"Crop-ability" of images?

Started 4 months ago | Discussions
(unknown member) Forum Pro • Posts: 19,317
Re: "Crop-ability" of images?

bobn2 wrote:

Donald B wrote:

bobn2 wrote:

Muster Mark wrote:

bobn2 wrote:

dperez wrote:

More photographers who’s judgement I respect are talking about moving to Olympus. A question came up the other day and I’m trying to figure out the answer.

Nikon D850, 600mm f/4 versus M1X, 300mm f/4.

As I understand it - the lenses are the same equivalent - 600mm. The Nikon shoots at f/8 and ISO 3200 and 1/500. The M1X shoots at f/4 so the DOF is the same, and ISO 800 and 1/500, so the exposure is the same, right?

Wrong! Somewhere along the way you've picked up a wrong idea of what 'exposure' means. It does not mean how light or dark the image is. It means what is the light energy density at the sensor. It is determined by shutter speed, f-number and scene luminance. In your example, since the shutter speed and scene luminance are the same, but the f-number is two stops higher on the Nikon, it will have two stops less exposure. But it will make up for it by having four times the sensor area.

I think he was saying he puts the Nikon at f8 and gets the same results as the Oly at F4. This is correct. He has the Nikon shooting at ISO 3200 and the oly at ISO 800. I don't think your criticism of his understanding is warranted.

I didn't criticise his understanding except for the meaning of 'exposure', which he got wrong. This misunderstanding is unfortunately common. As you say, if he was saying that he gets the same 'results' or lightness, then yes, he's right.

I like this quote "The “Exposure Triangle,” as it is often referred to, is a handy way of interpreting the major components involved in the process of capturing an image.

Yes, I think that the 'triangle' is responsible for people thinking wrongly that the components of exposure are aperture, shutter and ISO.

well think of it like this , to expose a viewable image on the camera rear lcd or evf . the camera requires the correct aperture ,shutter speed and iso now try to argue against that

When invented by Bryan Peterson it was the 'Photographic Triangle'. Whatever the name, it's useless.

-- hide signature --

Sony A7r2 , A6300
http://www.dpreview.com/galleries/9412035244
past toys. k100d, k10d,k7,fz5,fz150,500uz,canon G9, Olympus xz1 em5mk1, em5mk2, em1mk2.

Wu Jiaqiu
Wu Jiaqiu Forum Pro • Posts: 27,532
Re: "Crop-ability" of images?
2

Donald B wrote:

bobn2 wrote:

Donald B wrote:

bobn2 wrote:

Muster Mark wrote:

bobn2 wrote:

dperez wrote:

More photographers who’s judgement I respect are talking about moving to Olympus. A question came up the other day and I’m trying to figure out the answer.

Nikon D850, 600mm f/4 versus M1X, 300mm f/4.

As I understand it - the lenses are the same equivalent - 600mm. The Nikon shoots at f/8 and ISO 3200 and 1/500. The M1X shoots at f/4 so the DOF is the same, and ISO 800 and 1/500, so the exposure is the same, right?

Wrong! Somewhere along the way you've picked up a wrong idea of what 'exposure' means. It does not mean how light or dark the image is. It means what is the light energy density at the sensor. It is determined by shutter speed, f-number and scene luminance. In your example, since the shutter speed and scene luminance are the same, but the f-number is two stops higher on the Nikon, it will have two stops less exposure. But it will make up for it by having four times the sensor area.

I think he was saying he puts the Nikon at f8 and gets the same results as the Oly at F4. This is correct. He has the Nikon shooting at ISO 3200 and the oly at ISO 800. I don't think your criticism of his understanding is warranted.

I didn't criticise his understanding except for the meaning of 'exposure', which he got wrong. This misunderstanding is unfortunately common. As you say, if he was saying that he gets the same 'results' or lightness, then yes, he's right.

I like this quote "The “Exposure Triangle,” as it is often referred to, is a handy way of interpreting the major components involved in the process of capturing an image.

Yes, I think that the 'triangle' is responsible for people thinking wrongly that the components of exposure are aperture, shutter and ISO.

well think of it like this , to expose a viewable image on the camera rear lcd or evf . the camera requires the correct aperture ,shutter speed and iso now try to argue against that

When invented by Bryan Peterson it was the 'Photographic Triangle'. Whatever the name, it's useless.

iso you say....the rabbit hole beckons

-- hide signature --

the computer says no

 Wu Jiaqiu's gear list:Wu Jiaqiu's gear list
Fujifilm FinePix X100 Nikon 1 V1 Nikon D2Xs Nikon 1 J3 Nikon AF-S Nikkor 300mm f/4D ED-IF +3 more
(unknown member) Forum Pro • Posts: 19,317
Re: "Crop-ability" of images?

Wu Jiaqiu wrote:

Donald B wrote:

bobn2 wrote:

Donald B wrote:

bobn2 wrote:

Muster Mark wrote:

bobn2 wrote:

dperez wrote:

More photographers who’s judgement I respect are talking about moving to Olympus. A question came up the other day and I’m trying to figure out the answer.

Nikon D850, 600mm f/4 versus M1X, 300mm f/4.

As I understand it - the lenses are the same equivalent - 600mm. The Nikon shoots at f/8 and ISO 3200 and 1/500. The M1X shoots at f/4 so the DOF is the same, and ISO 800 and 1/500, so the exposure is the same, right?

Wrong! Somewhere along the way you've picked up a wrong idea of what 'exposure' means. It does not mean how light or dark the image is. It means what is the light energy density at the sensor. It is determined by shutter speed, f-number and scene luminance. In your example, since the shutter speed and scene luminance are the same, but the f-number is two stops higher on the Nikon, it will have two stops less exposure. But it will make up for it by having four times the sensor area.

