 |
  |
 |
Thanks useful information: 45
Then you are not comparing apples with applesOriginally Posted by dtmateojr
- - - Updated - - -
Then you are not comparing apples with apples.
- - - Updated - - -
Then you are not comparing apples with apples.
Last edited by Lance B; 14-06-2014 at 11:54pm.
My PBase site: http://www.pbase.com/lance_b
My Flickr site: https://www.flickr.com/photos/35949907@N02/
Threadstarter
Why is that? It's the same film emulsion. It's the same apple from the same tree.
Threadstarter
See this is what happens when you mock the simplicity of my arguments and you try to overcomplicate things by including factors that are not even on-topic with the discussion. Stay on topic and you will be fine.
Threadstarter
Now if you want same DoF between FF and APS-C we could go like this:
FF 50mm, f/2.8, 1/60
APS-C 35mm, f/2, 1/125
Same light, same FoV, same DoF, same everything. Of course now you start arguing the obvious which is image size which has got nothing to do with light gathering at all.
Now it's different shutter speed, again not comparing apples with apples, we are just going round in circles.
Sorry, your line of argument is all over the place. It is plain to see that you have your mind made up and no matter what the facts are you are not going to change your mind. I know I'm correct but I can't be bothered arguing the toss any more as I have better things to do.
Threadstarter
ROFL! Because if we use the same shutter speed then the APS-C will actually gather MORE light vs FF (i.e. overexpose) and that will double debunk your myth but throw away everything that is meaningful in photographic exposure -- reciprocity!!!
Apples to apples?!!! The fact that they are different sensor sizes, your apples argument are already rotten before we even started.
Your line of argument does not make any sense. You maybe are one of the very few here in AP who believes in the myth. That's fine. It won't change physics
QED!
I agree with your original position. if you take a full frame sensor of 30mp and crop sensor of exacty half that size of the full frame of 15mp them theoretically the output from both should be equal. Taking zero other factors into account.
But in the real world tolerances in manufacturing, alone, would see tiny variations, even before you actually include lenses, which also have small variations in manufacturing, then add camera bodies and image processing chips and more, that in the real world even with two sensors of the same pixel density, there are going to a be small variations in the output quality.
So yes in a perfect artifical theoretical world the 30mp and the 15mp sensor should be the same, real world application would never see them so.
Your assumptions that two chips are both perfect in every way, holds your argument true, but only if those two sensor chips are perfect.
simple physics shows us one thing. our manufacturing processes are not perfect, until they are, your simplistic view of two sensors will not be 100% accurate. which is what those above you address, disagreeing with are saying.
it is a simple view of a complex real world application of the user of 'identical' sensors. two sensors of equal pixel density manufactured to the same specifications should offer the same light gathering ability, but put them in the real world and so many other variables come into play that there will be slight discrepancies, physics tells us that.
none of this affects us in taking photos, which is what we as photographs do. And in three years better sensors will be out that mean your sensor is not as good as the best on the market and then all anyone who is worried so much about pixel output will want, is a newer camera, even though their current camera and sensor takes great photos.
I would rather be taking photos than arguing about a sensors ability, when that sensor will be surpassed in a couple of years anyway.
Last edited by ricktas; 15-06-2014 at 8:50am.
Threadstarter
Agreed. And that's why I made a part 2 of my debunking article using film. Film emulsions are exactly the same across different formats. That's why the datasheet is the same for different formats. SAME EXPOSURE (apples to apples argument anyone?!), same development formula, same everything except size.That's the real-world example of perfectly the same "sensor".
The funny thing is he mocked that article for being overly simplistic but he didn't actually understand it. He totally missed the point. By a mile. That's after providing the official Kodak datasheet. Overly simplistic and humorous he said. Who's laughing now?
but again, real world can affect the result of that film. I kept mine in the fridge, you didn't. After six months we both use the film, the results would have variations.
whilst your position is true, real world application of it, shows it not to be perfectly accurate in all situations, due to other variables.
I too am out of this discussion, as it's going no where.
"It is one thing to make a picture of what a person looks like, it is another thing to make a portrait of who they are" - Paul Caponigro
Constructive Critique of my photographs is always appreciated
Nikon, etc!
RICK
My Photography
Threadstarter
That's why pro films like the Ektar have pointers on how to store them and they have expiration dates.
So what you're saying is that:
if you shoot with the same film type(sensitivity) but a different format(8x10 vs 135).
