"Crop-ability" of images?

Started 5 months ago | Discussions
john isaacs Veteran Member • Posts: 6,113
Re: Why?

Iliah Borg wrote:

john isaacs wrote:

Iliah Borg wrote:

john isaacs wrote:

Iliah Borg wrote:

john isaacs wrote:

john isaacs wrote:

So shutter speed, aperture, and ISO are the settings for "lightness"?

No, shutter speed, aperture, and ISO are the settings for exposure.

Why are you trying to re-define the classic definition of exposure?

There is no "classic definition" of exposure.

LOL. There is.

BTW, settings for exposure and exposure are different things.

You need a link.

If _you_ need a link, try Google. I'm quoting from a book.

And exposure settings are what I'm talking about, because that's what gets you an image.

No, exposure settings don't get you an image. Exposure and processing do.

No, the camera makes an image all by itself.  I can do more processing, or not.

Well, I put up some links, and I'm perfectly happy with them.

 john isaacs's gear list:john isaacs's gear list
Panasonic Lumix DMC-GH4 Olympus E-M1 II Panasonic GH5 Olympus OM-D E-M1X Olympus E-M5 III +16 more
(unknown member) Forum Pro • Posts: 19,317
Re: "Crop-ability" of images?

Xasan wrote:

Donald B wrote:

bobn2 wrote:

Donald B wrote:

bobn2 wrote:

Donald B wrote:

bobn2 wrote:

Donald B wrote:

bobn2 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

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

a printer or computer is not a camera.

Some computers are cameras.

answer me this, what does the exposure comp dial change on a film camera ?

The zero point for the exposure meter, just the same as it does for a digital camera.

it changes the film speed settting.

What does the film speed setting set?

Exposure

Camera in manual mode, you set aperture and shutter speed. Does changing ISO or EC changes exposure?

why have the dial if it doesnt ?

checkmate

oh for Pete's sake

(BTW, it doesn't always work directly on the film speed dial)

-- 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.

bobn2
bobn2 Forum Pro • Posts: 69,811
Re: Why?
3

john isaacs wrote:

Well, I put up some links, and I'm perfectly happy with them.

For myself, I suggest that ISO and Kodak trumps 'Cambridge in Colour' and Adobe. Another bit from the Kodak Sensitometry workbook, in the glossary they give, for people that are unfamiliar with the terms:

-- hide signature --

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

john isaacs Veteran Member • Posts: 6,113
Re: Why?

bobn2 wrote:

john isaacs wrote:

Well, I put up some links, and I'm perfectly happy with them.

For myself, I suggest that ISO and Kodak trumps 'Cambridge in Colour' and Adobe. Another bit from the Kodak Sensitometry workbook, in the glossary they give, for people that are unfamiliar with the terms:

From when ISO was not a parameter that could be set in-camera, but was set by the film type (and adjustable by alternative processing.

Yet when they started producing digital cameras:

"Setting ISO Speed

The ISO setting controls the camera's sensitivity to light. Use a lower ISO setting in brightly lit scenes; use a higher ISO setting for low-light scenes.

NOTE:ISO settings are available in Auto, Landscape, and Close-up modes (unless Long Time Exposure is set). Higher ISO speeds may create a picture that is "noisier" than a picture taken at lower ISO speeds."

 john isaacs's gear list:john isaacs's gear list
Panasonic Lumix DMC-GH4 Olympus E-M1 II Panasonic GH5 Olympus OM-D E-M1X Olympus E-M5 III +16 more
bobn2
bobn2 Forum Pro • Posts: 69,811
Re: Why?
4

john isaacs wrote:

bobn2 wrote:

john isaacs wrote:

Well, I put up some links, and I'm perfectly happy with them.

For myself, I suggest that ISO and Kodak trumps 'Cambridge in Colour' and Adobe. Another bit from the Kodak Sensitometry workbook, in the glossary they give, for people that are unfamiliar with the terms:

From when ISO was not a parameter that could be set in-camera, but was set by the film type (and adjustable by alternative processing.

Yet when they started producing digital cameras:

"Setting ISO Speed

The ISO setting controls the camera's sensitivity to light. Use a lower ISO setting in brightly lit scenes; use a higher ISO setting for low-light scenes.

