Originally posted by swanlefitte Due to insomnia I just realized and checked that Tony Northrup video. When he shows his comparisons he is doing it on a monitor and lies by omission. He scales each differently. If the ff is scaled at 50%, the m43 is scaled to 75%. The em-10 has 16.1 MP the canon5dii has 21.1 MP. He presents them as being the same while ignoring he is presenting different resizing and using different pixel pitch and these are what creates any difference he shows in the noise and dof.
What he really says is if we pretend different things are similar things we can show that similar things produce different things.
He's a master of manipulation and deception. Even with a year of classroom work in lens design photographic theory etc. it took me a while to be able to understand exactly how he was manipulating things. I always knew he was wrong, but it can be difficult to explain exactly why.
It would be great exercise on a photography exam to put his work and grade students on their rebuttals. You can really tell how much a person understands about photography by how quickly they refute nonsense. In Northrups case, he's extremely convincing to the ignorant. He has just enough fact on his side to make his misrepresentations believable to those with a shaky background in photographic science, or any science for that matter.
Of course that's just my opinion. Well really it's my explanation for how people get so involved with Northrup's insanity and their impassioned defences of his half baked theories.
If you can't debunk a Northrup theory, you seriously need to learn critical thought. It's a test.
Traditionally, quoting Northrup is how people lacking an educated background in photography try to win friends and influence their rich uncle.
But it always puts them at odds with people who know their stuff.
And as far as I'm concerned that's the only thing worth knowing about Tony Northrup. If you repeat his theories, you're probably wrong.