Full Frame vs. Crop - Can you compare Apples to Apples? (Page 5): If you are too cheap to buy a real camera, borrow one from a friend

selmslie Loc: Fernandina Beach, FL, USA

Ysarex wrote:

You made the sweeping generalization that ISO always effects raw files above base ISO: https://www.uglyhedgehog.com/t-642305-3.html#11141747

You don't get to limit that to only Nikon and Sony cameras or only DSLR cameras. We've been through this before and you've been proven wrong: https://www.uglyhedgehog.com/t-609317-1.html

Joe

If you are too cheap to buy a real camera, borrow one from a friend - if you have any.

Ysarex Loc: St. Louis

selmslie wrote:

It was doing fine until Ysarex hijacked the thread to peddle his BS about how ISO has no effect on raw data.

I never said that. I said: "ISO may or may not effect raw files. How ISO is implemented in processing is not specified in the ISO standard and there are plenty of examples of ISO used in compliance with the standard and raw files unaffected."

You hijacked your own thread.

We've been through this before and you've been proven wrong: https://www.uglyhedgehog.com/t-609317-1.html

Joe

selmslie Loc: Fernandina Beach, FL, USA

Ysarex wrote:

I never said that. I said: "ISO may or may not effect raw files. How ISO is implemented in processing is not specified in the ISO standard and there are plenty of examples of ISO used in compliance with the standard and raw files unaffected."

You hijacked your own thread.

We've been through this before and you've been proven wrong: https://www.uglyhedgehog.com/t-609317-1.html

Joe

The only thing that you have proven is that you don't understand the relationship between ISO and exposure.

You have said repeatedly that, "ISO doesn't apply to raw files." See https://www.uglyhedgehog.com/t-642305-2.html#11141161

I have shown many times in this thread and others that you are wrong by demonstrating what happens to the raw data when you change the ISO.

One of the first things that a beginner learns is that ISO has a direct influence on the recorded data - on both the JPEG and the raw data.

You have not reached that level of understanding. That's why you are afraid to talk about the "Exposure" Triangle.

If you ever figure it out then maybe you can move up and learn about exposing to the right and why a high ISO might lead you to blowing the highlights in the raw file.

Unfortunately, with your current level of understanding of the subject, you are not qualified to take on such an "advanced" topic.

You need to start over from the beginning. You might learn something from Image Brightness – What Affects It. It contains the real explanation of the meaning behind the Exposure Triangle.

wdross Loc: Castle Rock, Colorado

selmslie wrote:

My next post will show a closeup captured 16MP with the same equivalent focal length.

I used a 1.5x crop sensor (Fuji X100T, 23mm fixed lens, full frame equivalent 35mm) and a full frame 16MP Nikon Df and a Tamron 35mm f/1.8 Di VC USD.

Both images were taken from about 30 inches away on a tripod at ISO 200 1/1000 @ f/2.

There are physical properties that differ between the various formats that cannot be equalized. One can only compare the various formats and decide what attributes are the ones they want for their photography.

Some items can be compared "apples to apples", but some items will always be "apples to oranges".

Ysarex Loc: St. Louis

selmslie wrote:

The only thing that you have proven is that you don't understand the relationship between ISO and exposure.

You have said repeatedly that, "ISO doesn't apply to raw files." See https://www.uglyhedgehog.com/t-642305-2.html#11141161

In saying that I'm quoting the ISO standard adhered to by your Nikon and Sony cameras.

"The latest update to the ISO standard makes it explicit that it does not apply to Raw files. Until a tone curve is applied, a Raw file doesn't have a 'middle grey': it's up to the manufacturer to decide which Raw value should be used. Consequently, there isn’t a specific Raw value you can measure or check for correct lightness, so you can't measure the ISO (or ISO accuracy) of a Raw file." [my bold] https://www.dpreview.com/articles/9698391814/the-ins-and-outs-of-iso-what-is-iso

You're confusing "apply to" with "effects." And you're wrong on both counts. We've been through this before and you've been proven wrong: https://www.uglyhedgehog.com/t-609317-1.html

I suggest you stop hijacking your own thread.

Joe

selmslie Loc: Fernandina Beach, FL, USA

Ysarex wrote:

In saying that I'm quoting the ISO standard adhered to by your Nikon and Sony cameras. ...

You contention was that, "ISO doesn't apply to raw files." The word "standard" has often been missing from that claim.

It lead you to assert that changing the ISO has no effect the raw file. I proved that to be wrong.

This only shows that you don't really understand what you are reading and what you are claiming. Too bad. It has made you look foolish. That's your own fault.

selmslie Loc: Fernandina Beach, FL, USA

wdross wrote:

There are physical properties that differ between the various formats that cannot be equalized. One can only compare the various formats and decide what attributes are the ones they want for their photography.

Some items can be compared "apples to apples", but some items will always be "apples to oranges".

Photography is about what we see, not about numbers and calculations.