NOTE:ISO settings are available in Auto, Landscape, and Close-up modes (unless Long Time Exposure is set). Higher ISO speeds may create a picture that is "noisier" than a picture taken at lower ISO speeds."

The definition of exposure hasn't changed since digital became a thing. And ISO says that ISO isn't a component of exposure. If ISO isn't what ISO says it is, what is it?

Your continued arguing against the facts is pointless. It seems that you just can't bear to admit that you got it wrong.

-- hide signature --

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

john isaacs Veteran Member • Posts: 6,113
Re: Why?

bobn2 wrote:

john isaacs wrote:

bobn2 wrote:

john isaacs wrote:

Well, I put up some links, and I'm perfectly happy with them.

For myself, I suggest that ISO and Kodak trumps 'Cambridge in Colour' and Adobe. Another bit from the Kodak Sensitometry workbook, in the glossary they give, for people that are unfamiliar with the terms:

From when ISO was not a parameter that could be set in-camera, but was set by the film type (and adjustable by alternative processing.

Yet when they started producing digital cameras:

"Setting ISO Speed

The ISO setting controls the camera's sensitivity to light. Use a lower ISO setting in brightly lit scenes; use a higher ISO setting for low-light scenes.

NOTE:ISO settings are available in Auto, Landscape, and Close-up modes (unless Long Time Exposure is set). Higher ISO speeds may create a picture that is "noisier" than a picture taken at lower ISO speeds."

The definition of exposure hasn't changed since digital became a thing. And ISO says that ISO isn't a component of exposure. If ISO isn't what ISO says it is, what is it?

Your continued arguing against the facts is pointless. It seems that you just can't bear to admit that you got it wrong.

ISO is a component of exposure.

Or you can propose another term for "exposure settings" other than "exposure settings".

The facts, of course, are clear; there are numerous sources that describe the exposure triangle and exposure settings.

When you look at an image on DPR, they display focal length, shutter speed, aperture, ISO, and exposure compensation.  Focal length is not an exposure setting, but the rest of them are.

Your insistence to the contrary; there is little value in your definition because it is insufficient.

 john isaacs's gear list:john isaacs's gear list
Panasonic Lumix DMC-GH4 Olympus E-M1 II Panasonic GH5 Olympus OM-D E-M1X Olympus E-M5 III +16 more
bobn2
bobn2 Forum Pro • Posts: 69,811
Re: Why?
4

john isaacs wrote:

bobn2 wrote:

john isaacs wrote:

bobn2 wrote:

john isaacs wrote:

Well, I put up some links, and I'm perfectly happy with them.

For myself, I suggest that ISO and Kodak trumps 'Cambridge in Colour' and Adobe. Another bit from the Kodak Sensitometry workbook, in the glossary they give, for people that are unfamiliar with the terms:

From when ISO was not a parameter that could be set in-camera, but was set by the film type (and adjustable by alternative processing.

Yet when they started producing digital cameras:

"Setting ISO Speed

The ISO setting controls the camera's sensitivity to light. Use a lower ISO setting in brightly lit scenes; use a higher ISO setting for low-light scenes.

NOTE:ISO settings are available in Auto, Landscape, and Close-up modes (unless Long Time Exposure is set). Higher ISO speeds may create a picture that is "noisier" than a picture taken at lower ISO speeds."

The definition of exposure hasn't changed since digital became a thing. And ISO says that ISO isn't a component of exposure. If ISO isn't what ISO says it is, what is it?

Your continued arguing against the facts is pointless. It seems that you just can't bear to admit that you got it wrong.

ISO is a component of exposure.

Not according to ISO it isn't. As I say, it's pointless for you to keep on claiming that ISO is a component of exposure when ISO says it isn't. Who ware we supposed to believe, you or ISO? I'd go for ISO myself.

Or you can propose another term for "exposure settings" other than "exposure settings".

What you want to call a set of controls on your camera is irrelevant. The question in dispute here is whether exposure means the light energy density at the sensor (which is what it does mean) or whether it means how light or dark the picture looks, (which is not what it means).

The facts, of course, are clear;

Yes, they are. And you have them wrong.

there are numerous sources that describe the exposure triangle and exposure settings.

