FF vs APS-C -- light per pixel vs whole image

[dtmateojr]

Here's a big myth that is being spread in forums that I have been trying to debunk: full frame is better at gathering light compared to smaller sensor cameras. No it's not.

[ameerat42]

Here's a big myth that is being spread in forums that I have been trying to debunk: full frame is better at gathering light compared to smaller sensor cameras. No it's not.

Care to fully explode this "myth", dtm? A new thread in "f-stop" forum would be an idea. It may help focus the ideas of less-experienced photographers.
As it stands, you're only making an assertion of your own.

To start, I'll counter with: yes they are, because of their usually larger photosite size.
Am.

[dtmateojr]

Care to fully explode this "myth", dtm? A new thread in "f-stop" forum would be an idea. It may help focus the ideas of less-experienced photographers.
As it stands, you're only making an assertion of your own.

To start, I'll counter with: yes they are, because of their usually larger photosite size.
Am.

You are correct about the photosites. Fortunately that is not the myth. A better example is the Nikon D7000 vs D800 which have the same pixel pitch (same density). Full frame users still believe that their camera is a stop better at gathering light. That's completely wrong.

[dtmateojr]

Thanks for creating this separate thread. It's going to be a lengthy one :)

[Kym]

I've moved these posts to their own thread as its a good discussion

There are two different issues.

At the pixel level assuming same sized pixel in the same technology then the light is the same.

At the whole of sensor level and related to the final printed product,
then obviously a larger sensor has caught more photons for that same sized print.
But that is apples and oranges (different scaling).

Obviously comparing a Nikon D7000 to a D800 this holds true, now lets get serious... Pentax 645z 50mp MF !! :lol:

[dtmateojr]

Let me clarify that there are two separate arguments from full frame owners:

1. f-stops are not the same across different formats (equivalency argument)

2. the larger sensor area results in more light gathered therefore better noise performance. That's a stop of difference vs apsc and two stops vs 4/3rds

[dtmateojr]

I've moved these posts to their own thread as its a good discussion

There are two different issues.

At the pixel level assuming same sized pixel in the same technology then the light is the same.

At the whole of sensor level and related to the final printed product,
then obviously a larger sensor has caught more photons for that same sized print.
But that is apples and oranges (different scaling).

Obviously comparing a Nikon D7000 to a D800 this holds true, now lets get serious... Pentax 645z 50mp MF !! :lol:

Light volume has got nothing to do with it. The perceived better noise performance of larger images is a product of downsampling and not a result of better light gathering.

If you do not mind, here is my lengthy explanation complete with math:

http://dtmateojr.wordpress.com/2014/05/19/megapixel-hallucinations/

[dtmateojr]

People here seem to be unusually quiet :) I expected a non-stop salvo of machinegun fire from full frame proponents.

Anyway, if that previous link is too much to handle, here is a much simpler proof: FILM http://dtmateojr.wordpress.com/2014/06/10/debunking-the-myth-of-full-frame-superiority-part-2/

[ricktas]

I have not heard a myth about the D7000 D800 at all, unless your post is to try and create one? Self fulfilling prophecy and all! Certainly I am with Am on this. It is about pixelsite size. I have no idea where you found this myth dtmateojr cause it is not one that has been on AP. I think we have discussed this plenty of times. Most recently in a micro 4/3rd discussion, and the smaller sensor.

Perhaps you are creating a myth, where there was not one, in relation to AP and its members?


People here seem to be unusually quiet :) I expected a non-stop salvo of machinegun fire from full frame proponents.

Perhaps we are quiet cause you are telling us something we already know. I don't think you will get the heated debate you expected.

[ameerat42]

Why should you have expected that? It implies that any such proponents would be wrong.
You have amply made your point - complete with machine-gun fire - and thrown light into some possibly dark corners.

Most of the time it is only slipping up in semantics and expression that makes someone "wrong". That fixed, and lo! we're all talking the same language!
Thanks for your explanations/clarifications/setting wrongs right - and a flurry of other accolades. Now, to go and beat some machine-guns into ploughshares...
Am.