The real question behind this thread is, can you spot any visible differences in quality between the two JPEG images other than the ones that I pointed out here.

You can download them and look at them at 100% or 200% and try to find any.

Ysarex Loc: St. Louis

selmslie wrote:

You contention was that, "ISO doesn't apply to raw files." The word "standard" has often been missing from that claim.

It lead you to assert that changing the ISO has no effect the raw file.

I never said that. Stop putting words in my mouth. I said: "ISO may or may not effect raw files. How ISO is implemented in processing is not specified in the ISO standard and there are plenty of examples of ISO used in compliance with the standard and raw files unaffected."

We've been through this before and you've been proven wrong: https://www.uglyhedgehog.com/t-609317-1.html

I suggest you stop hijacking your own thread.

Joe

selmslie Loc: Fernandina Beach, FL, USA

Ysarex wrote:

I never said that. Stop putting words in my mouth. I said: "ISO may or may not effect raw files. How ISO is implemented in processing is not specified in the ISO standard and there are plenty of examples of ISO used in compliance with the standard and raw files unaffected." ...

I actually quoted your statement verbatim from https://www.uglyhedgehog.com/t-642305-2.html#11141161 So you actually [u]did[/i] say that. Then you went to great lengths to try and prove it. You failed.

But you have said so many things that you can keep them strait.

You might also check your dictionary for the difference between affect and effect. One is a verb, the other is a noun.

Ysarex Loc: St. Louis

selmslie wrote:

I actually quoted your statement verbatim from https://www.uglyhedgehog.com/t-642305-2.html#11141161 So you actually did say that. Then you went to great lengths to try and prove it. You failed.

I never said this: "It lead you to assert that changing the ISO has no effect the raw file."
Stop putting words in my mouth. I said: "ISO may or may not effect raw files. How ISO is implemented in processing is not specified in the ISO standard and there are plenty of examples of ISO used in compliance with the standard and raw files unaffected."

We've been through this before and you've been proven wrong: https://www.uglyhedgehog.com/t-609317-1.html

I suggest you stop hijacking your own thread.

Joe

selmslie Loc: Fernandina Beach, FL, USA

Ysarex wrote:

I never said this: "It lead you to assert that changing the ISO has no effect the raw file."
Stop putting words in my mouth. I said: "ISO may or may not effect raw files. ...

I meant, "It lead you to assert that changing the ISO has no effect on the raw file. But you knew what I meant because you then tried to prove that changing the ISO does not impact the data in the raw file - more than once:

https://www.uglyhedgehog.com/t-642305-2.html#11141665
https://www.uglyhedgehog.com/t-642305-3.html#11141818
https://www.uglyhedgehog.com/t-642305-4.html#11142954

It's impossible for me to hijack my own thread. Only someone else can do that. I can take it wherever I wish. Think about it

Why don't you start your own thread? Is it because the last time you did that, red Nemesis Madness you managed to reveal that you did not understand white balance any better than you understand the relationship between exposure and ISO? All you have done since then is to post your auto-exposed snaps in the Gallery and troll other people's threads.

How about presenting an original idea, like a replacement for the Exposure Triangle.

DennisC. Loc: Antelope, CA

Wow, you guys have a lot of free time to argue about nothing. It has been proven by several people reviewing Fuji cameras that they expose a little darker, not a big deal. Maybe you guys should spend this time trying to make some exciting images.

Ysarex Loc: St. Louis

selmslie wrote:

I meant, "It lead you to assert that changing the ISO has no effect on the raw file.

I have never asserted that. I said: "ISO may or may not effect raw files. How ISO is implemented in processing is not specified in the ISO standard and there are plenty of examples of ISO used in compliance with the standard and raw files unaffected."

We've been through this before and you've been proven wrong: https://www.uglyhedgehog.com/t-609317-1.html

I suggest you stop hijacking your own thread.

Joe

selmslie Loc: Fernandina Beach, FL, USA

Ysarex wrote:

I have never asserted that. I said: "ISO may or may not effect raw files. How ISO is implemented in processing is not specified in the ISO standard and there are plenty of examples of ISO used in compliance with the standard and raw files unaffected."

We've been through this before and you've been proven wrong: https://www.uglyhedgehog.com/t-609317-1.html

I suggest you stop hijacking your own thread.

Joe

You are impossible to reason with. Thick as a plank.

It's my thread. Please go away.

BebuLamar

Ysarex wrote:

I have never asserted that. I said: "ISO may or may not effect raw files. How ISO is implemented in processing is not specified in the ISO standard and there are plenty of examples of ISO used in compliance with the standard and raw files unaffected."

We've been through this before and you've been proven wrong: https://www.uglyhedgehog.com/t-609317-1.html

I suggest you stop hijacking your own thread.

Joe

I get your point. The ISO standard has nothing to do with the raw file and only with the JPEG. However, for the most part changing the ISO does change the values recorded in the raw files. There are some instances like very high ISO and perhaps very low ISO then the values don't change in the raw files but only in the JPEG.