format cameras, Fuji and Hasselblad. If you don't have proper lenses, you cannot take full advantage of larger sensor.
Exposure is shutter speed as well, not just the aperture and sensor size....
Sensor size has nothing to do with exposure.
Says a man who continually talks about how sensor matters in total light gathering...
Correct. The total amount of light gathered is a product of the sensor size and the exposure. but the exposure is not a function of the sensor size.
...and how using scissors to cut a print smaller is same as throwing light away.
Of course, Let's say a photo is made up of 400 "units of light". If you cut out the middle 25%, then the photo is made with only 100 "units of light". Common sense, really.
And, if we had instead used twice the focal length with the same exposure so that the middle 25% of the cropped photo filled the whole frame, once again, we'd find that that the crop was made with only 25% as much light as the photo that filled the frame.
In any case, this has been explained to you before, so I'm not sure that explaining it to you again will do you any good.
You don't need fast lens to get benefits ie. landscape where you can use 1/30 or 1/60 shutter speed instead 1/1250 or 1/2000.
Does anyone argue otherwise?
Yes. Unless you want to make strawman arguments.
Link and quote to where someone says otherwise.
Same thing is with the f/4 or f/5.6 lenses when you can use flashes to do the work.
Flash, however, does alter the lighting of the scene and flash is not always possible. This is like saying you don't need a 600mm lens because you can just use a 50mm lens and get closer.
Strawman argument.
Wow -- another use of the "I know you are but what am I" defense. No, the fact that flash both alters the lighting of the scene and is not always possible is not a straw man argument.
Exposure isn't just the camera but it is as well the scene illumination.
The exposure is determined entirely by:
- The scene luminance
- The relative aperture of the lens (more properly, the t-stop of the lens)
- The exposure time
Good.
- Illumination.
- Focal length
- Aperture
- Exposure time.
Now you agree with me, while you have in past disagreed.
No, focal length plays no role in exposure. So, not only do I not agree with you, I have *never* said anything different than what I wrote above. If you claim otherwise, link and quote it rather than falsely represent my position.
The problem is the people who is continually arguing for "identical photograph" like a single method would be only correct way.
Who argues for an "identical photograph"? It certainly isn't proponents of Equivalence, 'cause what Equivalence says is:
You continually repeat that "for identical photograph" you need same perspective, same FOV, Same DOF, Same Shutter Speed and Same Noise.
You need more than that -- you need the same scene, the same resolution, the same bokeh, the same distortion, the same color, the same flare, the same...
But *never* did I say that the goal of Equivalence is to create a photo identical to a photo on another camera.
That is "Identical Photograph". on the basis of a *choice* the photographer made.
Um, no. Let me quote what I wrote:
If one system can take a photo that another system cannot, and that results in a "better" photo, then, of course, we would do so. For example, if low noise meant more than a deeper DOF in a scene where motion blur were a factor, then we would compare both systems wide open with the same shutter speed, as that would maximize the amount of light falling on the sensor and thus minimize the noise. Equivalence tells us, however, that this would *necessarily* result in a more shallow DOF for the system using a wider aperture, and thus most likely result in softer corners. So, we surely would not criticize the larger sensor system for having softer corners on the basis of a *choice* the photographer made.
That is all together different than how you misrepresent it.
The point of photography is making photos. As such, one doesn't choose the particular system to get photos which are equivalent to another system. A person chooses a particular system for the best balance of the factors that matter to the them, such as price, size, weight, IQ, DOF range, AF, build, etc..
Good, you have started to learn...
Wow. Just wow. That was all written long ago and known to me long ago, and I have *never* said otherwise. Why do you feel the need to *intentionally* misrepresent me?
The point of owning and using camera is to get photos. Not to argue what has larger sensor, what gathers how much light or what is noisier or not. A final test is to get the photos for the real world usage to get them to their output. Not run tests, charts, pixel peep in full resolution etc. If someone wants to get photos to family photo album where majority photos are 4x6" or if the photos are going to be a 2x3m size, then there is no reason to evaluate them on the screen but view them as on the print in final format. If the photo is never being to be printed and never being looked than on the mobile device, there is no reason to pixel peep on large screen.
Where have I, or anyone else, argued otherwise? Another straw man argument from you. So, what have I said? I said this:
Depending on the image, various elements of IQ will have varying levels of importance. For example, relative noise will usually play little role in ISO 100 images, edge sharpness will play basically no role in shallow DOF images, sharpness will play little role in images where motion blur is used for artistic effect, etc., etc. So, while we can discuss the differences in IQ between systems, we cannot say which elements of IQ are more important than others. Thus, while one system may have significantly more appeal on the basis of IQ to a vast majority, that does not mean that it will have higher IQ in the eyes of all. Hence, when comparing the IQ of different systems, as mentioned further above, we are best served comparing specific elements of IQ, rather than trying to speak of "overall" IQ.
So, is it simply a waste of time to compare IQ between systems? Some believe so, but I disagree. Some elements of IQ that most people value are predictable and quantifiable on the basis of the sensor and available lenses. This essay discusses the relationship between the glass and the sensor in how they determine some aspects of IQ, in particular, detail, sharpness, contrast, vignetting, and relative noise. However, it is also important to note the aspects of IQ that this essay does not discuss, such as bokeh, color, and distortion.