[bcys1961]

So where does my OMD fit on the scale of sensor sizes ? And does it really matter ?
I remember reading a quote , somewhere which was something like this : " The quality of almost all cameras you can buy today , far exceeds the skill of most photographers using them!".

[I @ M]

People here seem to be unusually quiet :) I expected a non-stop salvo of machinegun fire from full frame proponents.

I don't think it is unusually quiet at all. These days ever so many people are turning off from the tech details and surrounding arguments, simply grabbing the gear that suits their needs and getting pleasing images.


The more I see of posts from people getting into the technical stuff, the less I see good images from the people arguing ----

[merlin1]

Well there's been a lot of talk here but; what's the outcome.


Ross

[NikonNellie]

I have no idea about the technicalities between a D7000 and a D800. All I know is that I own both cameras and the quality of the images (especially in low light) of the D800 is far superior to the D7000. :confused013

[fess67]

Of course you know that the better quality light prefers to go into a Canon!! <runs> :lol:

[geoffsta]

Here is a bigger argument... I was watching the BooHoo clothing add on telly tonight. And near the end there was a skirt called the "PU Skirt"
So is the pronunciation "Pooh skirt" or "Puss Skirt"

Seriously. I @ M hit the nail on the head. People don't care how much light hits a sensor. People buy a camera for it's image quality, and what they can afford, and what feels comfortable in their hands. And that's all....

[Kym]

Demo, AP is well moderated and you won't get hit hard personally like on other fora; people acuse us of over moderation, but guess what? AP is safe.

Secondly, your arguments are technically sound, so no-one is trying to prove anything.

Thirdly, we really only care about final image, not so much how you got there or the gear that was used.

[dtmateojr]

I have not heard a myth about the D7000 D800 at all, unless your post is to try and create one? Self fulfilling prophecy and all! Certainly I am with Am on this. It is about pixelsite size. I have no idea where you found this myth dtmateojr cause it is not one that has been on AP. I think we have discussed this plenty of times. Most recently in a micro 4/3rd discussion, and the smaller sensor.

Perhaps you are creating a myth, where there was not one, in relation to AP and its members?



Perhaps we are quiet cause you are telling us something we already know. I don't think you will get the heated debate you expected.

It started in Pentax Forum ... you know, that brand that doesn't have any full frame :-D Their users are dying to get their hands on one but Pentax hasn't made any move. A lot of them have sold their Pentax gear and switched to CaNiSon just to satisfy their wants. They remain members of the forum and spreading nonsense.

Not sure how it happened but my blog spread to dpreview where people started calling me names :-)

It's good to know that this myth isn't popular here in AP but it sure is widespread in Whirlpool and is a constant source of heated arguments.

Have a look at the blog post again 'coz I have just approved a silly comment. Not sure where that guy came from but that's the kind of treatment I get for presenting facts. :-)

[ricktas]

It started in Pentax Forum ... you know, that brand that doesn't have any full frame :-D Their users are dying to get their hands on one but Pentax hasn't made any move. A lot of them have sold their Pentax gear and switched to CaNiSon just to satisfy their wants. They remain members of the forum and spreading nonsense.

Not sure how it happened but my blog spread to dpreview where people started calling me names :-)

It's good to know that this myth isn't popular here in AP but it sure is widespread in Whirlpool and is a constant source of heated arguments.

Have a look at the blog post again 'coz I have just approved a silly comment. Not sure where that guy came from but that's the kind of treatment I get for presenting facts. :-)

The world used to have village idiots, and everyone in the village knew who they were. Along came the net and the idiots just got a space to perform, where most did not know who they were. No use arguing with them on the net, cause no matter what, they will still be idiots. You cannot change that. Move on, know you are right about this topic, and leave the idiots behind. If they do not want to learn, or understand, then that is their issue, not yours. Don't let them drag you down into some meaningless conversation on the net. They enjoy doing that to people. Probably laughing when you reply, simply cause you did reply. They care naught for the facts.