I think he was saying he puts the Nikon at f8 and gets the same results as the Oly at F4. This is correct. He has the Nikon shooting at ISO 3200 and the oly at ISO 800. I don't think your criticism of his understanding is warranted.

I didn't criticise his understanding except for the meaning of 'exposure', which he got wrong. This misunderstanding is unfortunately common. As you say, if he was saying that he gets the same 'results' or lightness, then yes, he's right.

I like this quote "The “Exposure Triangle,” as it is often referred to, is a handy way of interpreting the major components involved in the process of capturing an image.

Yes, I think that the 'triangle' is responsible for people thinking wrongly that the components of exposure are aperture, shutter and ISO.

well think of it like this , to expose a viewable image on the camera rear lcd or evf . the camera requires the correct aperture ,shutter speed and iso now try to argue against that

When invented by Bryan Peterson it was the 'Photographic Triangle'. Whatever the name, it's useless.

iso you say....the rabbit hole beckons

and im sure we can listen to a radio without a volume control

Don

-- hide signature --

Sony A7r2 , A6300
http://www.dpreview.com/galleries/9412035244
past toys. k100d, k10d,k7,fz5,fz150,500uz,canon G9, Olympus xz1 em5mk1, em5mk2, em1mk2.

john isaacs Veteran Member • Posts: 6,112
Re: "Crop-ability" of images?
2

dperez wrote:

More photographers who’s judgement I respect are talking about moving to Olympus. A question came up the other day and I’m trying to figure out the answer.

Nikon D850, 600mm f/4 versus M1X, 300mm f/4.

As I understand it - the lenses are the same equivalent - 600mm. The Nikon shoots at f/8 and ISO 3200 and 1/500. The M1X shoots at f/4 so the DOF is the same, and ISO 800 and 1/500, so the exposure is the same, right?

Go outside and shoot a backyard bird. Same spot, same distance, same bird, both cameras.

On EACH sensor does the bird take up approximately the same percentage of the sensor? On the D850 image the bird’s head covers about 20% of the width of the sensor. Does the bird’s head cover the approximately the SAME 20% of the sensor on the M1X – within reason since one is a 3:2 sensor and the other is a 4:3 sensor?

If SO, the bird’s head is 20% of 5184 = 1037 px on the M1X and 20% of 8256 = 1651 px on the D850. Based on that, the subject in the D850 image has 60% more pixels available for cropping. What am I missing?

The only thing missing is the justification for shooting at f8 with an f4 lens.  The f4 lens will have more precise focus due to the wider aperture (and narrower DOF).  But you really need to calibrate AF with super-telephoto lenses on a DSLR.

A better comparison would be to use a 500mm f5.6 PF, which saves thousands of dollars and plenty of kg, and use some of the excess pixels on the D850 to adjust for the wider FOV.

The plus is that it is easier to get and keep a 500mm lens on target versus a 600mm lens.

 john isaacs's gear list:john isaacs's gear list
Olympus E-M1 II Panasonic Lumix DMC-GH4 Olympus E-M1 III Olympus OM-D E-M1X Olympus E-M5 III +16 more
Wu Jiaqiu
Wu Jiaqiu Forum Pro • Posts: 27,532
Re: "Crop-ability" of images?
2

Donald B wrote:

Wu Jiaqiu wrote:

Donald B wrote:

bobn2 wrote:

Donald B wrote:

bobn2 wrote:

Muster Mark wrote:

bobn2 wrote:

dperez wrote:

More photographers who’s judgement I respect are talking about moving to Olympus. A question came up the other day and I’m trying to figure out the answer.

Nikon D850, 600mm f/4 versus M1X, 300mm f/4.

As I understand it - the lenses are the same equivalent - 600mm. The Nikon shoots at f/8 and ISO 3200 and 1/500. The M1X shoots at f/4 so the DOF is the same, and ISO 800 and 1/500, so the exposure is the same, right?

Wrong! Somewhere along the way you've picked up a wrong idea of what 'exposure' means. It does not mean how light or dark the image is. It means what is the light energy density at the sensor. It is determined by shutter speed, f-number and scene luminance. In your example, since the shutter speed and scene luminance are the same, but the f-number is two stops higher on the Nikon, it will have two stops less exposure. But it will make up for it by having four times the sensor area.

I think he was saying he puts the Nikon at f8 and gets the same results as the Oly at F4. This is correct. He has the Nikon shooting at ISO 3200 and the oly at ISO 800. I don't think your criticism of his understanding is warranted.

I didn't criticise his understanding except for the meaning of 'exposure', which he got wrong. This misunderstanding is unfortunately common. As you say, if he was saying that he gets the same 'results' or lightness, then yes, he's right.

I like this quote "The “Exposure Triangle,” as it is often referred to, is a handy way of interpreting the major components involved in the process of capturing an image.

Yes, I think that the 'triangle' is responsible for people thinking wrongly that the components of exposure are aperture, shutter and ISO.

well think of it like this , to expose a viewable image on the camera rear lcd or evf . the camera requires the correct aperture ,shutter speed and iso now try to argue against that

When invented by Bryan Peterson it was the 'Photographic Triangle'. Whatever the name, it's useless.

iso you say....the rabbit hole beckons

and im sure we can listen to a radio without a volume control

Don

yes you can

-- hide signature --

the computer says no

 Wu Jiaqiu's gear list:Wu Jiaqiu's gear list
Fujifilm FinePix X100 Nikon 1 V1 Nikon D2Xs Nikon 1 J3 Nikon AF-S Nikkor 300mm f/4D ED-IF +3 more
john isaacs Veteran Member • Posts: 6,112
Re: "Crop-ability" of images?

