Total: 5, showing: 1 – 5
On article What is equivalence and why should I care? (2467 comments in total)

SouthElginDad: I don't understand why "total light hitting the sensor" matters. The image is captured by pixels, not by the entire sensor. It seems to me that total light -- per pixel -- is roughly the same, whether or not there are more total pixels on a larger sensor. (Granted, a smaller sensor may have smaller pixels in order to maintain resolution, but that's not what this article is saying -- it's saying that the total light hitting the entire sensor, regardless of how many pixels are on that sensor, is what matters.)

I get the part about the DoF, that makes sense. But I don't understand why total light on the entire sensor makes any difference.

Thanks for the replies, all. And for not calling me stupid! I think I'm starting to understand.

Link | Posted on Jul 9, 2014 at 05:51 UTC
On article What is equivalence and why should I care? (2467 comments in total)

SouthElginDad: I don't understand why "total light hitting the sensor" matters. The image is captured by pixels, not by the entire sensor. It seems to me that total light -- per pixel -- is roughly the same, whether or not there are more total pixels on a larger sensor. (Granted, a smaller sensor may have smaller pixels in order to maintain resolution, but that's not what this article is saying -- it's saying that the total light hitting the entire sensor, regardless of how many pixels are on that sensor, is what matters.)

I get the part about the DoF, that makes sense. But I don't understand why total light on the entire sensor makes any difference.

But photons are not collected by the entire sensor, they are collected by individual photo sites. So if you have a 1 MP cell phone camera with huge photo sites, and a 50 MP full frame camera with tiny ones, the number of photons collected -- per photosite -- would be larger in the cell phone camera, and therefore the image should be better.

Link | Posted on Jul 9, 2014 at 02:41 UTC
On article What is equivalence and why should I care? (2467 comments in total)

I don't understand why "total light hitting the sensor" matters. The image is captured by pixels, not by the entire sensor. It seems to me that total light -- per pixel -- is roughly the same, whether or not there are more total pixels on a larger sensor. (Granted, a smaller sensor may have smaller pixels in order to maintain resolution, but that's not what this article is saying -- it's saying that the total light hitting the entire sensor, regardless of how many pixels are on that sensor, is what matters.)

I get the part about the DoF, that makes sense. But I don't understand why total light on the entire sensor makes any difference.

Link | Posted on Jul 9, 2014 at 02:21 UTC as 311th comment | 10 replies
On article Just Posted: Sony Alpha SLT-A57 review (235 comments in total)

Great assessment, thank you. I have had the A57 since launch (even went to Best Buy to get it before the masses) and I've considered it a Gold Award camera the whole time. Nice to get validation from the pros.

Link | Posted on Sep 14, 2012 at 04:26 UTC as 48th comment
On article Mirrorless Roundup 2011 (426 comments in total)

tourtrophy: I am surprised Fuji X100 and X10 were not mentioned.

What a thankless task it must be to be an editor for DPR.

Step 1: Spend countless hours researching cameras
Step 2: Write comprehensive, informative, FREE article
Step 3: Brace self for onslaught of criticism

Although on the whole it seems like a pretty great job (play with all the new toys and write about them), this oft-repeated pattern must get tiring.

Link | Posted on Dec 20, 2011 at 12:55 UTC
 Total: 5, showing: 1 – 5