PS: DPReview is notorious for this, pimply faced teenagers hiding behind the net, pretending to be photographic experts, but in some cases not even owning a camera. They read the net, gather information, become ex-perts, but ask them to show you some of their photography, and they have none.

We even get them here on AP. Pretending to be a Pro with years of experience, but something doesn't gel, and a bit of research by the mod team finds them on facebook, talking about their school excursion next week. We have banned a few of them over the years.

Ah the internet, good for somethings, great for idiots.

[Kym]

It's good to know that this myth isn't popular here in AP but it sure is widespread in Whirlpool and is a constant source of heated arguments.

AP is a class above :D
More importantly it is safe.

Some people think "mine is bigger and more expensive so it must be better" (and when will I get a 645z -- wishing :p ).
We don't get that here very often, or they just leave after a while.

So lets see some more of your photos!!

[Lance B]

All things being equal, the bigger the sensor, generally the better the photos and that is the law of physics and that really can't be argued. Higher dynamic range, better high ISO ability, and yes, better light gathering ability when everything is equal, ie, technology time frame (when the technology of each sensor size is at the same stage of development), aperture, equivalent focal length, shutter speeds, etc and very importantly resultant image size and viewing distances, a little gem that people don't seem to think of when discussing such matters. If you take your hypothesis to the 'nth degree, then we wouldn't need any camera larger than a cell phone and that is just plainly wrong.

Here is some light reading:
http://www.invensense.com/cn/mems/gyro/documents/articles/ResolutionandLightSensitivityTradeoffWithPixelSize.pdf

[dtmateojr]

AP is a class above :D
More importantly it is safe.

Some people think "mine is bigger and more expensive so it must be better" (and when will I get a 645z -- wishing :p ).
We don't get that here very often, or they just leave after a while.

So lets see some more of your photos!!

"Show me your shots"
That's the quickest way to silence a poser :)

[swifty]

Most of the time it is only slipping up in semantics and expression that makes someone "wrong". That fixed, and lo! we're all talking the same language!


Am summed it up well here IMO.
Assuming identical underlying silicon and tech, per unit area its all the same. Pick any area. You can expand this to any sensor size really and say a 1/2.3" sensor has the same light gathering ability per unit area as FF or medium format.
But I think ppl are talking about different things when saying FF has a '~1 stop advantage' over APS-C'.

[Bennymiata]

I'm not going to get involved with the technical or mathematic arguments here, but I know my 5D3 images are better and have more latitude than I get from my 60D (crop), especially in low light.
Using high ISO's on the full frame are also very much better than the crop sensor.

I'd also love to get a Pentax 645Z for the same reason as above in comparison to full-frame.

So many people forget that what we do is record light - pure and simple.
The larger the sensor, the more light can hit it.
The more light you have, the better your image - if it is exposed correctly of course.

Just MHO.

[Mark L]

Discussion is interesting enough. But I have the camera I have, and regardless of light per pixel, I can't afford to upgrade. I'm happy that my camera does a reasonable
job.

"Show me your shots"
That's the quickest way to silence a poser :)
No wish to offend, though, don't be silent and post some photos.;):)

[dtmateojr]

Discussion is interesting enough. But I have the camera I have, and regardless of light per pixel, I can't afford to upgrade. I'm happy that my camera does a reasonable
job.

No wish to offend, though, don't be silent and post some photos.;):)

Sure :)

http://pentaxphotogallery.com/artists/demosthenesmateojr

More here:

https://www.flickr.com/photos/dtmateojr

[Lance B]

Some excellent photos there, Demosthenes. :)

[dtmateojr]

Some excellent photos there, Demosthenes. :)

Thanks mate :)

[arthurking83]

Here's a big myth that is being spread in forums that I have been trying to debunk: full frame is better at gathering light compared to smaller sensor cameras. No it's not.