All these qualifiers and disclaimers said, a critical consideration to IQ is the individual's QT (quality threshold), that is, the point at which additional IQ makes no difference to the viewer at a given output size. For example, System A may satisfy one person's QT at 8x12, but fail to do so at 12x18. Or, one system may fail to satisfy a viewer's QT at any output size due to factors that are independent of the image dimensions (bokeh, for example).
Regardless, it's still not possible to reach universal agreement that one image, or system, has higher IQ than another. The reason for this is that images from two different systems are never identical, and whatever differences there are between them may appeal to different people differently, as people value different aspects of IQ differently. For example, let's say one image is sharper everywhere than another, except in the extreme corners. Which image has the higher IQ? Different people will have different answers depending both on the type of photography they do or enjoy, and on the degree to which the differences in sharpness vary in the images. Another difficulty is when one system shows higher IQ in one circumstance, but lower IQ in another. Likewise, a sensor with a weaker AA filter will render a sharper image, but be more subject to moiré, so in some instances it will have higher IQ and in other instances lower IQ, depending on the scene. In other words, there's still a great deal of subjectivity even within this very narrow set of parameters for IQ.
Everything else is just strawman arguments. Equivalence is just a mother of strawman argument why a gear X is worse/better than Y.
Another "I know you are but what am I" straw man argument from you.
Like every portrait is needed to be with narrow DOF or blurred background is the quality stamp for sports and wildlife photography, or low noise is the quality requirement etc.
Just how many straw man arguments are you going to present?
None, unlike you.
And another "I know you are but what am I". Wow. Should I keep count?
You have in past repeated how the shallow DOF is the ultimate measurement for good photograph...
That is a COMPLETE LIE. I have never said, or implied, any such thing. So now you have graduated from straw man to lying. Congratulations.
...even with your own samples, you can build as many strawmans you want.... Go read the forums, people arguing how the great subject separation is very important feature in sports photography or wildlife photography. And how the noise needs to be minimized etc.
Indeed, I'm quite the fan of shallow DOF and consider it a valuable artistic tool to have at one's disposal. But NEVER did I say, or imply, anything even remotely like what you disingenuously said above ("You have in past repeated how the shallow DOF is the ultimate measurement for good photograph"). Once again, in case you missed it, that is a lie.
I just tell what even the DPR is full in the different forums and threads.
Here on m4/3 side may want to see something like 17mm f/1.2 so they can separate the people on streets and get low noise. How a 75mm f/1.2 would be awesome portrait lens for separation and low noise. How a truly ISO 100 or ISO 50 4/3" sensor would be needed to get the noise down....
Those are weekly comments, dreams, wishes etc.
You can argue that those doesn't exist and try to claim it is strawman argument, but those are happening.
All those are nothing else than gear heads lies to itself to deny the creativity and acceptance of it itself. Easier to blame the gear "If I just would had the FF, I would had a masterpiece!"
Find a link and quote where anyone has said or implied that.
Really? Find me a photography forum where no one has never implied that... Go and look ie. the Sony A9 threads.... Time after time there comes how you need the FF sensor and fast lenses to get the shot and if there is even f/5.6 lens only for FF it is not good but f/4 is needed, applied the same rules as equivalence preachers apply.
You see that when people come here to ask "I am split up between m4/3 and Fuji APS-C..." and you can read how suddenly it becomes to similar thing. Go elsewhere and it is "APS-C vs FF" etc.
You know all that, as you have participated in those.
Find me the link and quote where someone says or implies, "If I just would had the FF, I would had a masterpiece!" Do it.
Often it looks like people are grabbing the camera and saying:
"Today I am going to make a two masterpieces and get my name to hall of fame as long I follow the rules:
- Narrow DOF
- ETTR
- Fastest possible shutter speed
- Lowest possible ISO"
See isn't it easy to go out and do the masterpieces? That you can translate to shopping list:
- Get the lowest noise FF sensor
- Buy the "fastest possible lenses"
Isn't it simple? You walk to the store and you say those two requirement and they will hand you what you want. Then you will go and apply the rules above and you are creating masterpieces no time!
It takes no great skill to erect straw man arguments and then shoot them down.
When you stop doing strawman arguments, I can stop shooting them down.
"I know you are but what am I" again? Tommy, Tommy, Tommy.
Perhaps I should start a thread saying, "All mFT photographers think that there's never a use for shallow DOF and noise never matters" yadda, yadda, yadda. But that would be senseless trolling, wouldn't it?
You are trolling, you know it and every your fan knows it. And they love you for that.
No, Tommy, it is you who is trolling by erecting straw man arguments, by misrepresenting what people say, and by lying.
So, let me recap the Top 3 for you:
- Sensor size has nothing to do with exposure, but sensor size is a factor in the total amount of light falling on the sensor.
- Equivalence absolutely does NOT say, or imply, that the goal of photography is to get identical photos with different systems.
- I have *never*, and I do mean *never*, said, or implied, that, as you falsely attribute to me, that, "shallow DOF is the ultimate measurement for good photograph". Never. Not once. Said or implied.
You can link and quote that, any time. Or anything else I write, for that matter. But misrepresenting me and saying I said things I neither said nor implied, no, I'm afraid I am not cool with that.
