BebuLamar

The current system isn't perfect but what he proposed is far worse. He thought of a quickie without careful thought. He has 3 things he wanted to do.
1. To make the number larger for more light like larger number means longer exposure time and larger number means more light on the sensor.
2. To make the number linear to the amount of light for example twice the amount of light then the number is twice as large. He thought doing so would make it's easy for newbie to understand but it actually causes most people including the experienced can't comprehend.
3. To incorporate the idea of total amount of light falling on the sensor. While he has some valididty in term of equivalent noise for different sensor size but this value is no good for exposure settings.

He also neglected to think about the increments and rounding off. He think his system is shorter but when you think about the 1/3 stop increment the number is no longer short. Also using T stop running into a lot of problem he didn't think about and I don't care to elaborate here.

Fotoartist Loc: Detroit, Michigan

I think the guy is brilliant. He has obviously given this a lot of thought. First it is a valuable way for standardizing settings across different sensor size formats, which everyone finds confusing and often misleading. And the linear aspects for multiplying light and aperture are easier to grasp for beginners.

All in all, a digital revamping of the hodge podge accumulation of antique analog jargon for the new digital age of cameras. All this said, new tricks for this old dog aren't gonna happen.

chulster

The current system of measurements already is standard across different formats: 1/60s at f/2.8, ISO 100, yields the same exposure no matter the sensor. It's mystifying why he would put more importance on total noise and background blur radius than exposure. Exposure is fundamental; the other things are not.

Other than the shift away from exposure and toward total light as the thing to be conserved in translations across different formats (why?), his proposal consists only of (1) an inversion of units such that bigger numbers always mean more light, and (2) a doubling or halving of light is always represented as a doubling or halving of some measurement. But there are excellent reasons why f-numbers don't conform to that ideal, and to achieve his goal, he sacrifices the grounding in reality that the current system has, in favor of arbitrary numbers that would make things harder for beginners, not easier.

Fotoartist Loc: Detroit, Michigan

I think it's a good analogy to the metric system vs. the weird stuff we use now.

BebuLamar

It's not! the metric system is a good system. Tony's system is really from a short sighted thought.

Tim Hoover

Actually, I don't think the basic idea is so dumb. There's nothing wrong with revisiting an existing system to see if it can be improved. However, I think some of his solutions are misguided and his explanations are confused or confusing.
So, my take, point by point.

Shutter speed vs duration: He is correct. Shutter speed is a misnomer and perhaps bulkier than needed. The so-called shutter speed of a camera is indeed a duration and not a speed at all so why not label it as such? The idea of using msec instead of fractional seconds also makes sense to me. Of course his proposal, as I understand it, is a bit awkward for durations greater than 1 sec, but that could be fixed.

Aperture: His discussion is confusing and wrong in some places. However, he has at least identified a problem area. Very few people rally understand fstops. Even fewer understand tstops. I doubt if 10% of the members of UHH could correctly define either one or be able to tell the difference in available light between f3.5 and f8.
I think the problem is based on the fact that light reaching the sensor is a quadratic function of the lens diaphram diameter and very few photographers are able to do basic math in their heads. Using a system where the square root is already incorporated seems like an improvement.

ISO: There is nothing wrong with this system. Who cares what the acronym stands for? It is simply a linear amplification factor and easy to understand. I was surprised that he suggested changing the name to luminance, which is totally misleading. If the name needs to be changed, change it to amplification, which is all it is.

Focal length change to view: I'm not sure how this is really helping anyone. Focal length is pretty easy to understand and I'm not sure view is any easier. Different focal length lenses are going to have different fields of view on different format cameras no matter what. Does anyone really think it's clearer or more intuitive to specify field of view rather than focal length?

So, I would agree with fixing shutter speed and maybe linearizing aperture. I think focal length and ISO are fine as they stand.

speters Loc: Grangeville/Idaho

I don't think it is really dumb, just another way of thinking, so if he likes it, he should use it, but I for sure would not adopt to this/his "new wording", because to me there is just no need for it. There is simply nothing confusing about any of it (as he claimes) but why complicated now by trying to change it? That certainly would make it confusing to most people!

cambriaman Loc: Central CA Coast

To me this is just as sensible a proposal as suggesting that the Western Language Alphabet (A-Z) be scrambled and relearned by everyone.

kdogg Loc: Gallipolis Ferry WV

My brain hurts and I never got through the first 3 minutes.

kenabr Loc: S.E.Wisconsin

Not just nerdy but stupid. I can't see how thinking in milliseconds coded as D this and D that would be easier to understand than seconds and fractions of a second. Just plain dumb.

Tim Hoover

You might be right. The metric system may be beyond the reach of some people.

IDguy Loc: Idaho

If you don’t want to prove your dimness dispense with the Ad Hominum attacks. It is a logical fallacy and conveys no information other than your dimness.

If you want to contribute debate elements of the proposal or challenges with implementing it.

I do agree it isn’t going anywhere primarily due to market factors and psychology. Too many people and an enormous amount of literature, to say nothing of equipment, are locked into the current system. Look at how well the US is doing on adopting the metric system.

chulster

It's ad hominem, guys!

Tim Hoover

Aaaaargh, you're right. Sorry about that.

chulster

An arguably simpler and more elegant system, if the current system needs changing (which I don't think it does), would be one based on the EV system.

In this system, the current aperture, shutter speed, and ISO units would all be replaced with numbers that represent "stops" (powers of 2) of change from an arbitrary 0 point. Thus, an aperture of -2 would mean "two stops darker" than 0. It would be easily understood that reducing aperture by, say, 1.5 would require increasing shutter speed by 1.5 to maintain the same exposure.

I don't much like this system either, because, again, the values are not tied to anything in the real world.