[fromunderthebridge]

I think it is worse than that. It is 'I can't imagine anyone doing anything different than I do', and disregarding the interests and goals of other people.

The only thing we can say with certainty is almost none of us shoot with a Pentax full frame. So what are we all going on about, obviously no one would want one.

FYI: I have my K-1 on preorder and have an Epson R3000 loaded with ilford gold fibre silk ready and waiting.

[dtmateojr]

I know why you don't want to answer and the reason why you don't want to

The 36mp FF image is the same size as a FF 16mp image 36mmX23.9mm that would mean that both the 36mp image and the 16mp would have to be enlarged by 4.23 times to viewed image ether on a monitor or in print 6x4inchs.



The cropped 36mp cropped is the same size as a 16mp cropped 23.7mmX15.7mm , that would mean that the cropped would have to be enlarged 6.43 times to be viewed at a 6x4inch print or the monitor.



Resolution play's no part in the size of the image, only thing that resolution can change is the resolution you will see in the final prints.

OMG?! ROFL!!!

See, this is why I didn't want to answer your question because it is so obvious! Of course 16Mp is the same IMAGE SIZE as any other 16Mp REGARDLESS of sensor size. But, dude, they are NOT the same resolution. A 16Mp APS-C or m43 has MORE resolving power than a 16Mp FF sensor.

See if you can figure that out. I'm literally laughing my a## out as I'm typing this.

---------- Post added 03-20-16 at 08:45 ----------

For the DPReview fans, follow this new thread http://www.dpreview.com/forums/post/57461505

The truth will come out and it will be a big slap in the face for Joseph James (aka Great Bustard) and his minions of equivalence proponents. So far only Jack Hogan is making sense in that thread. The rest just can't accept Jack's responses yet. They are probably trying to internalise the implications: that equivalence is very wrong.

Big grin :-D

[normhead]

The biggest advantage to the D810 over a K-3 is in the reds. The D810 is a bit better in the blues and greens, but nothing to write home about, in the reds, it's a whole different story.

I would expect to to see the same in the K-1.

[jsherman999]

An 50Mp E-M5, if such a beast exists, will match the performance of a full frame 5DS at any print size. Sensor size does not matter.

Therefore, equivalence is wrong.

Just wanted to highlight this, in bold, above - for the record, dtmateojr is stating that simply throwing more MP into a smaller sensor will match the performance of a larger sensor. Got it.

[John Poirier]

Just wanted to highlight this, in bold, above - for the record, dtmateojr is stating that simply throwing more MP into a smaller sensor will match the performance of a larger sensor. Got it.

Thank you. All is now clear.

[jsherman999]

... I just don't understand why manufacturers keep pushing for more megapixels ...

What do you mean, up there you just stated that throwing more MP into a sensor will beat a larger sensor!! Did you forget?!

The MP race has taken on a whole new urgency, now, because of your findings.

[dtmateojr]

Just wanted to highlight this, in bold, above - for the record, dtmateojr is stating that simply throwing more MP into a smaller sensor will match the performance of a larger sensor. Got it.

Yes, because the EM5 has the same SNR as the 5DS. Different story if it was vs a D800 but you will quote me totally out of context just to make me look stupid.

Keep on dreaming while others here have seen the light.

[jsherman999]

Yes, because the EM5 has the same SNR as the 5DS. Different story if it was vs a D800 but you will quote me totally out of context just to make me look stupid.

No, if I had left the entire quote there you would have looked even more stupid. I did you a favor. It was like a 100% crop of the stupidity in the original post.

Keep on dreaming while others here have seen the light.

While you have only seen a 100% crop of that light.

[noelpolar]

Most fun I had was printing a book for a 9yo niece..... we minded her dog for a few weeks and I did a photo book of "Daisey's Summer Vacation" for her......

Daisey and her date going to the RSPC Ball

A Night Out.jpg by Noel Leahy, on Flickr

[dtmateojr]

No, if I had left the entire quote there you would have looked even more stupid. I did you a favor. It was like a 100% crop of the stupidity in the original post.



While you have only seen a 100% crop of that light.

Wow. What a low life.
Please ignore me. I don't want you to learn something. Go to DPR instead. Lots of idiots there.

