Anders W

Suppose we have two cameras that both provide a DR of 10 at a certain ISO. You are certainly right that we can't tell from that fact how their SNRs will compare in the midtones and highlights. But ...

You're just digging a deeper and deeper hole for yourself. My point is and was that she was moving her body enough as she was playing to pose a challenge for nailing the focus as required by the ...

Beware of the strawman fallacy . The fact that you are repeatedly using it just reveals your lack of any valid arguments. As everyone can see for themselves, I obviously didn't claim that she was ...

It was very much an erratically moving subject within the 10 cm you erroneously claimed would suffice for DoF. No. It additionally shows what the DoF is like when shooting a half-figure portrait on ...

DR is in theory as well as practice a very good indicator of shadow noise which is in turn what primarily bothers most people here when it comes to noise at higher ISOs. That's also the reason why ...

My reasoning as well as the data were presented in a prior post of mine here , where I said the following: "In addition, you should be aware that the difference between the G9 and the Z6 might be ...

I already found it isn't and the image I posted demonstrates it. Then add the complication of nailing focus on an erratically moving subject. Furthermore, as you'd found if you had bothered to ...

Oh they certainly are. See here for example (fourth of the newly added remarks): https://www.dpreview.com/forums/post/65499458 Or at the very beginning of the very subthread you posted in here: htt ...

Hi Serguei, Thanks for posting about this but above all for your interesting work. I have some questions about the new stacking module and its capabilities. One of the stacking programs I have used ...

Hi Ken, Thanks for that reminder! I am using the electronic shutter more and more, knowing that the rolling shutter won't cause any harm to speak of for most of the shooting I do. But you're right ...

Actually, the theory you need in order to compare formats isn't terribly complicated and it would be very helpful in discussions like these if more people were aware of it. For example, when you ...

Forgot to mention that the 200/2.8 comes with a 1.4 tele-converter whereby it can be transformed to a 280/4. So you can get either f/2.8 speed with good reach or f/4 speed with even better reach. ...

Where did I say that systematic evidence necessarily takes the form of numbers? Part of the evidence I offered took the form of an image I had shot that illustrates the DoF limits at issue. The ...

For phone screens, these will of course be perfectly OK. Nice shots many of them. When I said you can't hope to get very good concert shots at 600 mm EFL, I was thinking of the technical quality ...

For used gear in Europe, there is also this alternative: https://www.mpb.com/en-eu/ This is the link to the EU site. There's also one for the UK. I've dealt with them as a seller as well as a buyer ...

The logic of jwilliams remains flawed and his last line demonstrates that he is also unwilling to learn. First, the OP didn't ask what's the best tool no matter what. He asked what might be the ...

Hmm. I asked a question about a concert photo I personally shot. In addition, I bothered to provide systematic evidence to back up that question. In response, you described subjective impressions ...

I was talking about stage shooting specifically. For such shots, you obviously expose for the spotlit subject, not for the dark surroundings, which as a rule are completely uninteresting. In the ...

Well that’s exactly what I suspected. Quite a few people make the mistake of ignoring systematic empirical evidence due to an exaggerated faith in their own subjective impressions. But of course ...

Can you please explain how gaining roughly one stop with respect to shadow noise (see the DR graph below) at the expense of two stops worth of DoF would make this a better concert photograph?