[rparmar]

So back it up "by detailed articles and evidence from optics and engineering." So far you have not done it contray to what you have been writing.

What don't you understand about the articles I have been referencing, or the ones those in turn reference? Or perhaps you don't understand the very concept of referencing, which is to provide support for an argument without having to write it all out again for the hard of thinking?

In optical terms the amount of luminous flux incident on the sensor per unit area is the illuminance. In photography we measure that by the f-stop, standardised across lenses and systems, so that f/2 is the same on the Q or any other camera. (I omit consideration of transmittance since everyone outside of cinema does the same, even though this is, in point of fact, inaccurate.) Total light captured is hence the sensor area multiplied by luminous flux as measured by f-stop. So a larger sensor captures more light, as I claimed.

Nowhere did I say that "k20d is 2 stops better than Q" [sic]. The post you quoted was correcting poor understanding of crop factor and focal length equivalence, as it makes explicit.

[zxaar]

What don't you understand about the articles I have been referencing, or the ones those in turn reference? Or perhaps you don't understand the very concept of referencing, which is to provide support for an argument without having to write it all out again for the hard of thinking?

I understand things perfectly well.

In optical terms the amount of luminous flux incident on the sensor per unit area is the illuminance. In photography we measure that by the f-stop, standardised across lenses and systems, so that f/2 is the same on the Q or any other camera. (I omit consideration of transmittance since everyone outside of cinema does the same, even though this is, in point of fact, inaccurate.) Total light captured is hence the sensor area multiplied by luminous flux as measured by f-stop. So a larger sensor captures more light, as I claimed.

If i put things mildly for you- you lack common sense. You keep blabbering about how light falling on larger area is and etc. Specially this : "Total light captured is hence the sensor area multiplied by luminous flux as measured by f-stop"

You keep forgetting a simple fact that - light captured by sensor is not same as light falling on it. To make things even bad you do not even understand that light captured by sensor is on mercy of technology involved. This is why there is difference between performance of sensors of same size. So a sensor in k20d with is old and not by same sensor technology is very likely to behave differently.

Further it is too difficult for you to understand that this sensor in 'toy camera' (as you love to call) is BSI sensor. It collects 20% extra light compared to normal sensor of same size.

All these factors are too diffcult for you to understand.

Nowhere did I say that "k20d is 2 stops better than Q" [sic]. The post you quoted was correcting poor understanding of crop factor and focal length equivalence, as it makes explicit.

Oh you did, here.

So my K20D is about four times more effective at capturing light than this toy camera.

Saying that it is four times more effective at capturing light is same as saying it is two stops better performance. If you can not understand what you are writing , take a print of this statement and ask someone who understands English well.


So still your talk is cheap. Back up what you say by ""by detailed articles and evidence from optics and engineering." I am waiting. Where are those detailed articles and evidence you love to boast about.

[Smeggypants]

Saying that it is four times more effective at capturing light is same as saying it is two stops better performance.

No it isn't. Not by a long way. Relative performances between cameras with different sensors is a whole lot more than just the amount of light captured.

This is basic stuff.

[rparmar]

Good lord, zxaar, you're a sad case. You can't win on one argument so you shift the goal-posts to something I never said. You ignore the links I give on one thread so you can ask about them on another. You even quoted a link I provided above (which links to others) but then pretend I never gave one! Pathetic!

You don't have the simple logic to understand that factors I am not writing about I am not writing about -- differences in sensor technology was never my subject and the article I referenced clearly says "all else being equal". Finally, you are incapable of Googling for the most basic articles yourself.

Well, I'm tired of working for free. How much would you like to pay me for an education? I generally get at least 50 Euros an hour.

But I charge a premium for babysitting.

[zxaar]

Good lord, zxaar, you're a sad case. You can't win on one argument so you shift the goal-posts to something I never said. You ignore the links I give on one thread so you can ask about them on another. You even quoted a link I provided above (which links to others) but then pretend I never gave one! Pathetic!

You don't have the simple logic to understand that factors I am not writing about I am not writing about -- differences in sensor technology was never my subject and the article I referenced clearly says "all else being equal". Finally, you are incapable of Googling for the most basic articles yourself.

Well, I'm tired of working for free. How much would you like to pay me for an education? I generally get at least 50 Euros an hour.

But I charge a premium for babysitting.

Still no detailed articles and evidence. All talk. I am waiting.

[zxaar]

No it isn't. Not by a long way. Relative performances between cameras with different sensors is a whole lot more than just the amount of light captured.

This is basic stuff.

I understand that, but he has not shown that k20d is 4 times better than Q at any of image related parameters, may it be light captured, signal to noise ratio, DR etc etc. He just blabbered that since area is 4 times more it has to be 4 times more effective or efficient.

[felixkh]

Whatever the argument is. The K20D, K7, K5 sensors are APS-C versus the Q with a sensor size of 1/2.3". How can anyone compare an apple and an orange. Both are totally different. The K20D, K7, K5 are bigger cameras whereas the Q is a mini camera targeted at beginners.

[Smeggypants]

I understand that, but he has not shown that k20d is 4 times better than Q at any of image related parameters, may it be light captured, signal to noise ratio, DR etc etc. He just blabbered that since area is 4 times more it has to be 4 times more effective or efficient.

He's not claiming to either.

[Smeggypants]

Whatever the argument is. The K20D, K7, K5 sensors are APS-C versus the Q with a sensor size of 1/2.3". How can anyone compare an apple and an orange. Both are totally different. The K20D, K7, K5 are bigger cameras whereas the Q is a mini camera targeted at beginners.

No one is trying to compare the APS-C sensors to the tiny 1/2.3".Q sensor in terms of claiming the Q sensor should perform as well as APS-C. we all know it won't. Not by a long shot