Wu Jiaqiu wrote:

Donald B wrote:

bobn2 wrote:

Donald B wrote:

bobn2 wrote:

Muster Mark wrote:

bobn2 wrote:

dperez wrote:

More photographers who’s judgement I respect are talking about moving to Olympus. A question came up the other day and I’m trying to figure out the answer.

Nikon D850, 600mm f/4 versus M1X, 300mm f/4.

As I understand it - the lenses are the same equivalent - 600mm. The Nikon shoots at f/8 and ISO 3200 and 1/500. The M1X shoots at f/4 so the DOF is the same, and ISO 800 and 1/500, so the exposure is the same, right?

Wrong! Somewhere along the way you've picked up a wrong idea of what 'exposure' means. It does not mean how light or dark the image is. It means what is the light energy density at the sensor. It is determined by shutter speed, f-number and scene luminance. In your example, since the shutter speed and scene luminance are the same, but the f-number is two stops higher on the Nikon, it will have two stops less exposure. But it will make up for it by having four times the sensor area.

I think he was saying he puts the Nikon at f8 and gets the same results as the Oly at F4. This is correct. He has the Nikon shooting at ISO 3200 and the oly at ISO 800. I don't think your criticism of his understanding is warranted.

I didn't criticise his understanding except for the meaning of 'exposure', which he got wrong. This misunderstanding is unfortunately common. As you say, if he was saying that he gets the same 'results' or lightness, then yes, he's right.

I like this quote "The “Exposure Triangle,” as it is often referred to, is a handy way of interpreting the major components involved in the process of capturing an image.

Yes, I think that the 'triangle' is responsible for people thinking wrongly that the components of exposure are aperture, shutter and ISO.

well think of it like this , to expose a viewable image on the camera rear lcd or evf . the camera requires the correct aperture ,shutter speed and iso now try to argue against that

When invented by Bryan Peterson it was the 'Photographic Triangle'. Whatever the name, it's useless.

iso you say....the rabbit hole beckons

Exposure triangle:

https://www.cambridgeincolour.com/tutorials/camera-exposure.htm

Exposure settings:

https://www.adobe.com/creativecloud/photography/hub/guides/camera-exposure-camera-settings.html

Because when people think of "exposure", they think of the image.

 john isaacs's gear list:john isaacs's gear list
Olympus E-M1 II Panasonic Lumix DMC-GH4 Olympus E-M1 III Olympus OM-D E-M1X Olympus E-M5 III +16 more
Verkku Regular Member • Posts: 259
Re: "Crop-ability" of images?

Donald B wrote:

bobn2 wrote:

Donald B wrote:

bobn2 wrote:

Muster Mark wrote:

bobn2 wrote:

dperez wrote:

More photographers who’s judgement I respect are talking about moving to Olympus. A question came up the other day and I’m trying to figure out the answer.

Nikon D850, 600mm f/4 versus M1X, 300mm f/4.

As I understand it - the lenses are the same equivalent - 600mm. The Nikon shoots at f/8 and ISO 3200 and 1/500. The M1X shoots at f/4 so the DOF is the same, and ISO 800 and 1/500, so the exposure is the same, right?

Wrong! Somewhere along the way you've picked up a wrong idea of what 'exposure' means. It does not mean how light or dark the image is. It means what is the light energy density at the sensor. It is determined by shutter speed, f-number and scene luminance. In your example, since the shutter speed and scene luminance are the same, but the f-number is two stops higher on the Nikon, it will have two stops less exposure. But it will make up for it by having four times the sensor area.

I think he was saying he puts the Nikon at f8 and gets the same results as the Oly at F4. This is correct. He has the Nikon shooting at ISO 3200 and the oly at ISO 800. I don't think your criticism of his understanding is warranted.

I didn't criticise his understanding except for the meaning of 'exposure', which he got wrong. This misunderstanding is unfortunately common. As you say, if he was saying that he gets the same 'results' or lightness, then yes, he's right.

I like this quote "The “Exposure Triangle,” as it is often referred to, is a handy way of interpreting the major components involved in the process of capturing an image.

Yes, I think that the 'triangle' is responsible for people thinking wrongly that the components of exposure are aperture, shutter and ISO.

well think of it like this , to expose a viewable image on the camera rear lcd or evf . the camera requires the correct aperture ,shutter speed and iso now try to argue against that

When invented by Bryan Peterson it was the 'Photographic Triangle'. Whatever the name, it's useless.

Tell me, please, how iso influnces exposure?

 Verkku's gear list:Verkku's gear list
Fujifilm X100S Olympus OM-D E-M5 Nikon D750 Nikon D810 Panasonic GX850 +30 more
Tony Rogers Senior Member • Posts: 2,051
Re: "Crop-ability" of images?
2

dperez wrote:

Thanks for the replies... And this isn't actually a fer-real test. It's me trying to figure out what I have to give up if I go to Olympus from Nikon versus what I gain.

Yes, I've hauled around a 600/f4. It stopped being fun about 20 yards in. And I CANNOT hand-hold the thing. Never could, and at my age I definitely can't now. And it costs a ridiculous amount of money.

The question I was asked was essentially "Once I take the bird picture, and get it into Lightroom, and crop it down to the bird, WHICH camera is going to give me the most bird pixels so I can crop the least?"

In my test world, it's the D850. In the REAL world, shooting a 600mm I'd have more bird pixels shooting the D500 with the 600 (900mm 35 EQ) followed by the M1X at 400mm (800mm 35 EQ)...