"No it's not" is technically an incorrect answer.

'It may not be' would be a more correct, or less incorrect answer(depending on how you prefer to argue), because you haven't taken into account so many variables.
Output size relative to input size, magnification vs FOV .. etc etc.

Just saying that a larger format is not better at gathering light cf a smaller format is wrong! .. plain and simple.

If you disagree with this proposition, in effect you will be describing great artists such as Ansell Adams as a fool for carrying around large format monstrosities into the wilderness, because he could have easily captured those exact same images as he had done using a box brownie!

Other's have already proposed reasons as to why the larger formats have the advantage, and it must be noted that the smaller formats have their advantages too(in terms of both size/weight and DOF capability for a given FOV, and any other that I can't currently think of)

Like NikonNellie said, you have one camera and you have another type of camera(in my case D300 vs D800E) and I much prefer the quality of the output of the D800E any day of the week.
And this is on the whole at base ISO .. and doesn't take into account the advantage of higher ISO from the D800E.

Strangely tho .. in looking back at my images every so often, I actually prefer the colour rendering of the old D70s(CCD) compared to most of my images with either the D300 or the D800 too.
(Although this could be a post processing dilemma of my own making).

Needless to say I'm a convert to the larger frame digital camera and while there are a few disadvantages, there are far more advantages to them.

I was telling the boys at the last Melb meetup .. my ideal camera setup would definitely be a Pentax 645z plus a few lenses of interest for the bulk of what I like to shoot.

The argument you've made in your OP is more relevant to a situation where you're comparing a smaller format camera's ability to capture light with a larger format camera with the specific situation where you would be cropping all the images of the larger format camera back to the same format size as the smaller one.
This is a ridiculous proposition, and is not why you would get a larger format camera.
While it does allow you the option to do this when the situation may require it, if you do this as a matter of course, then you've simply wasted you time, effort and resources in having the larger format camera!
A simple example of this is where you would upgrade from a D7000 to a D800(E or not) and then somehow lock the D800 into a Dx crop mode only.
if that sounds like an idiotic solution to an update/upgrade path .. it's because it is.
You just wouldn't do that if you were sound of mind.
You'd have the option to shoot in Dx mode if you chose, but you'd then use the Fx mode when you could .. in effect you have two cameras.

I did that for about a year or so whilst I was deciding on what UWA lens I wanted(or needed) .. and just shot with my Sigma 10-20mm in either Dx mode or Fx mode depending on what mood I was in.

[dtmateojr]

Please stay on topic. We are discussing light gathering capability, not DoF or colour or whatever.

And Ansel Adams, well he wanted more resolution. Why would he choose a smaller format but maybe he would. He was, afterall, quite excited about the prospect of digital photography. Was his choice of format due to its superior light gathering? Emphatic NO!

And since you brought film into this discussion, I will use film to refute your argument:

https://dtmateojr.wordpress.com/2014/06/10/debunking-the-myth-of-full-frame-superiority-part-2/

[I @ M]

That's a very long-winded response that is mostly off-topic. In case you are not aware, the topic is light gathering capability, not DoF or colour or whatever.

And Ansel Adams, well he wanted more resolution. Why would he choose a smaller format but maybe he would. He was, afterall, quite excited about the prospect of digital photography. Was his choice of format due to its superior light gathering? Emphatic NO!

And since you brought film into this discussion, I will use film to refute your argument:

https://dtmateojr.wordpress.com/2014/06/10/debunking-the-myth-of-full-frame-superiority-part-2/

Demo, you have your views, others are allowed to disagree but instead of accusing others of long winded replies and then directing views to your blog, maybe you could copy and paste your blog into a post in this thread.
Or aren't you into long winded responses?

[dtmateojr]

Demo, you have your views, others are allowed to disagree but instead of accusing others of long winded replies and then directing views to your blog, maybe you could copy and paste your blog into a post in this thread.
Or aren't you into long winded responses?

Apologies for that. Post has been edited.

