dpreview also tries to teach the trolls about ISO/aperture :)

https://www.dpreview.com/articles/26...lence-and-why-
should-i-care

It's funny, this article contains pretty much the exact same key points and
examples I showed the trolls here a couple of years ago, where you need to
adjust the aperture *AND* the ISO to get similar end-result when it comes to
sensor amplification.

The example shows a MFT sensor having to adjust its aperture by the crop
factor and the ISO by the crop factor squared to receive the same amount of
total light as the FF sensor to produce an image with the same light
intensity and the same sensor amplification.

Now, where have I heard this before? :-D

Sandman
How to measure ISO
11/28/2015

"FF: 1/250, f5.6, ISO 800
MFT: 1/250, f2.8, ISO 200

The above is the same *amount of light* on the sensor, which
creates as identical image as possible using different
sensor technologies. Also, you adjust the ISO by the crop
factor squared to match the signal amplification of the
larger sensor, so you will get very equivalent noise."

In the dpreview article they used the exact same ratios:

FF: f5.6 ISO 3200
MFT: f2.8 ISO 800

And the end result was similarly amplified images. Go figure

--
Sandman

In article , RichA
wrote:

I think the confusion comes when some FF'r tries to pretend
exposures differ because of sensor sizes when ISO, aperture are the
same on both cameras.

Yeah, ISO is really the problem here, where camera manufacturers use ISO as a
way to set the amplification to a desired brightness result rather than a way
to determine how sensitive (amplified) the sensor output is.

Also, the camera manufacturers and lens manufacturers doesn't help the
problem when they will tell the user the focal length equivalent but not the
aperture equivalent. So it get's really messy for the non-informed user (i.e.
most)

--
Sandman

On 7 Sep 2017 06:44:27 GMT, Sandman wrote:

https://www.dpreview.com/articles/2666934640/what-is-equivalence-and-why-should-i-care

It's funny, this article contains pretty much the exact same key points and
examples I showed the trolls here a couple of years ago, where you need to
adjust the aperture *AND* the ISO to get similar end-result when it comes to
sensor amplification.

The example shows a MFT sensor having to adjust its aperture by the crop
factor and the ISO by the crop factor squared to receive the same amount of
total light as the FF sensor to produce an image with the same light
intensity and the same sensor amplification.

Now, where have I heard this before? :-D

Sandman
How to measure ISO
11/28/2015

"FF: 1/250, f5.6, ISO 800
MFT: 1/250, f2.8, ISO 200

The above is the same *amount of light* on the sensor, which
creates as identical image as possible using different
sensor technologies. Also, you adjust the ISO by the crop
factor squared to match the signal amplification of the
larger sensor, so you will get very equivalent noise."

In the dpreview article they used the exact same ratios:

FF: f5.6 ISO 3200
MFT: f2.8 ISO 800

And the end result was similarly amplified images. Go figure

Go figure indeed. If only the man applied the mathematics of the
situation from beginning to end he would not have reached the
(erroneous) conclusion he has.
--

Regards,

Eric Stevens

In article , RichA
wrote:

RichA:
I think the confusion comes when some FF'r tries to pretend
exposures differ because of sensor sizes when ISO, aperture are
the same on both cameras.

Sandman:
Yeah, ISO is really the problem here, where camera manufacturers
use ISO as a way to set the amplification to a desired brightness
result rather than a way to determine how sensitive (amplified)
the sensor output is. Also, the camera manufacturers and lens
manufacturers doesn't help the problem when they will tell the
user the focal length equivalent but not the aperture equivalent.
So it get's really messy for the non-informed user (i.e. most) --
Sandman

True native ISO is the real variable no one seems to want to
pin-down.

ISO is irrelevant. Camera makers should just have a setting for
amplification. So you set the camera to EV+X to have the signal amplified x
amount of times. And high-end cameras can have it pushed to EV+8 or EV+10
while more normal cameras maxes out at EV+6 or something.

