On FF I would shoot f/5.6 and 1/60 to get the same exposure, the same DoF, and less visible noise; or ISO 800 f/2.8 and 1/250 to get the same DoF and the same noise; or ISO 200 f/2.8 and 1/250 to get the same DoF, the same noise, and less highlight clipping if I'm shooting raw on a ISO-invariant camera. There are other options, too, depending on the camera and the goal(s).
Is basic physics also nonsense and on your ignore list?
But then you get blurred movement (1/60 vs 1/250th... I am shooting 1/250 for a reason here)...so this is not an option
hmmm... overexposed by three stops then... but if that is what you like in a picture, i won't stop you
hmmm.... same f-number of FF results in the same DoF... that is the first time I hear this
I know... my point is if the exposure is correct with f2.8, iso200 1/250th on m43... then it is also correct shooting the same settings on APS, FF, medium format, Film, whatever!
Bob is mostly talking nonsense. Empirical fact on this forum. Can't help that, I am not typing his words. But you are gaining ground on him... fastIs basic physics also nonsense and on your ignore list?
Mind you, you've said "exposure", and nothing about the blur. Please don't move the goal posts.
It is the same exposure, f/2.8 and 1/250, as you've suggested. Exposure doesn't include ISO speed, even wiki offers a good definition of photographic exposure to that point.
Above, you stated: "i would shoot exactly the same on ff (and every other photographer in the whole world)" - and that's a no. Exposure is not all that matters to a photographer; often other constraints, like DoF, blur, noise come into play (as well as framing, shooting distance, magnification, perspective, ...).
Or you mostly don't understand him.Bob is mostly talking nonsense.Is basic physics also nonsense and on your ignore list?
Read my first purple statement again please. It says 'exposure'!
Maybe excessive, yes.
To get the same exposure! To get the same exposure!
To get the same exposure. All I am saying is that shooting the same settings across formats gives you the same exposure.
?
Nonsense is often hard to understand.Or you mostly don't understand him.Bob is mostly talking nonsense.Is basic physics also nonsense and on your ignore list?
Well, your statement has now turned blue. Which is unlike the sky in your Amsterdam shot which is rather blown-out.
Maybe excessive, yes.
To get the same exposure! To get the same exposure!
To get the same exposure. All I am saying is that shooting the same settings across formats gives you the same exposure.
?
Nonsense is often hard to understand.Or you mostly don't understand him.Bob is mostly talking nonsense.Is basic physics also nonsense and on your ignore list?
Lol. There is a huge dpreview explanation on this with lots of proof. But hey, keep your eyes closed.
First, lookup the term 'blue hour'.
Yes, you've said exposure, and I quoted you saying "exposure".
If it doesn't make sense to you it isn't necessarily make it nonsense.Nonsense is often hard to understand.Or you mostly don't understand him.Bob is mostly talking nonsense.Is basic physics also nonsense and on your ignore list?
The first part of that statement is 100% factually incorrect. just because you use similar settings between different formats, is irrelevant.
I'm just surprised you put in more than an hour of effort in to that shot... you carried a tripod to get quite a bit of visible noise? But you're unwilling to carry a slightly larger camera that would have made it a much better picture? I'm not a landscape photographer, but i'm surprised one would carry such a small sensor camera, especially if you like taking low light shots.
To big. To heavy. To expensive. Even if I would have been able to buy it, I would not have been able to bring it. I would have been forced to leave stuff at home and this shot might never have been taken. Really hard concept to grasp for a lot of people.
You are not saying what is "properly exposed image". And whatever it is, the question is not just about exposure. One either wants equivalent images, or one wants to benefit from the advantages the given format provides.
They don't need your support.
Omg... in different forums multiple of these insane discussions....
I will stop now. Given up on the thread in open talk as well.
Perhaps you should examine your own responses in that context. You seem to be denying that equivalence has any relevance, although it is based on generally accepted mathematics and physics. This is comparable to the reactions of those who deny climate change.
That's not an answer.
Let me remind you that you are not talking "just about exposure":
Yes, please. I doubt you are a climate expert.
properly exposed is just one small factor in image quality.
The data I presented in my above post shows that this is false for many use cases.
3 full frame mirrorless with features matching my m43 cameras, a 14-28mm f4 zoom, a 24-70mm f2.8, a 70-200mm f2.8 plus a 300mm f2.8 and throw in some fast primes like a 15mm f2 and a 24mm f2.
What's ridiculous is believing that your system is really smaller / lighter / cheaper (http://j.mp/2MjvIEE The FF is cheaper, lighter, smaller but you shouldn't compare parameters this way). You bought into the M43 system because it fits your needs better like that 14-28mm F8 zoom which I admit, when I'm on vacation is nice to have because we don't have F8 zooms for full frame.
