gwilliams6

I agree, I have gotten slammed for posting links.

Canisdirus

Sorry, most of what you find inaccurate...is accurate.
A crop lens aperture 'effect' gets multiplied just as the focal length does.
Meaning the DOF changes on a crop sensor...as it does on 4/3...even more.
FF sensors DO gather more light. Yes, an exposed pixel on any size sensor can be said to be equal (they all receive the same light)...but there is another measurement...volume of light.
FF sensors receive more volume.
Two windows in a room...one 50% larger than the other. Yes, the light coming through the frames is all 100%...
but the illumination differences upon the room are unequal...by 50%.
Every lens has differences in resolution limits...no matter the format...not relevant.

dgwoodward2

At the end of the day, the best 70-200mm lens is the one you have in your bag when you are shooting. I did not watch the video, but have never been a big fan of lens comparisons between manufacturers unless it is the 3rd party lens to the OEM lens. Or even in the case of Canon, EF vs. RF. I am sure Tony makes a lot of good arguments regarding each lens version, but is it really enough to get you to shift vendors?

TriX Loc: Raleigh, NC

If you really believe all these misconceptions, let me invite you to do an experiment. Take an APS-C body with a lens at a given f-stop and a FF body with a lens at the same f-stop and take an image with each. According to your thinking, the image from the crop body should be 1 stop darker than the image from the FF. It isn’t. also according to your thinking, light meters should have different scales for FF, APS-C and 4/3. They don’t. We have had lengthy threads on this exact issue at least once in the last year and everyone but you and one or two others that haven’t read the definitions of f-stop or the various measurements/metrics of light agree that is is a misconception and that TN is full of it. It’s just click bait/controversy for the sake of getting more views, and you’ve been sucked in and are now trying to defend the indefensible.

And BTW, the resolution of an optical SYSTEM as he “tests” it is a function of BOTH the resolution of the lens and the resolution of the sensor. You can’t produce an accurate/objective comparative test using sensors with different resolutions and cameras that have different in-camera processing.

Here’s. Link to the previous thread if you’d like to refresh your memory and re-read all of the discussion so I don’t have to re-argue this yet again: https://www.uglyhedgehog.com/t-695357-1.html

Orphoto Loc: Oregon

I was offended by having multiple criteria each given equal weight. Nevermind their seemingly willy nilly granting points within each category.

It is a #%@% show.

canonclicker

Composition - wonderful, Color - exceptional, Interest - you've made it for those on the west coast, now in California we have been indoctrinated that you should have lopped of it's head and roasted it like so many Floridans have been reported to do!

Canisdirus

Of course light meters are standard...as light is.
You are making the same mistakes over again.
As long as you stay in your own format...everything is equal in that format.
Where you lose the trail is when comparing sensor sizes to others.
There is a very good reason why the smaller the sensor size...the more iso is needed to expose like the big boys...all other things being equal (setting equivalency).

I see you ignored the window comparison...which is accurate and so simple to understand.
And yet...

Can a crop system mimic medium format? No.
It can't mimic FF either...nor in the opposite direction...cannot mimic 4/3.
You have to give something up along the way... light...speed...distance.
It's a compromise.

Just as FF is a compromise to medium format.
I'd feel silly arguing the point above with a medium format user...
And yet...

nervous2 Loc: Provo, Utah

Stunning image, Bill.

rmalarz Loc: Tempe, Arizona

If either of the Northrups told me what time it was, I'd pray I had an accurate watch to check for myself.
--Bob

Delderby Loc: Derby UK

My best advice - try before you buy.

TriX Loc: Raleigh, NC

Just reread the previous thread. Apparently you haven’t tried the experiment I proposed. I have - I’ve used the same light meter and same exposure with 35mm FF and Medium Format side by side as well as FF and APS-C. Same exposure settings, same image brightness. Not interested in this argument any further.

Canisdirus

Holy smokes...because each example is working within it's own format.

But each sensor format has different amounts of light falling on it's sensor...since the receiving surface areas are different.

Next you are going to tell me that medium format is not better in low light...
That FF is not better than crop in low light.
You can get equal by boosting iso...and you would have to...if all other settings differences were accounted for.

Never heard of this? No one ever mentioned that one of medium format strengths is the its low light capabilities?
How can this be?
By your misunderstanding of physics...you should just be able to shoot with the same settings.
No...
You have to make compensation somewhere.

You can have one...or the other...can't have both.

Every format has this problem in regards to other formats...up and down the line.

TriX Loc: Raleigh, NC

ALL other things being equal, of course digital MF generally has superior low light High ISO performance (and DR) than FF and FF is typically better than crop which is typically better than for m43 assuming similar sensor resolution and technology, BUT it’s because of the SENSOR, NOT the LENS.

Just stop.

amfoto1 Loc: San Jose, Calif. USA

Northrup has long made those confusing and questionable comments about sensor format versus aperture...

What is true is...

1. When it comes to exposure, f/2.8 is f/2.8 regardless of format. This is a lens "light gathering" capability, as far as I'm concerned. Northrup's argument goes off the rails every time he uses that phrase... because he's just plain wrong in that respect.

2. When it comes to how aperture render depth of field (DoF), to match the background blur effect of f/2.8 on full frame will require approx. f/2 on APS-C... or f/1.4 on Micro 4/3 cameras. In other words, f/2.8 on APS-C will "act like f/4 on full frame" when it comes to how strongly the lens is able to blur down backgrounds. I'm pretty sure this is actually the point Northrup keeps trying to make.

High ISO performance is another thing entirely. That primarily has to do with the size and density of pixel sites on sensors. Larger sensors are "less crowded", which reduces chance of cross-talk between adjacent pixels and better dissipates heat. That generally makes for less digital noise, resulting in higher usable ISOs. Of course, software both in the camera and in post-processing also play a role in reducing noise.

imagemeister Loc: mid east Florida

LINK ??