Not again! Oh dear (the equivalence issue)

[Reesebass]

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=DtDotqLx6nA

Sorry. No need to discuss equivalence in this, i think most of us know how the F stop on various systems works.

But the comments are just LOL worthy. And i love how the video title was at first: "How Sony, Olympus, Panasonic and Fujifilm cheat you"

Again sorry for the noise.

 

[taz98spin]

This post seems more worthy to be posted in DPR

 

[ijm5012]

I didn't both to watch it (who has 38 minutes of their life to waste watching something like this), but I can imagine how it goes. It's likely somebody who owns a FF camera making themselves feel better about their purchase by belittling smaller sensor cameras (DoF, noise, etc.)

It doesn't matter the size of the sensor, exposure should be the same regardless of sensor size (f/2.8 on FF is the same as f/2.8 on m43 when looking at ISO, Aperture, and Shutter Speed values. The only way this would differ, is due to light loss within the lens, which is why cinema lenses are rated with T-stops, which measure actual light transmittance, compared to F-stops, which are calculated for theoretical light transmittance). Where it differs is DoF, where typically m43 is 2 stops behind FF, or 1 stop behind APS-C (so a 25mm lens on m43 at f/2.0 would render the same DoF as a 50mm lens on a FF camera at f/5.6).

I honestly don't understand what is so difficult about this. The fact that people can't wrap their heads around this is baffling. I honestly feel sorry for them, and wonder how they make it through life, since there are FAR more complicated issues to deal with in real life compared to this sort of thing.

 

[Reesebass]

I didn't manage to watch the whole damn thing and don't intend to. Once i got to comments i couldn't stop reading the and being amazed at the same time. I regret posting this here, terribly sorry.

 

[tomO2013]

To be honest I found him to be quite condescending and misleading when he implied that Fuji, Olympus, Panasonic etc... are all lying to their customers.
He has a background in photography but nowhere in his credentials have I seen anything to imply that he has any manner of background in computer science (but I am open to being corrected). His bucket analogy is fundamentally flawed. It implies that the same bucket can hold more water (metaphor for light) as the bucket scales larger in a bigger sensor. It gives the impression that all light is 100% 'contained' / recorded accurately by each and every pixel. A more accurate analogy for a pixel photosite would be that of a sponge and the efficiency of absorption for that specific sponge. There is always some loss of light and absorption efficiencies vary from pixel photosite from generation to generation. The problem is that he is making huge generalisations.
Anyway, I think giving his video more time is only helping fuel more traffic to his website.
In fairness to him though, putting out a sensationalist video title like this is bound to get you notice ... makes it easier to pay the bills

 

[Markb]

Who's being cheated or lied to here? Smaller formats give greater DOF at the same aperture. Always have, always will. It's the laws of physics and all that. Once you know that, the facts are plain.

The term "full frame" is the problem here. It implies that this is the ultimate size for camera sensors. Once upon a time 24x36mm was called "miniature format" and was looked down on by "serious" photographers. The BPS voted in the late 30s to include 6x6cm in the miniature category too and that laughs at your puny "full frame" sensor :big grin:

IMO this whole equivalence business hinges on some pretty dodgy semantics and the old "blind with science" trick.

 

[LovinTheEP2]

A waste of time and bad math. If you cant do simple math.. don't post a video online. Irregardless of bad math skills.

Who cares already... the equivalence thing is beyond done already - now looping ISO into FF equivalence. Yikes.

Wanting to label lens with FF equivalence may just be the absolute stupidest thing I have ever every heard. I get.. why FF equivalence in relation to Focal Length is a good thing to mention as it creates a way of comparing a lens reach when talking 1" vs. m43 vs. APS vs. FF. Other then that.. totally a non issue and not even worth discussion. All this talk about ISO equivalence... All this talk about DOF equivalence is pointless. Anyone that truly cares about whisper thing DOF would be getting a FF anyway!!!!!

FAST glass isn't about DOF but FAST SHUTTER... hence the name FAST GLASS. It's about keeping ISO as low as possible.. it's about being able to prevent camera shake.. it's about being able to take an exposure without a tripod in very low poor lighting situations. Yes a F-rating has a depth of field impact but IT'S BEEN WAY BLOWN out of propotion.

Most of the bad bekoh images I see aren't due to Fast Glass but poor composition and not allow front, rear or front and rear blur. Most of the ones I have seen wouldn't be saved if they user had shot with an F1.2 lens vs. at F2+ I wish idiots like him needed an internet license prior to being allowed to post content online.

 

[fortwodriver]

This all started when some nobody bloggers got together and started talking about "relative bokeh"... That's really all this is.

Next thing to happen was the blogosphere got their panties all up in knots confusing F-Stops with T-Stops claiming that the F-Stop is related to sensor size. It isn't... It's just a mathematical fraction used to compare the lens stop to the focal length of the lens. But see, you can't really generate any heated debate from armchair lens-designers. So on and on it went.

It just shows you how one small ignorant group of people posing as "experts" on their blogs can set up a misinterpretation.

It just keeps snowballing.

 

[lightmonkey]

all lens makers ever , label lenses by their actual physical dimensions and measurements. as it should be. that includes nikon and canon

Subscribe to see EXIF info for this image (if available)

in a perfect world there should also be an angular rating, too. but width and magnification is so hardcoded to so-popular 135mm format that i understand why its used as a reference.

