Reading mode: Light Dark

ChatGPT tells you is bigger camera sensor better?

Go to last post
Great Bustard said:
finnan haddie said:
ChatGPT is smart: avoids to tell us about "equivalence"!
Click to expand...
It seems that ChatGPT actually "reads" and thus understands Equivalence more than those who disparage it:

Q: Are bigger formats better than smaller formats?

A: For some specific purposes, yes; for others, no. The more specific the purpose the of photography, the easier it becomes to say that System A is "better than" System B for a particular photographer; the more broad the photography, the less easy it is for one system to be superior to the other.

Looks like ChatGPT read the article.
Click to expand...
Sure, the chatbot "understands" just as much as a typical psittaciform.
 
And your point is?
 
GutiWong said:
RSTP14 said:
And your point is?
Click to expand...
I think we have too many discussion, debate or argument in this forum about bigger sensor or m43 is better.

ChatGPT is a AI without human emotions. His answer may not be the absolute answer. But it brings a reflection that do we discuss this topic too much?
Click to expand...
Maybe we can figure out a way to get ChatGPT to debate itself
 
Jeff said:
ChatGPT is a language processor, not a source of fact. Garbage in, garbage out. That answer attributes to the sensor certain properties that are due to the choice of lens. In particular:

1. The scene lighting, angle of view, lens opening, and shutter speed control the amount of light captured. The sensor is along for the ride.

2. The dimension of the lens opening and angle of view determines the depth of field. Again, the sensor is along for the ride.

3. A larger sensor does not provide more control. It provides more flexibility with regard to lighting conditions. But within a given range of lighting and shooting conditions, the actual control of the image is the same. If you fix scene lighting, angle of view, the diameter of the lens opening, and shutter speed, then sensor size doesn't matter.

This stuff has been hashed to death on this forum.
Click to expand...
Agree, someone should ask ChatGPT what camera companies are involved in M4/3 - surely we will get "Olympus" and "a few others" - mainly OMDS. :)
 
Tom Caldwell said:
Agree, someone should ask ChatGPT what camera companies are involved in M4/3 - surely we will get "Olympus" and "a few others" - mainly OMDS. :)
Click to expand...
Q: "What camera companies are involved in Micro Four Thirds?"

ChatGPT: "The Micro Four Thirds (MFT) system was jointly developed by Panasonic and Olympus. Therefore, the major camera companies involved in the MFT system are Panasonic and Olympus.

However, there are also other companies that produce cameras and lenses for the Micro Four Thirds system, including:
  • Blackmagic Design
  • DJI
  • Kodak
  • Sigma
  • Voigtlander
  • Yongnuo
These companies offer a range of products for the Micro Four Thirds system, including cameras, lenses, and accessories."
 
MNE said:
I thought the text ChatGPT returned were interesting.
Click to expand...
Simplistic. Chatwhatever is merely collating the average information on the internuts. Since we know that more photographers use FF, the answer Chatwhatever comes up with will be dominated by the views of those who use FF.

Most points of 3 are valid, but point 3 is not. All MILC systems have a large deal of control over images>SS, aperture, ISO, exposure values.
MNE said:
But, you
Click to expand...
I'd be just as interested to see what Chatwhatever has to say about potatoes.
 
Last edited:
pannumon said:
pannumon said:
RedDog Steve said:
So basically a parrot ?

We already have more than our fair share of mimicry on the forums. Note that a parrot can repeat all manner of phrases without any real understanding. Again quite rampant and widespread around the 'net.

Do we really need more squawkers in addition to the human ones already present ?
Click to expand...
Click to expand...
Why don't we ask ChatGPT directly? I did:

Me: "Do we really need more squawkers in addition to the human ones already present ?"
pannumon said:
ChatGPT: "I'm not entirely sure what you mean by "squawkers," so I'll do my best to provide a general answer.

If by "squawkers," you're referring to loud, noisy individuals who make a lot of commotion, then the answer to whether we need more of them would depend on the context. In some situations, having people who are willing to speak up and make noise can be helpful, such as in a protest or other form of activism. However, in other contexts, such as in a quiet library or a place of worship, having too many loud individuals can be disruptive and even disrespectful to others.

If you're referring to something else entirely, please let me know and I'll do my best to provide a more accurate answer."
Click to expand...
Me: "The context is artificial intelligence."
pannumon said:
ChatGPT: "If the context is artificial intelligence, then the term "squawkers" may refer to virtual assistants or chatbots designed to communicate with users in a way that mimics human speech.