Using the same camera settings and capturing the same DOF in the scene, the images of each respective emulsion will look the same when viewed in the same manner
This is the humourous aspect in my comment. I have understood your film arguments, and I see holes in it with the exclusion of specific points which have to be included as they can't be avoided.
That's why I commented that it was humourous.
While my LF experiences are limited, I have a few, and I had to compare them with the 135 format images. That was the concept of the exercise in the media studies class, even tho it was 30 something years ago. It was part of the spark that started my interest in photography. I remember it clearly!
And your blog misses the point!
You can't make valid comparisons when you delete data selectively the way you have/are.
Missing the point seems to be THE topic in this thread!
Nikon D800E, D300, D70s
{Nikon}; -> 50/1.2 : 500/8 : 105/2.8VR Micro : 180/2.8 ais : 105mm f/1.8 ais : 24mm/2 ais
{Sigma}; ->10-20/4-5.6 : 50/1.4 : 12-24/4.5-5.6II : 150-600mm|S
{Tamron}; -> 17-50/2.8 : 28-75/2.8 : 70-200/2.8 : 300/2.8 SP MF : 24-70/2.8VC
{Yongnuo}; -> YN35/2N : YN50/1.8N
This just screams of a Strat vs Les Paul argument. And, as said above, the ones who get really technical, aren't producing anything worth listening to.
Just get out there and take photos. The best camera you can have is the one you have with you
Threadstarter
"Using the same camera settings and capturing the same DOF in the scene, the images of each respective emulsion will look the same when viewed in the same manner."
Missing the point seems to be THE topic in this thread!
Let's dissect your statement.
1) different formats, same film
2) same settings
3) same DoF????!!!!!
4) same image?!!!
How can you have #2, #3 and #4 simultaneously? In what world can you possibly do that? That's a serious question.
"And your blog misses the point!
You can't make valid comparisons when you delete data selectively the way you have/are."
I have not deleted anything. I even gave you the official Kodak datasheet. Did you read it? The only difference you will see in the datasheet is the film size. Selective blindness?
You forced me to use the same shutter speed in your "apples to apples" argument which is photographically WRONG. You do not understand exposure at all...much more so reciprocity. ROFL!
"While my LF experiences are limited, I have a few, and I had to compare them with the 135 format images. That was the concept of the exercise in the media studies class, even tho it was 30 something years ago. It was part of the spark that started my interest in photography. I remember it clearly!"
Remembering is separate from learning. Seems like you did not learn anything from your photography class because you can't even see inconsistent exposure. How could f/2.8 1/60 be the same as f/2 1/60?!!! Good Lord!
"This is the humourous aspect in my comment. I have understood your film arguments"
No you did not. How could you understand it when you do not even understand basic exposure?
"Missing the point seems to be THE topic in this thread! :lol"
Everyone here understood the topic until you joined
Threadstarter
Nothing can be truer than that.
Has anyone seen the Monty Python sketch on arguments?
......
M: Oh look, this isn't an argument!
(pause)
O: Yes it is!
M: No it isn't!
(pause)
M: It's just contradiction!
O: No it isn't!
M: It IS!
O: It is NOT!
M: You just contradicted me!
O: No I didn't!
M: You DID!
O: No no no!
M: You did just then!
O: Nonsense!
M: (exasperated) Oh, this is futile!!
(pause)
O: No it isn't!
M: Yes it is!
.......
At least I could follow an argument like that without having to look up terms every 30 seconds
Steve
No you did not. How could you understand it when you do not even understand basic exposure?
"Missing the point seems to be THE topic in this thread! :lol"
Everyone here understood the topic until you joinedWARNING: This is beginning to be personal. This far and no further or the thread will be closed. No problem taking about ideas, but talking about people is another matter
Waz
Be who you are and say what you mean, because those who matter don't mind don't matter and those who mind don't matter - Dr. Seuss...
D700 x 2 | Nikkor AF 50 f/1.8D | Nikkor AF 85 f/1.8D | Optex OPM2930 tripod/monopod | Enthusiasm ...
Close the thread....
Geoff
Honesty is best policy.
CC is always welcome
Nikon D3000 ... Nikon D90... Nikon D700 Various lenses, Home studio equipment and all the associated stuff
Flickr
Is this the 5 minute argument, or the full half hour?
I've got the popcorn ready!
All my photos are taken with recycled pixels.
Knowledge is knowing that a tomato is a fruit.
Wisdom, is knowing not to serve it in a fruit salad.
Posting Permissions