The other area of curiosity - (this one is my curiosity) is the mechanics. I shot a Sony A9 II and an A7r III. In both cases I found that when I put the camera to my eye, there was a delay before the EVF came on. Since I'm watching a bird flying by, I'm used to putting the D500 to my eye, seeing the bird, and shooting. With either Sony I was always behind the bird because of the delay.

The EVF behaviuour for the Sony and Olympus will depend on how they are configured. It's certainly possible to set them up so that bringing the camera to your eye causes wake-up from sleep. There is then a definate delay. When I used the A9II, I switched off sleep altogether and carried an extra battery to get the fastest response and configured the EVF to switch on and off with the eye sensor rather than switch to the LCD. When I used the E-M1III, I did something similar.

I didn't find the viewfinder of the A9II laggy in itself when following a bird compared to the E-M1 III. However, the A9II does have other bizarre lags when compared with Olympus. For example, if you use a dial to change shutter speed or aperture or Iso, there is a delay before the setting is seen to change in the viewfinder display. Scrolling through images while zoomed in is considerably slower than when not zoomed or when compared to the E-M1 III. Annoying but didn't particularly affect my photography. The Sony A1, which I use now, has eliminated these issues.

Will this happen with the M1X or the E-M1 III?

Also, for birds going across my path, I found the viewfinder almost kept up. The blackouts didn't bother me because I'm used to lots of mirror flapping around blackouts with the D500, so it didn't seem bad with either camera. But it did seem to lag behind the bird a little. I got some bird butts as the bird got ahead of me and flew out of the frame.

Will there be visible blackouts and viewfinder lag with the M1X or E-M1 III?

And last, the viewfinder and LCD resolution seem low. I do a lot of close-up photography with the D850 and use the live view and focus stacking frequently. It's 2.? MP LCD, which when I zoom in 4 or 5 times to get the most accurate focus, is adequate, but not great. The M1X (and I think) the E-M1 III are both somewhere around 1.1 MP for the LCD and I'm concerned that I'd find it difficult to get detailed views when zoomed in for focusing.

I believe the E-M1 has focus stacking - will I be able to stack 15 or 25 or 70 or 150 (not all the time but occasionally) images? And get the originals for rendering the stack elsewhere?

I'm THINKING about renting an M1X and 100-400 if I go to Florida this winter. I'd have to get it delivered where I was so I could use it for a week in the swamps and see if it's worth leaving Nikon...

If I'm blown away Probably an M1X and E-M1 III and some lenses. Probably NOT the $7500 150-400, but wide zoom, macro, long tele, and an equivalent of my 28-300 walk-around lens, though I don't know how good the quality is on the Zuiko ED 14-150 or 12-200... If I recall, there are a couple features the E-M1 III has that the M1X doesn't but I don't see me using the M1X for Milky Way shooting... I don't remember what the other things were, but what I read said they could be done with firmware so the M1X COULD be updated with them.

It sounds like you are ready for a lighter system and the E-M1 III or E-M1X are excellent in many respects. However, one aspect that you haven't yet mentioned is autofocus performance, particularly as you mentioned shooting some bird-in-flight. I understand that the D850 has very reliable continuous autofocus and tracking (although I haven't used one) so this is something you ought to think about. I left Olympus for Sony largely because I was seeking more accurate and reliable autofocus performance. Other Olympus users are perfectly happy with their cameras in this respect. Opinions differ. I was very satisfied with A9II but couldn't resist the A1 when it arrived, mainly due to those 50mp and that extra cropability. If you're doing heavy cropping, the accuracy of the autofocus becomes even more important.

I suspect, if the rumours are correct, that there will be an E-M1X II along before too long, probably with a stacked sensor (Sony have announced a m4/3 stacked sensor) which is likely to improve rolling shutter and frame rates and may well improve the performance of contiuous autofocus. That might make Olympus a very compelling option, particularly when combined with the 150-400 f/4.5, but also with the 300mm f/4 or 100-400mm, for those wanting or needing a smaller system.

Good luck!

 Tony Rogers's gear list:Tony Rogers's gear list
Sony a1 Sony FE 200-600 F5.6-6.3 Sony FE 85mm F1.8 Sony FE 50mm F1.8
john isaacs Veteran Member • Posts: 6,112
Re: "Crop-ability" of images?

Verkku wrote:

Donald B wrote:

bobn2 wrote:

Donald B wrote:

bobn2 wrote:

Muster Mark wrote:

bobn2 wrote:

dperez wrote:

More photographers who’s judgement I respect are talking about moving to Olympus. A question came up the other day and I’m trying to figure out the answer.

Nikon D850, 600mm f/4 versus M1X, 300mm f/4.

As I understand it - the lenses are the same equivalent - 600mm. The Nikon shoots at f/8 and ISO 3200 and 1/500. The M1X shoots at f/4 so the DOF is the same, and ISO 800 and 1/500, so the exposure is the same, right?

Wrong! Somewhere along the way you've picked up a wrong idea of what 'exposure' means. It does not mean how light or dark the image is. It means what is the light energy density at the sensor. It is determined by shutter speed, f-number and scene luminance. In your example, since the shutter speed and scene luminance are the same, but the f-number is two stops higher on the Nikon, it will have two stops less exposure. But it will make up for it by having four times the sensor area.

I think he was saying he puts the Nikon at f8 and gets the same results as the Oly at F4. This is correct. He has the Nikon shooting at ISO 3200 and the oly at ISO 800. I don't think your criticism of his understanding is warranted.

I didn't criticise his understanding except for the meaning of 'exposure', which he got wrong. This misunderstanding is unfortunately common. As you say, if he was saying that he gets the same 'results' or lightness, then yes, he's right.

I like this quote "The “Exposure Triangle,” as it is often referred to, is a handy way of interpreting the major components involved in the process of capturing an image.