[ricktas]

It seems to me you feel hard-done by, cause of the responses on other forums. Then you have come across to AP, and tried to see if we would get stirred up by the same debate. This did not happen. It is almost like you were hoping we would say you are wrong, just so you could become all defensive.

I am sorry that you experienced this on other forums, but please stop trying to create an argument on this one.

[geoffsta]

dtmateojr. The best thing about this forum is the respect all members have for each other.

It seems to me that what you are trying to do, is push your own blog. And I'm surprized that Rick has allowed you to post a link with only 30 or so posts (I thought a minimum of 50 was required)

I see that you have only added one image for CC. So your credentials as a photographer are very limited on this site. And yes, there has been some heated threads started on here. But in the end because of the culture Rick has created through solid rules and expectations. We kiss and make up, and have a good laugh after. Our only aim is to spend some time taking photos, uploading the images on the computer. And hoping that a fair amount of what we take, works out fine... And we can put one or two on here for others to CC. And what light hits the sensor we hope turns out to be a beauty.

So.. Lets see some more of your work. So we can give you some comments on them. And lets form a friendship that only this forum can produce.

[arthurking83]

Please stay on topic. We are discussing light gathering capability, not DoF or colour or whatever.

.....

LOL!

.... makes the point of this thread quite useless.

discussing the light gathering capabilities of APS-C vs 135 format sensor doesn't achieve any end point.

Not discussing DOF or the reproduction ability of various technologies misses the point of choosing one hardware spec or tech over another.

If I wanted easier to achieve deep DOF with acceptably fast shutter speeds .. I wouldn't be choosing a larger format, I'd be using a smaller format.
If I wanted more detail, I wouldn't choose a smaller format, I'd choose a larger format.

just discussing the merits of the light gathering capability of one format over another is a wasted effort.
On a per pixel level the format is of no relevance, the technology of the hardware is what is important.

So it begs the question, to what end were you expecting the discussion to finish at?

The better light gathering capability is almost always from the smaller format sensor, and by this I mean the small 1/3" smart phone sensors, as that's where the most research is being done.
That technological advancement is then sent 'up' the production line to be used in larger sensored (dedicated) cameras.

Your arguments re film are actually quite humorous.(ie. over simplistic!).

Referring back to a specific input value without taking into consideration the output type when discussing image creation is futile.
As already said in this thread.
There is no advancement in knowledge just in the fact that the light gathering capability of one format over another is equal.
This is of no value to anyone.
Where it becomes valuable is when the information is used to effect an end. With photography there is an end point(the image).

What you are discussing is the ability for various formats to capture light(equally) but then nothing is done with the output.
It would be either discarded or not actually captured at all.
Simply that the light gathering power of each is measured and that's it.
(does this advance our knowledge of anything in any way?)

You can't have a discussion about the relative merits, advantages, disadvantages or any other aspect of the format without referring back to the differences they also create!.
And if your argument is simply that a 36Mp Fx sensor's cropped (to 15Mp)image has the same light gathering power as that of the 15Mp Dx sensor again misses the point.

While I'm not as emphatically positive on AA's motives and reasoning in his choices as you seem to be(maybe you knew him better than me) .. I'm sure that foremost in his mind was the ability to OUTPUT!! .. to a particular print size. He did afterall rely on his prints to make a living .. and larger meant more.

So had he used a film APS-C camera, do you think he'd have had the ability to reproduce finely detailed 40" prints compared to his preferred choice of LF film.
He was a businessman afterall and a smaller format would have meant both speedier processing as well as much reduced costs and so on.
So on that theory, I'm pretty sure he'd have based his choice of gear simply for the ability to output to a specific size, and the lager the input, the larger the output can be for a given amount of detail rendering.

And Andrew made a comment about one's views vs another's views and this thread isn't so much about point's of view, it's should be about common sense.

if you're going to fix a variable(format) to be a constant(light gathering) and then hobble the variable with a restriction, you're not really going to be making any sense.