Whether or not we need more of these "squawkers" would depend on the specific use case and whether the current technology is meeting the needs of users. In some situations, such as customer service or technical support, having more advanced virtual assistants or chatbots that can accurately and efficiently answer users' questions and provide support could be beneficial. However, in other situations where human interaction is preferred, such as in healthcare or therapy, relying solely on virtual assistants may not be ideal.

Ultimately, the development and use of virtual assistants and chatbots should be evaluated on a case-by-case basis, taking into account the specific needs of the users and the potential benefits and drawbacks of the technology."
Click to expand...
Click to expand...
Wow! What a genius!
 
Gary from Seattle said:
pannumon said:
Gary from Seattle said:
RedDog Steve said:
So basically a parrot ?

We already have more than our fair share of mimicry on the forums. Note that a parrot can repeat all manner of phrases without any real understanding. Again quite rampant and widespread around the 'net.

Do we really need more squawkers in addition to the human ones already present ?
Click to expand...
Click to expand...
Why don't we ask ChatGPT directly? I did:

Me: "Do we really need more squawkers in addition to the human ones already present ?"
Gary from Seattle said:
ChatGPT: "I'm not entirely sure what you mean by "squawkers," so I'll do my best to provide a general answer.

If by "squawkers," you're referring to loud, noisy individuals who make a lot of commotion, then the answer to whether we need more of them would depend on the context. In some situations, having people who are willing to speak up and make noise can be helpful, such as in a protest or other form of activism. However, in other contexts, such as in a quiet library or a place of worship, having too many loud individuals can be disruptive and even disrespectful to others.

If you're referring to something else entirely, please let me know and I'll do my best to provide a more accurate answer."
Click to expand...
Me: "The context is artificial intelligence."
Gary from Seattle said:
ChatGPT: "If the context is artificial intelligence, then the term "squawkers" may refer to virtual assistants or chatbots designed to communicate with users in a way that mimics human speech.

Whether or not we need more of these "squawkers" would depend on the specific use case and whether the current technology is meeting the needs of users. In some situations, such as customer service or technical support, having more advanced virtual assistants or chatbots that can accurately and efficiently answer users' questions and provide support could be beneficial. However, in other situations where human interaction is preferred, such as in healthcare or therapy, relying solely on virtual assistants may not be ideal.

Ultimately, the development and use of virtual assistants and chatbots should be evaluated on a case-by-case basis, taking into account the specific needs of the users and the potential benefits and drawbacks of the technology."
Click to expand...
Click to expand...
Wow! What a genius!
Click to expand...
"Thank you for your kind words, but I'm just a machine learning model designed to assist with various tasks and answer questions to the best of my abilities based on the data and information I have been trained on. If you have any more questions or if there's anything else I can assist you with, please feel free to ask!"
 
Jeff said:
ChatGPT is a language processor, not a source of fact. Garbage in, garbage out. That answer attributes to the sensor certain properties that are due to the choice of lens. In particular:

1. The scene lighting, angle of view, lens opening, and shutter speed control the amount of light captured. The sensor is along for the ride.

2. The dimension of the lens opening and angle of view determines the depth of field. Again, the sensor is along for the ride.

3. A larger sensor does not provide more control. It provides more flexibility with regard to lighting conditions. But within a given range of lighting and shooting conditions, the actual control of the image is the same. If you fix scene lighting, angle of view, the diameter of the lens opening, and shutter speed, then sensor size doesn't matter.

This stuff has been hashed to death on this forum.
Click to expand...
This is all true, but not terribly relevant in practice.

For instance, there aren't any F0.5-0.7 AF lenses for M43. However, plenty of F1.0-1.4 AF lenses for 35mm sensor format systems exist.

Thus, in real-world use where comparable lenses tend to have roughly the same f-ratio, and not the same physical lens opening, a 35mm system provides more control of DOF, gathers more light, etc.

A photographer is unlikely to build their own AF 25/0.6 M43 lens, so if they need this degree of control, their only option is to move to a camera with a larger sensor. So this idea that the sensor size is meaningless only applies if the criteria have been artificially restricted to what is possible in the M43 system.

Going further, in the cases where M43 lenses do exist with comparable physical openings, the M43 lenses are usually bigger, heavier, and more expensive. So not only is the system inherently disadvantaged when it comes to the amount of control, it's generally at a disadvantage when all things are equal as well.

So the chatbot's advice may be technically less correct than yours, but it's more useful to the average person who may read it.
 
Last edited:
EarthQuake said:
Jeff said:
ChatGPT is a language processor, not a source of fact. Garbage in, garbage out. That answer attributes to the sensor certain properties that are due to the choice of lens. In particular:

1. The scene lighting, angle of view, lens opening, and shutter speed control the amount of light captured. The sensor is along for the ride.