There are lots of sources that say all kinds of absurd things. So there being 'numerous sources' means nothing at all.

When you look at an image on DPR, they display focal length, shutter speed, aperture, ISO, and exposure compensation. Focal length is not an exposure setting, but the rest of them are.

According to you. But what DPR chooses to display from the EXIF is irrelevant to this discussion. It tells you nothing about what 'exposure is'

Your insistence to the contrary; there is little value in your definition because it is insufficient.

It's not 'my definition'. It is the internationally standardised and accepted definition. It is 'insufficient' for what? It's certainly sufficient for defining exposure, because that is what it does.

It's an interesting property of people who have become attached to disinformation. They are often very unwilling to detach themselves from it, however clear it is to everyone else that they have detached themselves from reality.

-- hide signature --

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

Iliah Borg Forum Pro • Posts: 28,761
Re: Why?
4

john isaacs wrote:

the camera makes an image all by itself

Even raw that a camera records is a processed exposure.

Ciao.

-- hide signature --
john isaacs Veteran Member • Posts: 6,113
Re: Why?
1

bobn2 wrote:

john isaacs wrote:

bobn2 wrote:

john isaacs wrote:

bobn2 wrote:

john isaacs wrote:

Well, I put up some links, and I'm perfectly happy with them.

For myself, I suggest that ISO and Kodak trumps 'Cambridge in Colour' and Adobe. Another bit from the Kodak Sensitometry workbook, in the glossary they give, for people that are unfamiliar with the terms:

From when ISO was not a parameter that could be set in-camera, but was set by the film type (and adjustable by alternative processing.

Yet when they started producing digital cameras:

"Setting ISO Speed

The ISO setting controls the camera's sensitivity to light. Use a lower ISO setting in brightly lit scenes; use a higher ISO setting for low-light scenes.

NOTE:ISO settings are available in Auto, Landscape, and Close-up modes (unless Long Time Exposure is set). Higher ISO speeds may create a picture that is "noisier" than a picture taken at lower ISO speeds."

The definition of exposure hasn't changed since digital became a thing. And ISO says that ISO isn't a component of exposure. If ISO isn't what ISO says it is, what is it?

Your continued arguing against the facts is pointless. It seems that you just can't bear to admit that you got it wrong.

ISO is a component of exposure.

Not according to ISO it isn't. As I say, it's pointless for you to keep on claiming that ISO is a component of exposure when ISO says it isn't. Who ware we supposed to believe, you or ISO? I'd go for ISO myself.

Or you can propose another term for "exposure settings" other than "exposure settings".

What you want to call a set of controls on your camera is irrelevant. The question in dispute here is whether exposure means the light energy density at the sensor (which is what it does mean) or whether it means how light or dark the picture looks, (which is not what it means).

The facts, of course, are clear;

Yes, they are. And you have them wrong.

there are numerous sources that describe the exposure triangle and exposure settings.

There are lots of sources that say all kinds of absurd things. So there being 'numerous sources' means nothing at all.

When you look at an image on DPR, they display focal length, shutter speed, aperture, ISO, and exposure compensation. Focal length is not an exposure setting, but the rest of them are.

According to you. But what DPR chooses to display from the EXIF is irrelevant to this discussion. It tells you nothing about what 'exposure is'

Your insistence to the contrary; there is little value in your definition because it is insufficient.

It's not 'my definition'. It is the internationally standardised and accepted definition. It is 'insufficient' for what? It's certainly sufficient for defining exposure, because that is what it does.

It's an interesting property of people who have become attached to disinformation. They are often very unwilling to detach themselves from it, however clear it is to everyone else that they have detached themselves from reality.

Your copied definition of "exposure" does not mention "light energy density at the sensor". But you do state "It is determined by shutter speed, f-number and scene luminance", which is clearly not sufficient because there are other factors that affect the light hitting the sensor and especially the light measured by the sensor.   All of which is captured by the ISO and Exposure Compensation (which directly correlate with illumination once the ISO is calibrated).

What you want is for exposure to be a useless concept; because there is no other way to determine  illumination of the sensor.

I can tell you the shutter speed and the aperture, and give you the image, and you cannot make any statement about the "exposure" because you do not have sufficient information.