For sure make the case for certain sensors and certain formats, but don't pick and choose your criteria and talk about theoreticals for one side of your argument and then practical(or impractical) uses for the other, without any balance between them all.

And while Rick and Andrew are on the right track about personal views and causing arguments over nothing .. I feel there's nothing wrong with a healthy debate(as long as the arguments and propositions aren't of a personal nature). But the argument or proposal should at least make some sense.

[dtmateojr]

Does anyone else think that we are getting really out of topic here? If you want to discuss other aspects of FF vs smaller formats then open a new thread.

SNR is a very specific and important aspect of image capture because it is something that is fixed at manufacturing time. You can't control it. DoF, colour, DR can be controlled by the photographer.

My arguments on film are simplistic because not everyone can handle the physics and math in my other articles. Why is simple humorous? Do you have a counter-argument?

I'm not sure either why you are trying to argue the obvious. Larger image size of course can produce a larger print. So nobody is arguing with that.

Where are you going with this?

[Lance B]

Because everything you've mentioned, DOF, colour accuracy, DR and SNR are all interlinked with the end result of how much light a FF sensor collects and an APS C sensor collects. DOF because it has to do with the lens being used, ie what focal length is used, what aperture is being used and what shutter speed is being used to make the measurement equal between the two different formats and are all interlinked.

[dtmateojr]

Not true at all. f/2.8 at 1/60 has the same light as f/2 at 1/125 therefore same SNR and same DR and colour but the DoF are very different.

[dtmateojr]

A D7000 and D800 at the same f-stop and shutter speed will be the same in every aspect except DoF.

[dtmateojr]

A 35mm Ektar and 8x10 Ektar are exactly the same for the same f-stop and shutter speed except DoF.

[Lance B]

Not true at all. f/2.8 at 1/60 has the same light as f/2 at 1/125 therefore same SNR and same DR and colour but the DoF are very different.

Then you are not comparing apples with apples

- - - Updated - - -


A D7000 and D800 at the same f-stop and shutter speed will be the same in every aspect except DoF.

Then you are not comparing apples with apples.

- - - Updated - - -


A 35mm Ektar and 8x10 Ektar are exactly the same for the same f-stop and shutter speed except DoF.

Then you are not comparing apples with apples.

[dtmateojr]

Then you are not comparing apples with apples

Why is that? It's the same film emulsion. It's the same apple from the same tree.

[dtmateojr]

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.

[dtmateojr]

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.

[Lance B]

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.

[dtmateojr]

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.

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!

[ricktas]

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.

[dtmateojr]

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? :)

[ricktas]

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.

[dtmateojr]

That's why pro films like the Ektar have pointers on how to store them and they have expiration dates.

[arthurking83]

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 :confused013

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! :lol:

[PhotoPaul]

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

[dtmateojr]

Missing the point seems to be THE topic in this thread! :lol:

"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."

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 :)

[dtmateojr]

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

Nothing can be truer than that.

[Steve Axford]

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!

.......

[fenderstrat1963]

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.

At least I could follow an argument like that without having to look up terms every 30 seconds :D

[WhoDo]

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 :)

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

[geoffsta]

Close the thread....

[Lance B]

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!

.......

Is this the 5 minute argument, or the full half hour? :lol:

[Bennymiata]

I've got the popcorn ready!

[arthurking83]

.....

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 :confused013

......

oops! my bad there I have to admit.
I started to write that sentence in one way and altered it mid way and forgot to change the entire sentence to make more sense.

(I have to admit to an inability to multitask when frustration of PC hardware gets the better of me .. was trying to fix a constantly locking up friends PC at the same time).

I have to bow out of this thread myself too.
It's obvious that the OP is trying to explain something which is I suppose hard for me to understand.

That there is some myth being bandied about that two things that are the same .. are the same! :confused013
(if this myth needed debunking, I think you're probably the person to do it).

And you're probably right .. in that I have very little understanding of basic exposure.
My apologies for taking the discussion off your preferred course.