[Ian Stuart Forsyth]

OMG?! ROFL!!!
See, this is why I didn't want to answer your question because it is so obvious! Of course 16Mp is the same IMAGE SIZE as any other 16Mp REGARDLESS of sensor size. But, dude, they are NOT the same resolution. A 16Mp APS-C or m43 has MORE resolving power than a 16Mp FF sensor.
See if you can figure that out. I'm literally laughing my a## out as I'm typing this. ---------- Post added 03-20-16 at 08:45 ---------- For the DPReview fans, follow this new thread Total Light, and the 'print' tab at DXO: Photographic Science and Technology Forum: Digital Photography Review
The truth will come out and it will be a big slap in the face for Joseph James (aka Great Bustard) and his minions of equivalence proponents. So far only Jack Hogan is making sense in that thread. The rest just can't accept Jack's responses yet. They are probably trying to internalise the implications: that equivalence is very wrong.
Big grin :-D

And there is your problem you think that image size has everything to do with resolution, Image size is determined at the time of capture what is being projected by the lens and what the sensor captures resolution is the sampling rate that that image is being sampled at

What is the size of a FF 16mp image? The size of pixel 7.28 µm / 1000 X 4945pixels wide = 36mm wide image

And for a cropped 16mp pixel size is 4.77 µm /1000 X 4945pixels wide = 24.6mm wide image ( within the rounding error of a 4.77 µm pixel)

Same pixel count 2 different size of images captured

Simple question does using high resolution film change the size of the negative?

Does scanning a 645 negative at a lower resolution and then scanning the same negative at a higher resolution change the size of that negative?

All enlargements and scaling to the finalized view is based from that negative ( image), The resolution that image is scanned at (and the resolution of the lens) is what determines the resolution you will see in that printed or viewed image and has no bearing on the size of the image. Thus the reason why it’s called resolution when you increase the sampling of a sensor, just like when using high resolution film it will increase the resolution in your prints without changing the size of the negative.

---------- Post added 03-19-2016 at 07:30 PM ----------

The truth will come out and it will be a big slap in the face for Joseph James (aka Great Bustard) and his minions of equivalence proponents. So far only Jack Hogan is making sense in that thread. The rest just can't accept Jack's responses yet. They are probably trying to internalise the implications: that equivalence is very wrong.
Big grin :-D

June 19, 2014 at 21:13


‘The myth is that larger sensors gather more light and are therefore less noisy given the same exposure.’

Well that’s no myth: that’s either true or untrue depending on some of the parameters chosen at the time of capture as discussed earlier. Here is an example of when it is true (also easy to come up with one where it is not true): If the same scene and a peak exposure of, say, 0.5 lx-s are projected onto an Olympus EM5 and a Nikon Df, both 16MP cameras, the relative EM5 pixels will be see a signal of about 24k photoelectrons from the sensor – while the Df’s about four times as many. If the AOV is the same that will be true pixel by pixel throughout the image. More signal typically means lower SNR.

‘1) total light gathered determines noise’

If you are referring to the SNR of photographs of the same scene displayed at the same size aotbe, this is correct: more signal means lower SNR and vice versa.

‘2) larger sensor means more total light gathered therefore lesser noise — the solar panel argument’

True or untrue as per your opening statement.

‘3) aperture, NOT f-stop, determines total light gathered therefore lesser noise’

With an ideal thin lens aperture-and-focal length (otherwise expressed in terms of opening angle or f-stop) plus exposure time determine the total number of photons captured per unit area by a sensor aotbe.

That’s what I believe. Unless there are specific issues that you would like to explore further perhaps we should agree to disagree and leave it at that :-)


Jack Hogan

June 18, 2014 at 20:06


Mateo, I believe you did not read through Mr. James’ page thoroughly and you are confusing the concepts of total photons (light) captured vs Exposure (photons/mm^2 or light density as you called it) and Exposure vs Brightness.

Equivalence requires that the displayed photograph be as close to identical as possible – independently of the format that captured it. It can only be achieved by the careful choice of a number of parameters which include exposure time, Depth Of Field, perspective and final brightness. To keep DOF and perspective identical in the final displayed photograph ideally the capture needs to be taken by both formats from the exact same location, in manual mode with both f-number and focal length divided by the crop factor.