2. The dimension of the lens opening and angle of view determines the depth of field. Again, the sensor is along for the ride.

3. A larger sensor does not provide more control. It provides more flexibility with regard to lighting conditions. But within a given range of lighting and shooting conditions, the actual control of the image is the same. If you fix scene lighting, angle of view, the diameter of the lens opening, and shutter speed, then sensor size doesn't matter.

This stuff has been hashed to death on this forum.
Click to expand...
This is all true, but not terribly relevant in practice.

For instance, there aren't any F0.5-0.7 AF lenses for M43. However, plenty of F1.0-1.4 AF lenses for 35mm sensor format systems exist.

Thus, in real-world use where comparable lenses tend to have roughly the same f-ratio, and not the same physical lens opening, a 35mm system provides more control of DOF, gathers more light, etc.

A photographer is unlikely to build their own AF 25/0.6 M43 lens, so if they need this degree of control, their only option is to move to a camera with a larger sensor. So this idea that the sensor size is meaningless only applies if the criteria have been artificially restricted to what is possible in the M43 system.

Going further, in the cases where M43 lenses do exist with comparable physical openings, the M43 lenses are usually bigger, heavier, and more expensive. So not only is the system inherently disadvantaged when it comes to the amount of control, it's generally at a disadvantage when all things are equal as well.

So the chatbot's advice may be technically less correct than yours, but it's more useful to the average person who may read it.
Click to expand...
It's not "technically less correct" ... it's downright misleading. Compact formats can do a great job with little to no compromise under a wide range of shooting conditions. Chatbot's answer undermines that simple observation.

Of course, I have no problem with an accurate statement saying a larger format, accompanied by appropriate lens choice, offers a greater degree of control for lower lighting conditions, shallow depth of field, etc. But that's not what Chatbot said, and why I take issue with that response.
 
GutiWong said:
RSTP14 said:
And your point is?
Click to expand...
I think we have too many discussion, debate or argument in this forum about bigger sensor or m43 is better.

ChatGPT is a AI without human emotions. His answer may not be the absolute answer. But it brings a reflection that do we discuss this topic too much?
Click to expand...
ChatGPT an AI robot knowledge system is fed information by humans... garbage in... garbage out... that 's how it always worked.
 
Jeff said:
EarthQuake said:
Jeff said:
ChatGPT is a language processor, not a source of fact. Garbage in, garbage out. That answer attributes to the sensor certain properties that are due to the choice of lens. In particular:

1. The scene lighting, angle of view, lens opening, and shutter speed control the amount of light captured. The sensor is along for the ride.

2. The dimension of the lens opening and angle of view determines the depth of field. Again, the sensor is along for the ride.

3. A larger sensor does not provide more control. It provides more flexibility with regard to lighting conditions. But within a given range of lighting and shooting conditions, the actual control of the image is the same. If you fix scene lighting, angle of view, the diameter of the lens opening, and shutter speed, then sensor size doesn't matter.

This stuff has been hashed to death on this forum.
Click to expand...
This is all true, but not terribly relevant in practice.

For instance, there aren't any F0.5-0.7 AF lenses for M43. However, plenty of F1.0-1.4 AF lenses for 35mm sensor format systems exist.

Thus, in real-world use where comparable lenses tend to have roughly the same f-ratio, and not the same physical lens opening, a 35mm system provides more control of DOF, gathers more light, etc.

A photographer is unlikely to build their own AF 25/0.6 M43 lens, so if they need this degree of control, their only option is to move to a camera with a larger sensor. So this idea that the sensor size is meaningless only applies if the criteria have been artificially restricted to what is possible in the M43 system.

Going further, in the cases where M43 lenses do exist with comparable physical openings, the M43 lenses are usually bigger, heavier, and more expensive. So not only is the system inherently disadvantaged when it comes to the amount of control, it's generally at a disadvantage when all things are equal as well.

So the chatbot's advice may be technically less correct than yours, but it's more useful to the average person who may read it.
Click to expand...
It's not "technically less correct" ... it's downright misleading. Compact formats can do a great job with little to no compromise under a wide range of shooting conditions. Chatbot's answer undermines that simple observation.

Of course, I have no problem with an accurate statement saying a larger format, accompanied by appropriate lens choice, offers a greater degree of control for lower lighting conditions, shallow depth of field, etc. But that's not what Chatbot said, and why I take issue with that response.
Click to expand...
As a user of multiple systems, it seems to me that Chatbot is great at reflecting common misconceptions while missing important nuances. I though that AI was well-known for that.