Which makes the concept useless.

But take shutter speed, aperture, and ISO (and EC if non-zero), and you can have an estimate of the "exposure"; you just need to know what the "real ISO" is to get the rest.

And this is why you get push back on this definition; it is useless.

Finally, as for your definition being the "internationally standardised and accepted definition", that is really a hoot.  There is no such thing.  ISO isn't standardized. Aperture isn't transmissivity.

And I will not respond to your last statement.  But keep it up, and I'll report you.

 john isaacs's gear list:john isaacs's gear list
Panasonic Lumix DMC-GH4 Olympus E-M1 II Panasonic GH5 Olympus OM-D E-M1X Olympus E-M5 III +16 more
OP dperez Regular Member • Posts: 397
Re: "Crop-ability" of images?

I was ready to put down the money for an A1 and several lenses as a replacement for my D850 and D500 - which is the camera I shoot BIF with.  And instead of the A7R IV and A9 II.  Then I found out the A1 can't do focus stacking.  It appears that none of the current Sony's do focus stacking.  AND it doesn't have a fully articulating LCD, just the old-style tilting one like my Nikons.

Probably 20% of my images with the D850 are flowers and other closeup things, and both landscapes, close-ups and macros are routinely focus stacked...  Not having that capability meant keeping my current equipment and having 2 drastically different systems...  Bad idea.

From the Sony forums it APPEARS the belief is that it's just a firmware upgrade, but it doesn't seem to be on Sony's radar as something to be done any time soon.

So, I'm still looking at options...

OP dperez Regular Member • Posts: 397
Re: "Crop-ability" of images?

The 600/f4 isn't mine.  I routinely shoot a Tamron 150-600 on the D500.  It's been fully calibrated and works very well.

This wasn't a real-world scenario.  It was a question that got asked.

bobn2
bobn2 Forum Pro • Posts: 69,811
Re: Why?
3

john isaacs wrote:

bobn2 wrote:

It's not 'my definition'. It is the internationally standardised and accepted definition. It is 'insufficient' for what? It's certainly sufficient for defining exposure, because that is what it does.

It's an interesting property of people who have become attached to disinformation. They are often very unwilling to detach themselves from it, however clear it is to everyone else that they have detached themselves from reality.

Your copied definition of "exposure" does not mention "light energy density at the sensor".

But it is the same thing. Illuminance times time. What is illuminance? 'In photometry, illuminance is the total luminous flux incident on a surface, per unit area'. 'Per area' covers the 'density'. 'Flux' means flow. Take a flux times a time, and you get the amount of something that has flown. So, we're down to amount of light. Light is a form of energy. And there is a counterpart of photographic exposure used in radiometry, unsurprisingly called 'radiant exposure'. You can read about them in this article: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Exposure_(photography)

Here Illuminance is replaced by irradiance, and irradiance is measured in W/m^2. The Watt is the unit of power or work, multiply it by time and you get energy, so radiant exposure is simply energy density. Luminous exposure only counts light (visible) energy, so it's light energy.

But you do state "It is determined by shutter speed, f-number and scene luminance", which is clearly not sufficient because there are other factors that affect the light hitting the sensor and especially the light measured by the sensor. All of which is captured by the ISO and Exposure Compensation (which directly correlate with illumination once the ISO is calibrated).

Of course, those three factors are a simplification - one that you were also using except that you want to add in 'ISO' (except that below it seem that you think ISO has magical powers that cancel all these factors out). Certainly, to be precise we need to add in lens transmission, ND filters and the like. But that is also true if you want to put in ISO.

What you want is for exposure to be a useless concept; because there is no other way to determine illumination of the sensor.

What? I don't want exposure to be a useless concept. I just say it is what it is, and what it is has been useful in photography for over 100 years.

I can tell you the shutter speed and the aperture, and give you the image, and you cannot make any statement about the "exposure" because you do not have sufficient information.

Which makes the concept useless.

What does 'I can tell you the shutter speed and the aperture and give you the image' even mean? It's a complete nonsense.

Let's take you at your word:

f/5.6, 1/125 s. What's the image?