Yes, I think that the 'triangle' is responsible for people thinking wrongly that the components of exposure are aperture, shutter and ISO.

well think of it like this , to expose a viewable image on the camera rear lcd or evf . the camera requires the correct aperture ,shutter speed and iso now try to argue against that

When invented by Bryan Peterson it was the 'Photographic Triangle'. Whatever the name, it's useless.

Tell me, please, how iso influnces exposure?

Shutter speed - motion blur

Aperture - depth of field

ISO - image brightness

 john isaacs's gear list:john isaacs's gear list
Olympus E-M1 II Panasonic Lumix DMC-GH4 Olympus E-M1 III Olympus OM-D E-M1X Olympus E-M5 III +16 more
Wu Jiaqiu
Wu Jiaqiu Forum Pro • Posts: 27,532
Re: "Crop-ability" of images?
2

john isaacs wrote:

Wu Jiaqiu wrote:

Donald B wrote:

bobn2 wrote:

Donald B wrote:

bobn2 wrote:

Muster Mark wrote:

bobn2 wrote:

dperez wrote:

More photographers who’s judgement I respect are talking about moving to Olympus. A question came up the other day and I’m trying to figure out the answer.

Nikon D850, 600mm f/4 versus M1X, 300mm f/4.

As I understand it - the lenses are the same equivalent - 600mm. The Nikon shoots at f/8 and ISO 3200 and 1/500. The M1X shoots at f/4 so the DOF is the same, and ISO 800 and 1/500, so the exposure is the same, right?

Wrong! Somewhere along the way you've picked up a wrong idea of what 'exposure' means. It does not mean how light or dark the image is. It means what is the light energy density at the sensor. It is determined by shutter speed, f-number and scene luminance. In your example, since the shutter speed and scene luminance are the same, but the f-number is two stops higher on the Nikon, it will have two stops less exposure. But it will make up for it by having four times the sensor area.

I think he was saying he puts the Nikon at f8 and gets the same results as the Oly at F4. This is correct. He has the Nikon shooting at ISO 3200 and the oly at ISO 800. I don't think your criticism of his understanding is warranted.

I didn't criticise his understanding except for the meaning of 'exposure', which he got wrong. This misunderstanding is unfortunately common. As you say, if he was saying that he gets the same 'results' or lightness, then yes, he's right.

I like this quote "The “Exposure Triangle,” as it is often referred to, is a handy way of interpreting the major components involved in the process of capturing an image.

Yes, I think that the 'triangle' is responsible for people thinking wrongly that the components of exposure are aperture, shutter and ISO.

well think of it like this , to expose a viewable image on the camera rear lcd or evf . the camera requires the correct aperture ,shutter speed and iso now try to argue against that

When invented by Bryan Peterson it was the 'Photographic Triangle'. Whatever the name, it's useless.

iso you say....the rabbit hole beckons

Exposure triangle:

https://www.cambridgeincolour.com/tutorials/camera-exposure.htm

Exposure settings:

https://www.adobe.com/creativecloud/photography/hub/guides/camera-exposure-camera-settings.html

Because when people think of "exposure", they think of the image.

ISO does not change the sensor's sensitivity to light though as per the adobe article, it's wrong

-- hide signature --

the computer says no

 Wu Jiaqiu's gear list:Wu Jiaqiu's gear list
Fujifilm FinePix X100 Nikon 1 V1 Nikon D2Xs Nikon 1 J3 Nikon AF-S Nikkor 300mm f/4D ED-IF +3 more
john isaacs Veteran Member • Posts: 6,112
Re: "Crop-ability" of images?
1

Wu Jiaqiu wrote:

john isaacs wrote:

Exposure triangle:

https://www.cambridgeincolour.com/tutorials/camera-exposure.htm

Exposure settings:

https://www.adobe.com/creativecloud/photography/hub/guides/camera-exposure-camera-settings.html

Because when people think of "exposure", they think of the image.

ISO does not change the sensor's sensitivity to light though as per the adobe article, it's wrong

Either you need to adjust ISO before taking the picture, making it an exposure setting, or you don't.  Either you can just shoot at base ISO and adjust afterwards, or you don't.

Are you shooting RAW?  Is your camera ISO invariant?

If not, then you need to adjust ISO, and that makes it an exposure setting.

 john isaacs's gear list:john isaacs's gear list
Olympus E-M1 II Panasonic Lumix DMC-GH4 Olympus E-M1 III Olympus OM-D E-M1X Olympus E-M5 III +16 more
Muster Mark Contributing Member • Posts: 588
Re: "Crop-ability" of images?

bobn2 wrote:

Muster Mark wrote:

bobn2 wrote:

dperez wrote:

More photographers who’s judgement I respect are talking about moving to Olympus. A question came up the other day and I’m trying to figure out the answer.

Nikon D850, 600mm f/4 versus M1X, 300mm f/4.

As I understand it - the lenses are the same equivalent - 600mm. The Nikon shoots at f/8 and ISO 3200 and 1/500. The M1X shoots at f/4 so the DOF is the same, and ISO 800 and 1/500, so the exposure is the same, right?

Wrong! Somewhere along the way you've picked up a wrong idea of what 'exposure' means. It does not mean how light or dark the image is. It means what is the light energy density at the sensor. It is determined by shutter speed, f-number and scene luminance. In your example, since the shutter speed and scene luminance are the same, but the f-number is two stops higher on the Nikon, it will have two stops less exposure. But it will make up for it by having four times the sensor area.

I think he was saying he puts the Nikon at f8 and gets the same results as the Oly at F4. This is correct. He has the Nikon shooting at ISO 3200 and the oly at ISO 800. I don't think your criticism of his understanding is warranted.