Andrew
 
pannumon said:
Gary from Seattle said:
pannumon said:
pannumon said:
RedDog Steve said:
So basically a parrot ?

We already have more than our fair share of mimicry on the forums. Note that a parrot can repeat all manner of phrases without any real understanding. Again quite rampant and widespread around the 'net.

Do we really need more squawkers in addition to the human ones already present ?
Click to expand...
Click to expand...
Why don't we ask ChatGPT directly? I did:

Me: "Do we really need more squawkers in addition to the human ones already present ?"
pannumon said:
ChatGPT: "I'm not entirely sure what you mean by "squawkers," so I'll do my best to provide a general answer.

If by "squawkers," you're referring to loud, noisy individuals who make a lot of commotion, then the answer to whether we need more of them would depend on the context. In some situations, having people who are willing to speak up and make noise can be helpful, such as in a protest or other form of activism. However, in other contexts, such as in a quiet library or a place of worship, having too many loud individuals can be disruptive and even disrespectful to others.

If you're referring to something else entirely, please let me know and I'll do my best to provide a more accurate answer."
Click to expand...
Me: "The context is artificial intelligence."
pannumon said:
ChatGPT: "If the context is artificial intelligence, then the term "squawkers" may refer to virtual assistants or chatbots designed to communicate with users in a way that mimics human speech.

Whether or not we need more of these "squawkers" would depend on the specific use case and whether the current technology is meeting the needs of users. In some situations, such as customer service or technical support, having more advanced virtual assistants or chatbots that can accurately and efficiently answer users' questions and provide support could be beneficial. However, in other situations where human interaction is preferred, such as in healthcare or therapy, relying solely on virtual assistants may not be ideal.

Ultimately, the development and use of virtual assistants and chatbots should be evaluated on a case-by-case basis, taking into account the specific needs of the users and the potential benefits and drawbacks of the technology."
Click to expand...
Click to expand...
Wow! What a genius!
Click to expand...
"Thank you for your kind words, but I'm just a machine learning model designed to assist with various tasks and answer questions to the best of my abilities based on the data and information I have been trained on. If you have any more questions or if there's anything else I can assist you with, please feel free to ask!"
Click to expand...
 
Cherry_F said:
RedDog Steve aptly mentioned information. Which reminded me information theory.

According to this theory, information value is inverse of its likelihood/certainty.
Click to expand...
No. The value of information is based on three qualities: relevance, accuracy and timeliness.
 
No it doesn't. It identifies some benefits of an bigger sensor as well as some benefits of a smaller sensor without picking a winner. In fact, if you bothered to read to the end of ChatGPT output you posted you would have read this: "However, it's important to note that a bigger sensor is not always better."
 
RedDog Steve said:
So basically a parrot ?

We already have more than our fair share of mimicry on the forums. Note that a parrot can repeat all manner of phrases without any real understanding. Again quite rampant and widespread around the 'net.

Do we really need more squawkers in addition to the human ones already present ?
Click to expand...
We need less, but probably one less than you think.
RedDog Steve said:
Just remember the modern truism of "repeat something enough times and it becomes true".
Click to expand...
You do realize you're parroting a "modern truism", don't you?
RedDog Steve said:
If someone has an agenda they can program their parrot to proliferate the "information". I believe this technology has potential to be used for both good and bad.
Click to expand...
It's not clear: Are you for parroting or against it?
 
On the Theory of Relativity.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.

Similar threads

N
  • Question Question
Surface area of Sony ZV-1 1" sensor vs. iPhone 17 Pro 1/1.28" main sensor?
Replies
6
Views
476
Guy Parsons
Guy Parsons
K
ChatGPT and the magic XF35mm f1.4
Replies
15
Views
16
Breakfastographer
B
F
ChatGPT 5 Critique
Replies
15
Views
36
Night Pixel
Night Pixel
Ysarex
My E-PL9 uses a Sony dual gain sensor.
Replies
7
Views
427
Ysarex
Ysarex
Night Pixel
ChatGPT for Photographers
2
Replies
24
Views
51
Night Pixel
Night Pixel

Keyboard shortcuts

f
Forum
m
My threads
Mobile site
About
Editorial content
Cameras & Lenses
Community
All content, design, and layout are Copyright © 1998–2025 Digital Photography Review All Rights Reserved.
Reproduction in whole or part in any form or medium without specific written permission is prohibited.
When you use DPReview links to buy products, the site may earn a commission.
©GPS Media - Guides, Products, Services.
Back
Top