However, if the FF sensor’s capture is taken with a larger f-number (smaller aperture) this will result in a smaller Exposure (photons/mm^2***) aotbe. All cameras are designed to record a given Exposure at a certain percentage of their full scales – that’s how a camera’s ISO scale is determined by manufacturers (and the same applies to film). Therefore if Exposure is lower in the FF capture the captured data will show lower values with respect to full scale and therefore appear darker in the final image – unless it is brightened through processing (in-camera or in PP).

Brightening an image in-camera is done by raising the ISO. So if one wants an Equivakent final photograph it appears that JJ is correct.

Cheers,
Jack

***The total number of photons (light) in the photograph as captured by both formats remains of course approximately the same because of FF’s larger sensor size.

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

Sounds to me like he agrees with the Bustard

[dtmateojr]

And there is your problem you think that image size has everything to do with resolution, Image size is determined at the time of capture what is being projected by the lens and what the sensor captures resolution is the sampling rate that that image is being sampled at



What is the size of a FF 16mp image? The size of pixel 7.28 µm / 1000 X 4945pixels wide = 36mm wide image



And for a cropped 16mp pixel size is 4.77 µm /1000 X 4945pixels wide = 24.6mm wide image ( within the rounding error of a 4.77 µm pixel)



Same pixel count 2 different size of images captured

ROFL! Image size is horizontal pixels multiplied by vertical pixels. Nothing more. Don't overanalyse. You really are too funny.

Simple question does using high resolution film change the size of the negative?



Does scanning a 645 negative at a lower resolution and then scanning the same negative at a higher resolution change the size of that negative?



All enlargements and scaling to the finalized view is based from that negative ( image), The resolution that image is scanned at (and the resolution of the lens) is what determines the resolution you will see in that printed or viewed image and has no bearing on the size of the image. Thus the reason why it’s called resolution when you increase the sampling of a sensor, just like when using high resolution film it will increase the resolution in your prints without changing the size of the negative.

Err....wrong again. So you don't understand image size and you don't understand sampling as well. What do you understand?

---------- Post added 03-19-2016 at 07:30 PM ----------









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



Sounds to me like he agrees with the Bustard

Yes, he is one of the brainwashed by Bustard. So far he is now realising that PRINT snr has got nothing to do with sensor size and now somebody wants him (whoever that cainn guy is) to shoot himself in the foot by saying that sensor size does matter with total disregard for a proper explanation. Jack can't escape here. He will have to shoot himself in foot if he wants to remain brainwashed. What a bunch of clowns.

[normhead]

Only if that lens you have selected has shallower DOF or you are forced into buying a faster lens than you need

200 F/2 on cropped compared to FF 300 F/2.8
200 F/2.8 to 300 F4
cropped 300 F/2.8 to FF 400 F4
all about the same size, cost and weight

You are talking about shooting wide open. That's the only place you need ƒ2 to be comparable. So at one f-stop. For most of us we'd be shooting at least ƒ 5.6 on APS_c and ƒ8 on FF, but we could both be using an ƒ4 lens, or we could both be shooting ƒ2.8 lens. Shooting at 5.6 the advantage is to APS-c as for every aperture where the lens is stopped down a stop or more, we'd be using the same lens, but getting more reach with the APS-c camera. SO essentially your comparison is only valid for that percentage of your work where you are shooting wide open.

For many of us, that is irrelevant, for other reasons as well. We just don't shoot wide open very often. I shoot wide open in many sets, because I shoot at at least 4 ƒ-stops and select the one I think best suits the image, but rarely is the wide open image judged to be the best shot, or even worth keeping. So for many shooters, the question is , what will the lens do on APS-c and what will the lens do on a full frame and it just gives us more reach on APS-c. That is true for almost every f-stop, except for when the lenses are wide open. But Shooting ƒ2.8 on APS-c 200 you're likely to prefer the image to the ƒ2.8 FF anyway, so the point is a moot point applying to maybe 2% of your images. The rest of the time APS-c allows you more reach from the same lens.

It is kind of surprising though that a Nikon 300 ƒ4 weighs less than the DA* 200 ƒ2.8. The Canon 200 ƒ4 however weighs quite a bit more. So even that is somewhat dependant on the lens design.