I didn't criticise his understanding except for the meaning of 'exposure', which he got wrong. This misunderstanding is unfortunately common. As you say, if he was saying that he gets the same 'results' or lightness, then yes, he's right.

This was a nuance I was unfamiliar with. Now I know!

-- hide signature --

Cheers,
-Ian

 Muster Mark's gear list:Muster Mark's gear list
Olympus E-3 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 Zuiko Digital ED 50mm 1:2.0 Macro
Wu Jiaqiu
Wu Jiaqiu Forum Pro • Posts: 27,532
Re: "Crop-ability" of images?
1

john isaacs wrote:

Wu Jiaqiu wrote:

john isaacs wrote:

Exposure triangle:

https://www.cambridgeincolour.com/tutorials/camera-exposure.htm

Exposure settings:

https://www.adobe.com/creativecloud/photography/hub/guides/camera-exposure-camera-settings.html

Because when people think of "exposure", they think of the image.

ISO does not change the sensor's sensitivity to light though as per the adobe article, it's wrong

Either you need to adjust ISO before taking the picture, making it an exposure setting, or you don't. Either you can just shoot at base ISO and adjust afterwards, or you don't.

Are you shooting RAW? Is your camera ISO invariant?

If not, then you need to adjust ISO, and that makes it an exposure setting.

it doesn't make your sensor more sensitive to light though, the article at adobe is wrong

-- hide signature --

the computer says no

 Wu Jiaqiu's gear list:Wu Jiaqiu's gear list
Fujifilm FinePix X100 Nikon 1 V1 Nikon D2Xs Nikon 1 J3 Nikon AF-S Nikkor 300mm f/4D ED-IF +3 more
bobn2
bobn2 Forum Pro • Posts: 69,811
Re: "Crop-ability" of images?
1

Donald B wrote:

bobn2 wrote:

Donald B wrote:

bobn2 wrote:

Muster Mark wrote:

bobn2 wrote:

dperez wrote:

More photographers who’s judgement I respect are talking about moving to Olympus. A question came up the other day and I’m trying to figure out the answer.

Nikon D850, 600mm f/4 versus M1X, 300mm f/4.

As I understand it - the lenses are the same equivalent - 600mm. The Nikon shoots at f/8 and ISO 3200 and 1/500. The M1X shoots at f/4 so the DOF is the same, and ISO 800 and 1/500, so the exposure is the same, right?

Wrong! Somewhere along the way you've picked up a wrong idea of what 'exposure' means. It does not mean how light or dark the image is. It means what is the light energy density at the sensor. It is determined by shutter speed, f-number and scene luminance. In your example, since the shutter speed and scene luminance are the same, but the f-number is two stops higher on the Nikon, it will have two stops less exposure. But it will make up for it by having four times the sensor area.

I think he was saying he puts the Nikon at f8 and gets the same results as the Oly at F4. This is correct. He has the Nikon shooting at ISO 3200 and the oly at ISO 800. I don't think your criticism of his understanding is warranted.

I didn't criticise his understanding except for the meaning of 'exposure', which he got wrong. This misunderstanding is unfortunately common. As you say, if he was saying that he gets the same 'results' or lightness, then yes, he's right.

I like this quote "The “Exposure Triangle,” as it is often referred to, is a handy way of interpreting the major components involved in the process of capturing an image.

Yes, I think that the 'triangle' is responsible for people thinking wrongly that the components of exposure are aperture, shutter and ISO.

well think of it like this , to expose a viewable image on the camera rear lcd or evf . the camera requires the correct aperture ,shutter speed and iso now try to argue against that

You got me there. The next time I want to print an image I must remember to take a picture of the LCD with my phone and print from that

-- hide signature --

Is it always wrong
for one to have the hots for
Comrade Kim Yo Jong?

bobn2
bobn2 Forum Pro • Posts: 69,811
Re: "Crop-ability" of images?
3

john isaacs wrote:

Wu Jiaqiu wrote:

Donald B wrote:

bobn2 wrote:

Donald B wrote:

bobn2 wrote:

Muster Mark wrote:

bobn2 wrote:

dperez wrote:

More photographers who’s judgement I respect are talking about moving to Olympus. A question came up the other day and I’m trying to figure out the answer.

Nikon D850, 600mm f/4 versus M1X, 300mm f/4.

As I understand it - the lenses are the same equivalent - 600mm. The Nikon shoots at f/8 and ISO 3200 and 1/500. The M1X shoots at f/4 so the DOF is the same, and ISO 800 and 1/500, so the exposure is the same, right?

Wrong! Somewhere along the way you've picked up a wrong idea of what 'exposure' means. It does not mean how light or dark the image is. It means what is the light energy density at the sensor. It is determined by shutter speed, f-number and scene luminance. In your example, since the shutter speed and scene luminance are the same, but the f-number is two stops higher on the Nikon, it will have two stops less exposure. But it will make up for it by having four times the sensor area.

I think he was saying he puts the Nikon at f8 and gets the same results as the Oly at F4. This is correct. He has the Nikon shooting at ISO 3200 and the oly at ISO 800. I don't think your criticism of his understanding is warranted.

I didn't criticise his understanding except for the meaning of 'exposure', which he got wrong. This misunderstanding is unfortunately common. As you say, if he was saying that he gets the same 'results' or lightness, then yes, he's right.

I like this quote "The “Exposure Triangle,” as it is often referred to, is a handy way of interpreting the major components involved in the process of capturing an image.