Furthermore, EV+5 on one camera is NOT the same as EV+5 on another camera,
like ISO is trying to be.



--
Sandman

In article , Eric Stevens wrote:

Sandman:
https://www.dpreview.com/articles/26...uivalence-and-
why-should-i-care

It's funny, this article contains pretty much the exact same key
points and examples I showed the trolls here a couple of years
ago, where you need to adjust the aperture *AND* the ISO to get
similar end-result when it comes to sensor amplification.

The example shows a MFT sensor having to adjust its aperture by
the crop factor and the ISO by the crop factor squared to receive
the same amount of total light as the FF sensor to produce an
image with the same light intensity and the same sensor
amplification.

Now, where have I heard this before? :-D

Sandman How to measure ISO 11/28/2015


"FF: 1/250, f5.6, ISO 800
MFT: 1/250, f2.8, ISO 200

The above is the same *amount of light* on the sensor, which
creates as identical image as possible using different
sensor technologies. Also, you adjust the ISO by the crop
factor squared to match the signal amplification of the
larger sensor, so you will get very equivalent noise."

In the dpreview article they used the exact same ratios:

FF: f5.6 ISO 3200
MFT: f2.8 ISO 800

And the end result was similarly amplified images. Go figure

Go figure indeed. If only the man applied the mathematics of the
situation from beginning to end he would not have reached the
(erroneous) conclusion he has.

Take it up with dpreview, same math, same examples, same conclusions. Go
figure

--
Sandman

On Sep 8, 2017, RichA wrote
(in ):

On Friday, 8 September 2017 05:05:33 UTC-4, Sandman wrote:
In , RichA
wrote:

RichA:
I think the confusion comes when some FF'r tries to pretend
exposures differ because of sensor sizes when ISO, aperture are
the same on both cameras.

Sandman:
Yeah, ISO is really the problem here, where camera manufacturers
use ISO as a way to set the amplification to a desired brightness
result rather than a way to determine how sensitive (amplified)
the sensor output is. Also, the camera manufacturers and lens
manufacturers doesn't help the problem when they will tell the
user the focal length equivalent but not the aperture equivalent.
So it get's really messy for the non-informed user (i.e. most) --
Sandman

True native ISO is the real variable no one seems to want to
pin-down.

ISO is irrelevant. Camera makers should just have a setting for
amplification. So you set the camera to EV+X to have the signal amplified x
amount of times. And high-end cameras can have it pushed to EV+8 or EV+10
while more normal cameras maxes out at EV+6 or something.

Furthermore, EV+5 on one camera is NOT the same as EV+5 on another camera,
like ISO is trying to be.

That's actually not a bad idea. Problem is, camera makers are still pandering
to old film shooters, hence ISO which is the ASA of digital. Same reason
perhaps we still have F-stops and not T-stops for still shooting, though
that's probably as much about marketing as functionality.

One of the interesting features with my X-T2 is the EV adjustment dial
option. It has the typical +3/-3 EV dial settings. However, it also has a
“C� setting which passes control to the front control wheel and extends
the EV adjustment to +5/-5 EV. and acts very much like an amplification gain
adjustment to the base sensor generated signal.

Also, if I set the shutter speed dial to “T� shutter speed control is
passed to the back control wheel, and once the speed is moved from a correct
exposure, I can see the EV scale in the EVF moving between +3 and -3 all
without touching the EV dial. This is another EV amplification/gain
adjustment being made to the base sensor generated signal. It is just another
way of dialing the exposure I want manually, with the mirroless system giving
me real time WYSIWYG.

--

Regards,
Savageduck

On 8 Sep 2017 09:39:18 GMT, Sandman wrote:

In article , Eric Stevens wrote:

Sandman:
https://www.dpreview.com/articles/26...uivalence-and-
why-should-i-care

It's funny, this article contains pretty much the exact same key
points and examples I showed the trolls here a couple of years
ago, where you need to adjust the aperture *AND* the ISO to get
similar end-result when it comes to sensor amplification.

