Originally posted by 24X36NOW I'm just searching for a logical explanation.
[...]
I have trouble believing that some "random calibration" issue is the culprit
[...]
Falconeye, I was indeed reading...and reading...and reading...and reading this discussion until my eyes were rolling like an old TV that lost its "vertical hold" control
24X36NOW, good summary of the thread
btw, I never considered this thread a contra FF thread. Speaking for myself, I just wanted to point out the real advantages of FF (and there are many). Because most of the time, the many false arguments pro FF hide the true ones.
With regard to your "
exposure depends on sensor size" observation, needing an explaination. Well, you made an interesting observation and it may be the topic of its own thread. But you have been simply jumping to conclusion here and this didn't pass unnoticed.
A proper dealing would require exact facts (cameras compared), test shots etc.
Good starting points may be
- the Kodak paper (which is mentioning a different 18% gray calibration factor allowing for more headroom in highlights for "professional" cameras (read studio)).
- the DxO lab tests of ISO sensitivity (
Welcome to dxomark.com (beta), a free resource dedicated to RAW-based camera image quality), showing large variations indeed. But not consistently depending on sensor size though.
Again, I propose to discuss the ISO calibration topic in a separate thread and it shouldn't be claimed a priori that it is sensor size specific.