Yes, I think that the 'triangle' is responsible for people thinking wrongly that the components of exposure are aperture, shutter and ISO.

well think of it like this , to expose a viewable image on the camera rear lcd or evf . the camera requires the correct aperture ,shutter speed and iso now try to argue against that

When invented by Bryan Peterson it was the 'Photographic Triangle'. Whatever the name, it's useless.

iso you say....the rabbit hole beckons

Exposure triangle:

https://www.cambridgeincolour.com/tutorials/camera-exposure.htm

That article is full of errors, as are many on that site. Argumentum ab auctoritate is a fallacy in any case, but when your authority doesn't know what it's talking about, even more so.

Exposure settings:

https://www.adobe.com/creativecloud/photography/hub/guides/camera-exposure-camera-settings.html

That article starts with the sentence '”Exposure” is how bright or dark a photo comes out', which is completely and utterly wrong. So, given that it starts out wrong, don't be surprised if just about everything in it is wrong.

Because when people think of "exposure", they think of the image.

That depends on who is 'people'. If 'people' is people who know what exposure is, they don't.

-- hide signature --

Is it always wrong
for one to have the hots for
Comrade Kim Yo Jong?

john isaacs Veteran Member • Posts: 6,112
Re: "Crop-ability" of images?
1

bobn2 wrote:

john isaacs wrote:

Wu Jiaqiu wrote:

Donald B wrote:

bobn2 wrote:

Donald B wrote:

bobn2 wrote:

Muster Mark wrote:

bobn2 wrote:

dperez wrote:

More photographers who’s judgement I respect are talking about moving to Olympus. A question came up the other day and I’m trying to figure out the answer.

Nikon D850, 600mm f/4 versus M1X, 300mm f/4.

As I understand it - the lenses are the same equivalent - 600mm. The Nikon shoots at f/8 and ISO 3200 and 1/500. The M1X shoots at f/4 so the DOF is the same, and ISO 800 and 1/500, so the exposure is the same, right?

Wrong! Somewhere along the way you've picked up a wrong idea of what 'exposure' means. It does not mean how light or dark the image is. It means what is the light energy density at the sensor. It is determined by shutter speed, f-number and scene luminance. In your example, since the shutter speed and scene luminance are the same, but the f-number is two stops higher on the Nikon, it will have two stops less exposure. But it will make up for it by having four times the sensor area.

I think he was saying he puts the Nikon at f8 and gets the same results as the Oly at F4. This is correct. He has the Nikon shooting at ISO 3200 and the oly at ISO 800. I don't think your criticism of his understanding is warranted.

I didn't criticise his understanding except for the meaning of 'exposure', which he got wrong. This misunderstanding is unfortunately common. As you say, if he was saying that he gets the same 'results' or lightness, then yes, he's right.

I like this quote "The “Exposure Triangle,” as it is often referred to, is a handy way of interpreting the major components involved in the process of capturing an image.

Yes, I think that the 'triangle' is responsible for people thinking wrongly that the components of exposure are aperture, shutter and ISO.

well think of it like this , to expose a viewable image on the camera rear lcd or evf . the camera requires the correct aperture ,shutter speed and iso now try to argue against that

When invented by Bryan Peterson it was the 'Photographic Triangle'. Whatever the name, it's useless.

iso you say....the rabbit hole beckons

Exposure triangle:

https://www.cambridgeincolour.com/tutorials/camera-exposure.htm

That article is full of errors, as are many on that site. Argumentum ab auctoritate is a fallacy in any case, but when your authority doesn't know what it's talking about, even more so.

Exposure settings:

https://www.adobe.com/creativecloud/photography/hub/guides/camera-exposure-camera-settings.html

That article starts with the sentence '”Exposure” is how bright or dark a photo comes out', which is completely and utterly wrong. So, given that it starts out wrong, don't be surprised if just about everything in it is wrong.

Because when people think of "exposure", they think of the image.

That depends on who is 'people'. If 'people' is people who know what exposure is, they don't.

Your people have your definition of "exposure".  But you don't have a replacement for the exposure that includes ISO, which many other people are concerned with.

 john isaacs's gear list:john isaacs's gear list
Olympus E-M1 II Panasonic Lumix DMC-GH4 Olympus E-M1 III Olympus OM-D E-M1X Olympus E-M5 III +16 more
jonas ar
jonas ar Contributing Member • Posts: 915
Re: "Crop-ability" of images?

bobn2 wrote:

john isaacs wrote:

Wu Jiaqiu wrote:

Donald B wrote:

bobn2 wrote:

Donald B wrote:

bobn2 wrote:

Muster Mark wrote:

bobn2 wrote:

dperez wrote:

More photographers who’s judgement I respect are talking about moving to Olympus. A question came up the other day and I’m trying to figure out the answer.

Nikon D850, 600mm f/4 versus M1X, 300mm f/4.

As I understand it - the lenses are the same equivalent - 600mm. The Nikon shoots at f/8 and ISO 3200 and 1/500. The M1X shoots at f/4 so the DOF is the same, and ISO 800 and 1/500, so the exposure is the same, right?

Wrong! Somewhere along the way you've picked up a wrong idea of what 'exposure' means. It does not mean how light or dark the image is. It means what is the light energy density at the sensor. It is determined by shutter speed, f-number and scene luminance. In your example, since the shutter speed and scene luminance are the same, but the f-number is two stops higher on the Nikon, it will have two stops less exposure. But it will make up for it by having four times the sensor area.

I think he was saying he puts the Nikon at f8 and gets the same results as the Oly at F4. This is correct. He has the Nikon shooting at ISO 3200 and the oly at ISO 800. I don't think your criticism of his understanding is warranted.

I didn't criticise his understanding except for the meaning of 'exposure', which he got wrong. This misunderstanding is unfortunately common. As you say, if he was saying that he gets the same 'results' or lightness, then yes, he's right.