But take shutter speed, aperture, and ISO (and EC if non-zero), and you can have an estimate of the "exposure"; you just need to know what the "real ISO" is to get the rest.

OK then. ISO 400, f/8, 1/2000. What's the exposure?

Then, how do you know what is the 'real ISO'? And who determines what is the 'real ISO', given that you tell us below there is no ISO standard?

And this is why you get push back on this definition; it is useless.

I think there are other reasons. I explained why people push back against the truth in my last post. Below, you tell me it is offensive and threaten to report me for it.

Finally, as for your definition being the "internationally standardised and accepted definition", that is really a hoot. There is no such thing. ISO isn't standardized. Aperture isn't transmissivity.

There certainly is a hoot going on here, but that is not it. What do you think 'ISO' means? Here is a clue:

https://www.iso.org/home.html

So, what is the business of ISO? What does ISO 12232 tell us?

And I've quoted form the standard that you say doesn't exist. And you want 'ISO' to be 'calibrated'. Against what? And, if there is no standardised, accepted definition, how can it possibly be a part of exposure - because it could mean anything anyone wanted.

And I will not respond to your last statement. But keep it up, and I'll report you.

I made a general observation about the behaviour of people who have accepted misinformation. The world is full of examples. If you think that your own behaviour is a fit, then that's up to you. Then you might want to reflect, if being associated with that behaviour is so offensive to you, then why would you want to voluntarily go in for it?

-- hide signature --

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

(unknown member) Forum Pro • Posts: 19,317
Re: Why?

bobn2 wrote:

john isaacs wrote:

bobn2 wrote:

It's not 'my definition'. It is the internationally standardised and accepted definition. It is 'insufficient' for what? It's certainly sufficient for defining exposure, because that is what it does.

It's an interesting property of people who have become attached to disinformation. They are often very unwilling to detach themselves from it, however clear it is to everyone else that they have detached themselves from reality.

Your copied definition of "exposure" does not mention "light energy density at the sensor".

But it is the same thing. Illuminance times time. What is illuminance? 'In photometry, illuminance is the total luminous flux incident on a surface, per unit area'. 'Per area' covers the 'density'. 'Flux' means flow. Take a flux times a time, and you get the amount of something that has flown. So, we're down to amount of light. Light is a form of energy. And there is a counterpart of photographic exposure used in radiometry, unsurprisingly called 'radiant exposure'. You can read about them in this article: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Exposure_(photography)

Here Illuminance is replaced by irradiance, and irradiance is measured in W/m^2. The Watt is the unit of power or work, multiply it by time and you get energy, so radiant exposure is simply energy density. Luminous exposure only counts light (visible) energy, so it's light energy.

But you do state "It is determined by shutter speed, f-number and scene luminance", which is clearly not sufficient because there are other factors that affect the light hitting the sensor and especially the light measured by the sensor. All of which is captured by the ISO and Exposure Compensation (which directly correlate with illumination once the ISO is calibrated).

Of course, those three factors are a simplification - one that you were also using except that you want to add in 'ISO' (except that below it seem that you think ISO has magical powers that cancel all these factors out). Certainly, to be precise we need to add in lens transmission, ND filters and the like. But that is also true if you want to put in ISO.

What you want is for exposure to be a useless concept; because there is no other way to determine illumination of the sensor.

What? I don't want exposure to be a useless concept. I just say it is what it is, and what it is has been useful in photography for over 100 years.

I can tell you the shutter speed and the aperture, and give you the image, and you cannot make any statement about the "exposure" because you do not have sufficient information.

Which makes the concept useless.

What does 'I can tell you the shutter speed and the aperture and give you the image' even mean? It's a complete nonsense.

Let's take you at your word:

f/5.6, 1/125 s. What's the image?

But take shutter speed, aperture, and ISO (and EC if non-zero), and you can have an estimate of the "exposure"; you just need to know what the "real ISO" is to get the rest.

OK then. ISO 400, f/8, 1/2000. What's the exposure?

1/2000sec

Then, how do you know what is the 'real ISO'? And who determines what is the 'real ISO', given that you tell us below there is no ISO standard?

And this is why you get push back on this definition; it is useless.

I think there are other reasons. I explained why people push back against the truth in my last post. Below, you tell me it is offensive and threaten to report me for it.