(while we're at it, id also like to for people to refer lenses as 'wide vs narrow'... or 'short vs long'..... 'wide vs long' just doesnt make sense )

 

[Reesebass]

Im a bit disturbed by the like/dislike ratio and the comments for the video. I bet after seeing this video, a number of people who are misinformed deside to dismiss mirrorless or any camera that isn't made by Canon or Nikon. It's sole purpose is to devalue Olympus, Panasonic, Sony and Fuji systems. I don't understand the guys motivation to pull this crap, just for clicks?

 

[GFFPhoto]

All that drama just because one guy doesn't understand the difference between focal length and field of view. It's kind of funny really.


Sent from my iPad using Mu-43 mobile app

 

[Klorenzo]

I suspect not many of the people who posted in this thread watched the whole video. I agree, is way too long. The first part is just some boring summary of the same old things.

Anyway I found the part about the aperture numbers, starting at 20:20 quite interesting. He just says that physically what is advertised as a 2.8 aperture is a 5.6 aperture. I get the same exposure because you need less light to lit a smaller sensor. But the aperture is just not that, and I think he's right.

I started a duplicate thread here: https://www.mu-43.com/showthread.php?t=64727

 

[fortwodriver]

I don't understand the guys motivation to pull this crap, just for clicks?

Of course it's clicks... The more clicks the more he can claim he's an "expert", the more people actually believe what he says to be true.

 

[Klorenzo]

Of course it's clicks... The more clicks the more he can claim he's an "expert", the more people actually believe what he says to be true.

What is it exactly that you think he got wrong? I mean, the video is boring, the ISO part is a long walk around to just say that small sensors are good as large ones but they are just smaller, etc. But in the end I found nothing really wrong, and I think I learned something about the apertures: not dof, not angle of view, just the physical size of the opening as measured with a ruler.

 

[Reesebass]

What is it exactly that you think he got wrong? I mean, the video is boring, the ISO part is a long walk around to just say that small sensors are good as large ones but they are just smaller, etc. But in the end I found nothing really wrong, and I think I learned something about the apertures: not dof, not angle of view, just the physical size of the opening as measured with a ruler.

I watched it 30 minutes ago. Notice how he accuses only Sony, Olympus, Panasonic and Fujifilm in the video (he changed the title later) and praises Canon and Nikon in the end. Not to mention his statements regarding F Stop are technically false.

You can check out this thread where the guys know what they are talking about:

http://www.eoshd.com/comments/topic/6406-must-watch-video-on-full-frame-vs-crop-cameras-full-frame-look-covered/

 

[coffeecat]

I am in a slight quandary here. I am NOT going to watch this video because a) I don't have the time and b) I won't add to his click total/pagerank/etc.

But hey I'm going to comment on it anyway because I think (hope) I have a rough idea what he's saying from all the forum chatter.

It reminds me of the eternal problem with terrorism - (at least the old fashioned kind with political objectives) - not much of the population of a nation would be terrorised if terrorist atrocities were not publicised. It's a great free speech dilemma. Because stopping the reporting of terrorism would be censorship, which is bad.

But anyway, I digress. This is not terrorism and I am not falling victim to Godwin's law!

This guy has put out a load of stuff which I suspect is mostly all defensible and loosely based on fact, but wrapped up in a load of spin seemingly aimed at trashing certain elements of the camera market, for reasons I have no idea about. And some of his assertions are probably just rubbish. But if you're not an expert you can't tell the wheat from the chaff. And it's generated so much hysteria that it's even being debated on sites like this where most people probably can spot the rubbish but are offended by it so want to let off steam talking about it. And because of how the Internet works, all this chatter effectively raises his profile and gives his platform a stronger voice.

I've looked at his LinkedIn CV, and some of his books on Amazon. His photography books seem to avoid the detail of the triangle of exposure and are more aimed at composition, story telling etc. Which is all good in itself. (I think I'm quite knowledgeable about the technical stuff of exposure, but I'm not too hot on the creative artistic bits which frankly are more important). I can't really believe he doesn't understand the exposure mathematics (but maybe he really doesn't). So who knows what his motivation for this is...

I get a big smile when I imagine the defence in a law court if someone actually tried to sue a camera company for "cheating" them by marketing their f2.8 lens as... an f2.8 lens...

Best thing (as adults used to say when I was a kid, about other kids at school causing trouble) would just be to ignore it.

Which obvously I haven't, because I'm human...

Anyway, that's enough time wasted.

Back to my actual evening job list...

Rob

 

[Klorenzo]

You can check out this thread where the guys know what they are talking about:

http://www.eoshd.com/comments/topic/6406-must-watch-video-on-full-frame-vs-crop-cameras-full-frame-look-covered/

I've read the whole thread and I could not find the "big error" I was expecting. I found a lot of posts that criticize things that are NOT in the video. That talks about exposure when he was talking about physical sizes. What post are you referring to?

 

[zlatko-photo]

This video is a terrible waste of time. I just metered the same subject with my Canon FF camera and my Olympus m43 camera and I got the same light reading, which is what I expected. That's how f-stops have worked in the photography world since the beginnings of photography. If the Olympus had given a light reading 2 stops off, just because the sensor is smaller, that would have been totally screwed up. Hence those manufacturers aren't cheating anyone. But this video is cheating people of their time.

 

[Jonathan F/2]

Any commentary on photography that discusses more about gear and optical physics and less about the art and craft of actual photography is not worth listening to!

 

[zap]

sounds like a waste of time... i'm not watching that video.