I like this quote "The “Exposure Triangle,” as it is often referred to, is a handy way of interpreting the major components involved in the process of capturing an image.

Yes, I think that the 'triangle' is responsible for people thinking wrongly that the components of exposure are aperture, shutter and ISO.

well think of it like this , to expose a viewable image on the camera rear lcd or evf . the camera requires the correct aperture ,shutter speed and iso now try to argue against that

When invented by Bryan Peterson it was the 'Photographic Triangle'. Whatever the name, it's useless.

iso you say....the rabbit hole beckons

Exposure triangle:

https://www.cambridgeincolour.com/tutorials/camera-exposure.htm

That article is full of errors, as are many on that site. Argumentum ab auctoritate is a fallacy in any case, but when your authority doesn't know what it's talking about, even more so.

Exposure settings:

https://www.adobe.com/creativecloud/photography/hub/guides/camera-exposure-camera-settings.html

That article starts with the sentence '”Exposure” is how bright or dark a photo comes out', which is completely and utterly wrong. So, given that it starts out wrong, don't be surprised if just about everything in it is wrong.

On the origin of the Adobe exposure slider.  Exposure compensation by means of processing.

bobn2
bobn2 Forum Pro • Posts: 69,811
Re: "Crop-ability" of images?
2

john isaacs wrote:

bobn2 wrote:

john isaacs wrote:

Wu Jiaqiu wrote:

Donald B wrote:

bobn2 wrote:

Donald B wrote:

bobn2 wrote:

Muster Mark wrote:

bobn2 wrote:

dperez wrote:

More photographers who’s judgement I respect are talking about moving to Olympus. A question came up the other day and I’m trying to figure out the answer.

Nikon D850, 600mm f/4 versus M1X, 300mm f/4.

As I understand it - the lenses are the same equivalent - 600mm. The Nikon shoots at f/8 and ISO 3200 and 1/500. The M1X shoots at f/4 so the DOF is the same, and ISO 800 and 1/500, so the exposure is the same, right?

Wrong! Somewhere along the way you've picked up a wrong idea of what 'exposure' means. It does not mean how light or dark the image is. It means what is the light energy density at the sensor. It is determined by shutter speed, f-number and scene luminance. In your example, since the shutter speed and scene luminance are the same, but the f-number is two stops higher on the Nikon, it will have two stops less exposure. But it will make up for it by having four times the sensor area.

I think he was saying he puts the Nikon at f8 and gets the same results as the Oly at F4. This is correct. He has the Nikon shooting at ISO 3200 and the oly at ISO 800. I don't think your criticism of his understanding is warranted.

I didn't criticise his understanding except for the meaning of 'exposure', which he got wrong. This misunderstanding is unfortunately common. As you say, if he was saying that he gets the same 'results' or lightness, then yes, he's right.

I like this quote "The “Exposure Triangle,” as it is often referred to, is a handy way of interpreting the major components involved in the process of capturing an image.

Yes, I think that the 'triangle' is responsible for people thinking wrongly that the components of exposure are aperture, shutter and ISO.

well think of it like this , to expose a viewable image on the camera rear lcd or evf . the camera requires the correct aperture ,shutter speed and iso now try to argue against that

When invented by Bryan Peterson it was the 'Photographic Triangle'. Whatever the name, it's useless.

iso you say....the rabbit hole beckons

Exposure triangle:

https://www.cambridgeincolour.com/tutorials/camera-exposure.htm

That article is full of errors, as are many on that site. Argumentum ab auctoritate is a fallacy in any case, but when your authority doesn't know what it's talking about, even more so.

Exposure settings:

https://www.adobe.com/creativecloud/photography/hub/guides/camera-exposure-camera-settings.html

That article starts with the sentence '”Exposure” is how bright or dark a photo comes out', which is completely and utterly wrong. So, given that it starts out wrong, don't be surprised if just about everything in it is wrong.

Because when people think of "exposure", they think of the image.

That depends on who is 'people'. If 'people' is people who know what exposure is, they don't.

Your people have your definition of "exposure".

'My people', is the people who invented and defined the word 'exposure', either Hurter and Driffield or someone working around the same time. It includes every film manufacturer and also ISO. 'ISO' is defined in terms of exposure, so exposure cannot include exposure, by definition.

But you don't have a replacement for the exposure that includes ISO, which many other people are concerned with.

The word you're looking for is lightness. ISO determines the lightness that you get for a given exposure.

-- hide signature --

Is it always wrong
for one to have the hots for
Comrade Kim Yo Jong?

Iliah Borg Forum Pro • Posts: 28,755
Re: "Crop-ability" of images?
3

john isaacs wrote:

when people think of "exposure", they think of the image.

Yes, but not necessarily and always the way you think of it.

-- hide signature --
bobn2
bobn2 Forum Pro • Posts: 69,811
Re: "Crop-ability" of images?
2

jonas ar wrote:

Exposure settings:

https://www.adobe.com/creativecloud/photography/hub/guides/camera-exposure-camera-settings.html

That article starts with the sentence '”Exposure” is how bright or dark a photo comes out', which is completely and utterly wrong. So, given that it starts out wrong, don't be surprised if just about everything in it is wrong.

On the origin of the Adobe exposure slider. Exposure compensation by means of processing.

Sure, but that doesn't excuse the technical author who wrote that for them getting the definition completely wrong. But then Adobe is a software company with its roots in computer reproduction, not photography, and probably self-important enough to think that their definition is the one that counts.

-- hide signature --

Is it always wrong
for one to have the hots for
Comrade Kim Yo Jong?

Keyboard shortcuts:
FForum MMy threads