AT $2000 USD, the 725 gram Nikon 300mm f/4E PF ED VR AF-S Nikkor is three times the price as the DA *200 2.8 and 825 grams.

The Canon EF 300mm f/4L IS USM Lens is $1300 USD , weighs 1,300 grams, so is way heavier and almost twice the price of the DA*200 2.8

The DA* 200 ƒ2.8 is $725 USD, by far the cheapest, and weighs 825 grams. The Nikon is designed to be lightweight the previous ƒ4 weighed a lot more, and there is a price premium for that.

SO just using your example, using available lenses, your wrong on price, incredibly wrong in both cases on price, weight is split the Canona ins heavier the Nikon is 100 grams lighter, but you pay for that. The previous Nikkor version the Nikon 300mm f/4D ED-IF AF-S Nikkor was pretty much the same as the Canon, $1300 and 1440 grams, 600 grams (more than a pound) more than the Pentax 200 2.8. SO even if we use your completely silly logic, you still haven't got it right.

All 300 ƒ4s are more expensive, close to twice as much. Two of the three examined are quite a bit heavier. Yes you can buy a lighter Nikkor, for 3 times the price.

You're pretty much grasping at straws here as far as I can tell, a quick check of the information on these lenses, and I doubt you would have posted such nonsense. Really? "forced into buying a faster lens than you need." That never happens. No one forces you to do anything. APS_c at least of your example in every comparison, saves you a lot of money, and in most cases, a lot of weight as well. I could also mention that the 300 2.8 lens you champion as "forcing you to buy" an ƒ2 APS-c lens is $5000. Very few of us are going to buy that lens anyway so for those of us who might, it could be a consideration. I makes me wonder though, do you own that lens? Would you have to buy an ƒ2 lens to match in APS-c what you have in FF? Or was this just the usual theoretical gobbly gook, and not even relevant to yourself?

Just curious.

[derekkite]

ROFL! Image size is horizontal pixels multiplied by vertical pixels. Nothing more. Don't overanalyse. You really are too funny.





Err....wrong again. So you don't understand image size and you don't understand sampling as well. What do you understand?




Yes, he is one of the brainwashed by Bustard. So far he is now realising that PRINT snr has got nothing to do with sensor size and now somebody wants him (whoever that cainn guy is) to shoot himself in the foot by saying that sensor size does matter with total disregard for a proper explanation. Jack can't escape here. He will have to shoot himself in foot if he wants to remain brainwashed. What a bunch of clowns.

Indeed the print tab on dxo is a simple formula where a factor of the ratio between the source resolution and the target resolution is added to the SNR at a pixel level. A higher resolution would bias the normalized SNR higher compared to a lower resolution.

But dxo doesn't presume that it represents anything but a portion of the shooting experience. There are lots of other tabs there. The SNR over the range of % grey is plotted, giving an indication of the difference in performance between a uniformly bright scene and a dark one. There is dynamic range giving an indication of how wide that bright and dark can be. Etc.

The formula for normalizing has the characteristic of limiting the adjustment. The full range of adjustment is expressed with a small difference, meaning that the base SNR is has more effect than the resolution.

If your shooting is limited to grey walls, then by all means be dogmatic about that chart, because it probably does represent your results. The rest of us will look at what we shoot, recognizing the strengths and weaknesses of each format and select accordingly.

[dtmateojr]

Indeed the print tab on dxo is a simple formula where a factor of the ratio between the source resolution and the target resolution is added to the SNR at a pixel level. A higher resolution would bias the normalized SNR higher compared to a lower resolution.

But dxo doesn't presume that it represents anything but a portion of the shooting experience. There are lots of other tabs there. The SNR over the range of % grey is plotted, giving an indication of the difference in performance between a uniformly bright scene and a dark one. There is dynamic range giving an indication of how wide that bright and dark can be. Etc.

The formula for normalizing has the characteristic of limiting the adjustment. The full range of adjustment is expressed with a small difference, meaning that the base SNR is has more effect than the resolution.

If your shooting is limited to grey walls, then by all means be dogmatic about that chart, because it probably does represent your results. The rest of us will look at what we shoot, recognizing the strengths and weaknesses of each format and select accordingly.

...and we have someone who understands.