While not a tripod, I've benefitted using from my collapsible monopod. By adjusting the length there always seems to be a place for it to rest (floor, armrest, seat, dash, etc.) then by using it as a lever it will 'anchor' to the window ledge, arm rest, steering wheel etc.. This combined with leaning my shoulder, arm or hand against the door or window makes the camera quite stable.

You could have accomplished the same by going out at 6:00 am.

I challenge this objection. Let's rethink this. By moving the clocks foward (ahead of 'natural' time) it is even darker in the morning meaning an even darker walk to school.

This would have been used to plant grains or grasses sometimes beans or peas as well. This was a free flow of seed through a variable opening which combined with ground speed determined plant populations. Corn planters of that time had a rotating plate mechanism to deliver a specific number of seeds to a given area Later corn planters still used that type mechanism to ensure seed delivery and prevent overcrowding of the plants. Modern corn varieties are planted at much greater densities but the seeds are still not allowed to free flow.

Thank you. This article may help clear some things up for me.

Equalizing the field of view seems to be the logical way to evaluate sensor size. I believe that his testing methodology leads to a valid result.

The quest is always for the best image. It's oft repeated that cropping reduces pixel density and image quality. Hence if a different lens or body reduces or eliminates the need to crop isn't that better? Assuming comparable lens quality, can we agree that the FF with 135 lens uncropped will be better than FF with 85 lens cropped to equal size? Then the only remaing test is to compare the FF w/135 to the CFw/85 to conclude the comparison he set forth. The Reason to compare them is to determine which will give the better photo when the opportunity arises.

It is unfortunate that his presentation was less than professional and the images were not presented in a way that they could be scrutinized properly, but I believe his premise is solid

A field of view approach can be set up to test at any focal length and from that we can make our own purchasing decisions.

Is it just me? For me the distance to the subject seems to influence required shutter speed as well. I need to increase speed on longer shots.

While there are differences in your images there are other variables (lens and settings) that contribute as well. Would you be able to show the difference using one lens (same focal length, aperture, shutter speed, ISO) with the only difference being the crop body shooting from 1.5 times the distance. I would expect the difference to be even more dramatic.

I see a bear cub climbing out of a hollow in the tree, well maybe not.