Finally, as for your definition being the "internationally standardised and accepted definition", that is really a hoot. There is no such thing. ISO isn't standardized. Aperture isn't transmissivity.

There certainly is a hoot going on here, but that is not it. What do you think 'ISO' means? Here is a clue:

https://www.iso.org/home.html

So, what is the business of ISO? What does ISO 12232 tell us?

And I've quoted form the standard that you say doesn't exist. And you want 'ISO' to be 'calibrated'. Against what? And, if there is no standardised, accepted definition, how can it possibly be a part of exposure - because it could mean anything anyone wanted.

And I will not respond to your last statement. But keep it up, and I'll report you.

I made a general observation about the behaviour of people who have accepted misinformation. The world is full of examples. If you think that your own behaviour is a fit, then that's up to you. Then you might want to reflect, if being associated with that behaviour is so offensive to you, then why would you want to voluntarily go in for it?

-- 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?

Donald B wrote:

Wu Jiaqiu wrote:

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

No you cant the volume control controls the signal going to the af stage

Don

yeah you can

-- hide signature --

the computer says no

 Wu Jiaqiu's gear list:Wu Jiaqiu's gear list
Fujifilm FinePix X100 Nikon D2Xs Nikon 1 V1 Nikon 1 J3 Nikon AF-S Nikkor 300mm f/4D ED-IF +3 more
Wu Jiaqiu
Wu Jiaqiu Forum Pro • Posts: 27,532
Re: "Crop-ability" of images?

Donald B wrote:

Wu Jiaqiu 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

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

a light meter requires 3 inputs from the user for it to work.

Don

does that change your sensor's sensitivity to light?

-- hide signature --

the computer says no

 Wu Jiaqiu's gear list:Wu Jiaqiu's gear list
Fujifilm FinePix X100 Nikon D2Xs Nikon 1 V1 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:

Wu Jiaqiu 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

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

a light meter requires 3 inputs from the user for it to work.

Don

does that change your sensor's sensitivity to light?

A gain control controls the sensors sensitivity’s, which I presume is the iso control can’t image its further down the track. Same as gain control on a radio receiver.

Din

-- 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?

Donald B wrote:

Wu Jiaqiu wrote:

Donald B wrote:

Wu Jiaqiu 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

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

a light meter requires 3 inputs from the user for it to work.

Don

does that change your sensor's sensitivity to light?

A gain control controls the sensors sensitivity’s, which I presume is the iso control can’t image its further down the track. Same as gain control on a radio receiver.

Din

the volume control when i listen to the radio on my laptop works very differently to the volume control on an old valve radio

-- hide signature --

the computer says no

 Wu Jiaqiu's gear list:Wu Jiaqiu's gear list
Fujifilm FinePix X100 Nikon D2Xs Nikon 1 V1 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:

Wu Jiaqiu wrote:

Donald B wrote:

Wu Jiaqiu 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

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

a light meter requires 3 inputs from the user for it to work.

Don

does that change your sensor's sensitivity to light?

A gain control controls the sensors sensitivity’s, which I presume is the iso control can’t image its further down the track. Same as gain control on a radio receiver.

Din

the volume control when i listen to the radio on my laptop works very differently to the volume control on an old valve radio

No its the same , the potentiometer is just before the af preamp stage. a gain control is between the antenna and the rf stage basically. been a while i hope thats not to simplified 40 years since i passed my ham .

anyway im backing nikon usa site

https://www.nikonusa.com/en/learn-and-explore/a/products-and-innovation/iso-control.html

-- 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.

Iliah Borg Forum Pro • Posts: 28,761
Hah?
2

Donald B wrote:

ISO 400, f/8, 1/2000. What's the exposure?

1/2000sec

Photographic exposure is measured in lux seconds, how do you convert 1/2000 to lux seconds?

-- hide signature --
Iliah Borg Forum Pro • Posts: 28,761
Re: "Crop-ability" of images?
4

Donald B wrote:

A gain control controls the sensors sensitivity

No, it doesn't. Look at any sensor data sheet, sensor sensitivity / responsivity is given irrespective to gain.

-- hide signature --
Keyboard shortcuts:
FForum MMy threads