Originally posted by Ian Stuart Forsyth No but you completely ignore this and think that crop will give you more DOF The only way cropped is giving you more dof is when you are limiting how much light the camera will receive.
At base ISO the amount of light the camera receives is pretty much meaningless, it's not an IQ concern, it's a debating point for some who have nothing else.
Quote: How is shooting with the same amount of light an apples to oranges ?
There is a reason total light is not atraditional photographic concept. like aperture, ISO, shutter speed and DoF and noise.
Because it makes no meaningful difference to IQ, especially since the "more" light is spread over a larger sensor.
I generally try and limit myself to discussing things that actually make a difference to the image.
In my experience, total light is only used as a debating point. Beyond that it has little meaning. Especially comparing APS-c and FF.
Bottom line, "total light" does not effect you ability to capture most if not all images. That's why it's only mentioned in debate. That's why you've never seen image comparisons in every day shots that show the advantage of total light. It's photographically meaningless.
Total light , like equivalence, cannot be used to prove the superiority of one system over another. That's what the experts say. However, amateurs tend to get sucked in by the rhetoric of those who try and pass their misunderstandings on to others.
Originally posted by Serkevan without having to *know* stuff that DSLRs require you to know.
We used to joke about people using auto-mode and jpeg... I'm not sure how things could be simpler.
Explain this maybe.. what's easier than looking thorough the viewfinder, focussing on the subject, and pushing the shutter button? How dose it get easier than that?
There's a difference between wanting to take snapshots, and "interested in photography."
An interest in photography would suggest getting to know the different photographic techniques used to achieve different photographic effects.
If you aren't interested in the difference between this
and this
Are you even interested in photography?
I find the idea that you can evaluate out of focus areas etc. through a viewfinder completely wrong on any small format system. Obviously looking at the glass on a 4x5 film camera would be different, but on any system where subject size is reduced no viewfinder, EVF or OVF will do the trick. And I find decisions made looking through the viewfinder are often overturned when viewing multiple images at different f-stops on a full 4k screen.
Even then, when I posted these images, some liked the narrow DoF, others like the wide DoF and I myself can't decide which I like best through the viewfinder or even afterwards sometimes. I take a series, and choose later. Of the above two, I liked both. All I had to do was change the aperture... how is that easier on a mirrorless? This about creating about 4 times as much work, because I take and process 4 images instead of one. It's not easier, but it's photography. Any subject of study is by definition, more than the person who doesn't study the subject is capable of understanding.
It's definitely not easier on my Lumix ZS100, the knob that controls the aperture turns the wrong way and the camera is so small I have to take my eye off the viewfinder and make the adjustment while keeping tabs on everything.
My own suspicion is that people are being sold a bill of goods, not something that's actually much if at all better.
I have never found the fact that people believe something has a whole lot of relationship to whether or not it's true.
The number of people still using their DSLRs is testament to the fact that, despite the hype, there's not much worth switching for.