Originally posted by dtmateojr Finally managed to read that link you posted. I stopped at this:
The concepts of, and connections between, total light, DOF, and noise, are much more easily understood in terms of aperture rather than f-ratio, especially when comparing different formats. While the same f-ratio will result in the same exposure (where exposure is the density of light that falls on the sensor -- photons / mm˛), regardless of the format, the aperture diameter, together with the shutter speed, determines the total amount of light that falls on the sensor, where the same total amount of light falling on the sensor results in the same noise in the photo, for equally efficient sensors. In addition, for a given perspective, framing, display size, viewing distance, and visual acuity, the same aperture diameter will result in the same DOF.
Wow, you only got a few paragraphs down! (It was late, I understand.)
Quote:
Clearly, that does not take into consideration the intensity of light which is affected by distance. It is very easy to see the big flaw in that explanation. If you consider only the total amount of light as the variable that affects noise then I would have to ROFL. Do you do flash photography? Do you know what a guide number is?[COLOR="Silver"]
The photon shot noise is what he's talking about at first. If you would have read even a little further you'd have seen how he talks about the other factors, like read noise (the additional noise added by the sensor and supporting hardware) and QE (proportion of photons falling on the sensor that are converted into electrons.) When you're discussing sensors of the same tech (as you and I were - remember when I said K5 vs D800 up there?) then you presume the read noise and QE will be close enough that the other sources of noise besides shot noise are going to be about the same between both sensors. Your A900 is an example of a sensor that had read noise and a low QE dominating as the source of noise a bit quicker than say the D600 does, and that's why the D600 is a much 'cleaner' sensor even though they have the same MP (24) and size. The read noise really takes over as a factor when the light gets really low, and if the QE is low as well... that's probably a main problem with the older FF sensors, and it's why newer aps-c sensors hold their own against those despite the difference in sensor area.
Quote: Is that an insult?
Just responding in kind. If you read back, I started out much more respectful in tone. After multiple flippant "
LOL!" one liner posts from you in which you didn't even try to read what I wrote or linked, I decided you weren't worth the facade. (Also, just thought it was amusing that when your other misconceptions were challenged by someone else in that other thread, you didn't whip out the "I have a physics degree!" as a last resort then, you said you were just a physics
major. Your bona fides seemed to have ramped up since then, is all
.
Last edited by jsherman999; 03-07-2014 at 06:59 AM.