I think that depends where you are looking and whose work you are seeing. TBH when I look at photographs the last thing on my mind is how many megapixels the camera had or how big the sensor was. Or even if it was shot on film. And most of the time I'd be hard pressed to guess.
I think that depends where you are looking and whose work you are seeing. TBH when I look at photographs the last thing on my mind is how many megapixels the camera had or how big the sensor was. Or even if it was shot on film. And most of the time I'd be hard pressed to guess.
All those old photos with bags of soul oozing from their grainy depths were most likely shot using the latest tech of the day.
Whilst this may be true in some cases I think there’s also a case that some people assume that people who are gear/tech obsessed don’t consider the art of photography like they used to do. There’s a place for both imo
The point I was/am trying to make is that if you use a 4/3 sensor at the same ISO/SS/F-ratio as on a FF sensor then the images will not be "equivalent." The 4/3 sensor will have less total light and therefore be much noisier. Yes, the "exposure" will be the same... but that's not the only factor of "equivalence." If you want a lens that can generate an "equivalent image" on a smaller sensor it must be used at a wider aperture.
I judge/evaluate/critique images all the time and I can usually tell if the image was taken with a crop sensor or MF, and even if it was recorded as a jpeg rather than converted into one. All I need is the settings/FL used and a high resolution image to evaluate...
How do you know? Equivalence is all about numbers, and actually, it does make you wrong.
You do need to, but you don't.
You make it sound like a virtue.
Except yours...
That sounds very like an argument.
No, it isn't. The same in terms of light gathering per sq mm, but total light gathered depends on total sensor area (as previously explained).
You might think you already know, but that's because you don't get the maths.
If you accept one, then the other follows automatically - if you understand equivalence properly.
Absolutely they do. Equivalence applies to any change in format, though with APS-C vs FF the difference is only a bit over one stop rather than two stops vs M4/3 so less significant.
That's a shame... even after nearly 40yrs with photography I still occasionally learn new things. I guess there's no point in wasting any more time on you...
I recognized the direction...
You are still confusing "exposure" with actual (total) light collection... you seem to refuse to understand/learn.
Yes maybe but as I see it most if not all the iconic photographs still mentioned are from the last century. Each year (or is it month) more pictures are taken than the first half of last century (IIRC) still somehow we fail to produce something truly significant and very few contemporary artists are really up there with the iconic ones.I think that depends where you are looking and whose work you are seeing. TBH when I look at photographs the last thing on my mind is how many megapixels the camera had or how big the sensor was. Or even if it was shot on film. And most of the time I'd be hard pressed to guess.
All those old photos with bags of soul oozing from their grainy depths were most likely shot using the latest tech of the day.
They might be in fifty years though. Time adds a different perspective to how we judge pictures. There have always been millions of photos taken. The difference is that before the internet we only got to see a curated selection. Now we see an endless stream of unfiltered pictures which we have to try to filter ourselves.
You still confuse the idea that you should double the values for aperture. Guess we're both stubborn . End of the day does it matter to your final images? I'm a photographer not a scientist or mathematician. I don't actually need to know the physics behind it, we are not all interested in numbers and we do not need to fully understand it despite what those who are into all that say. I'm sure there are plenty of dyslexic photographers who do just fine not reading forums or worrying about equivalence.
Only I said 50, but yeah even in 10 years the images from today will seem to have more character. Who knows what the trend will be by then though, I dread to think, since it's a vloggers world now, they get to dictate how cameras are being made already
I pretty much said this on the previous page
she admitted one day though that she preferred the more natural look of my images, they were more life like as well as having a more 'professional' feel. She started using those for her profile pics instead. She has a vague interest in photography, she just picks up on a lot of stuff I ramble on about, she knows how to frame a shot, she understands aperture, ISO and SS - she just gets irritated trying to work them all together I have bought her cameras over the years [I'd buy for her, but really they would be 'my' side cams ] - Got her an Rx100, X100s, X10 ... but they always ended up spending more time in my bag before selling on. She likes the results, but still prefers just using the phone for convenience. I like to think that will continue, the masses will prefer to use their phones but they will still appreciate higher quality images. And they still won't care if we use FF or M43
But that was my point, I think the lines will blur and phones etc will give that higher quality look,...... to the untrained eye.My missus went through the whole phase of taking selfies and throwing a smoothing filter over them to make her seem younger/prettier ... but she could never hide from the images I shot and upped of her
shots from these phone cams can indeed look fine, but I think people still notice the difference. Even when I upload simple snap shots of the kids to FB I get people asking what camera I use, or commenting that my photos always have more 'pop' than others. Of course a lot of that might be down to your composition and how you process, but I still think it's a long while before phones match the kind of depth and contrast you get even from a good compact camera.
I think it's a long time yet before phone cameras really catch up. They are mostly still atrocious for low light. For non pixel peepers i.e, anyone who doesn't frequent forums like this
TBH it surprises me how few people can tell the difference between a shallow DOF shot taken with a FF f1.8 lens and one taken with a phone to give the same lookI think it's a long time yet before phone cameras really catch up. They are mostly still atrocious for low light. For non pixel peepers i.e, anyone who doesn't frequent forums like this
Images with +85 clarity WILL have pop!
More depth is what I mean I guess
TBH it surprises me how few people can tell the difference between a shallow DOF shot taken with a FF f1.8 lens and one taken with a phone to give the same look
They are probably the same people who spend £1000 on the highest end phone and then boast "My phone can do that!" - then you remind them your whole set up costs less and won't be out-dated within a month
Equivalence is about creating an "equivalent image" in all aspects, to include ISO noise. If you accept that the relative aperture to sensor size affects the resulting noise, then you must realize that the aperture has to be factored for equivalence... they are the same thing.
Yes, it matters... because it affects the results. For instance the 100-300 you mentioned delivers not more than ~ 6MP on a 21MP 4/3 sensor (E-M1 MkII), and it can only deliver that much at 100/5.6... it only gets worse from there. There are a lot of reasons for that which include sensor size (MTF), pixel size (diffraction), and ISO noise (discernible detail).