The example shows a MFT sensor having to adjust its aperture by
the crop factor and the ISO by the crop factor squared to receive
the same amount of total light as the FF sensor to produce an
image with the same light intensity and the same sensor
amplification.

Now, where have I heard this before? :-D

Sandman How to measure ISO 11/28/2015


"FF: 1/250, f5.6, ISO 800
MFT: 1/250, f2.8, ISO 200

The above is the same *amount of light* on the sensor, which
creates as identical image as possible using different
sensor technologies. Also, you adjust the ISO by the crop
factor squared to match the signal amplification of the
larger sensor, so you will get very equivalent noise."

In the dpreview article they used the exact same ratios:

FF: f5.6 ISO 3200
MFT: f2.8 ISO 800

And the end result was similarly amplified images. Go figure

Go figure indeed. If only the man applied the mathematics of the
situation from beginning to end he would not have reached the
(erroneous) conclusion he has.

Take it up with dpreview, same math, same examples, same conclusions. Go
figure

Same logical errors.
--

Regards,

Eric Stevens

On 9/8/2017 5:05 AM, Sandman wrote:


snip


Furthermore, EV+5 on one camera is NOT the same as EV+5 on another camera,
like ISO is trying to be.


Because adaptation of methods of exposure varies, ISO should not be
considered an absolute measurement of sensitivity, but merely a
reasonable guideline. That is one of the reasons a lot of us bracket
exposures.
--
PeterN

In article , Eric Stevens wrote:

Sandman:
https://www.dpreview.com/articles/2666934640/what-is-
equivalence-and-

why-should-i-care

It's funny, this article contains pretty much the exact same
key points and examples I showed the trolls here a couple of
years ago, where you need to adjust the aperture *AND* the ISO
to get similar end-result when it comes to sensor
amplification.

The example shows a MFT sensor having to adjust its aperture
by the crop factor and the ISO by the crop factor squared to
receive the same amount of total light as the FF sensor to
produce an image with the same light intensity and the same
sensor amplification.

Now, where have I heard this before? :-D

Sandman How to measure ISO 11/28/2015


"FF: 1/250, f5.6, ISO 800
MFT: 1/250, f2.8, ISO 200

The above is the same *amount of light* on the sensor, which
creates as identical image as possible using different sensor
technologies. Also, you adjust the ISO by the crop factor
squared to match the signal amplification of the larger
sensor, so you will get very equivalent noise."

In the dpreview article they used the exact same ratios:

FF: f5.6 ISO 3200
MFT: f2.8 ISO 800

And the end result was similarly amplified images. Go figure


Eric Stevens:
Go figure indeed. If only the man applied the mathematics of the
situation from beginning to end he would not have reached the
(erroneous) conclusion he has.

Sandman:
Take it up with dpreview, same math, same examples, same
conclusions. Go figure

Same logical errors.

Same hot air from the trolls of rpd

--
Sandman

In article , PeterN wrote:

snip

Sandman:
Furthermore, EV+5 on one camera is NOT the same as EV+5 on another
camera, like ISO is trying to be.

Because adaptation of methods of exposure varies, ISO should not be
considered an absolute measurement of sensitivity, but merely a
reasonable guideline. That is one of the reasons a lot of us bracket
exposures.

But the point is, ISO *was* an absolute measurement of sensitivity, meaning
that one film of ISO400 and another film of ISO400 was equally sensitive to
light, that was the entire point of ISO.

Now, when digital rolled around, they adopted ISO to mean sensor
amplification, but the problem was that ISO is sensitivity over a unit area,
not over the exposed area (since that was pretty much the same back in 135
days), but digital cameras can't use a standard that is relevant to unit
areas when each camera had different amount of such unit areas

--
Sandman