Reply to thread

Message

<blockquote data-quote="WayneF" data-source="post: 317742" data-attributes="member: 12496">Re: sony olympus panasonice deceivingThat's the shortcoming of internet, any idiot can post anything.&nbsp; <img src="" class="smilie smilie--sprite smilie--sprite1" alt=":)" title="Smile&nbsp; &nbsp; :)" loading="lazy" data-shortname=":)" />&nbsp; &nbsp; I dislike his attitude, but I think this guy surely must be smarter than he puts on, but he certainly does put on a show.&nbsp;&nbsp; I don't understand his motive for such a show.In imagining that lenses and ISO ought to be calibrated for noise, his demonstration never mentions megapixels.&nbsp; He may not want to confuse the troops, or he simply may not understand himself.&nbsp;&nbsp; He is obviously assuming large and small sensors of the same megapixel count.&nbsp; Because otherwise, noise is a factor of pixel size, not of sensor size.&nbsp;&nbsp; Small sensors of same megapixel count necessarily have smaller pixel areas,&nbsp; but this is not a requirement.&nbsp; Digital noise is about the size of one pixel area.&nbsp; Digital ISO does operate differently than film ISO.&nbsp;&nbsp; Higher film ISO provides more sensitive media, where digital uses one sensor and then just multiplies it up, but the results come out the same.&nbsp;&nbsp; Film size varies too, 110, 35mm, medium roll film, 8x10 sheet film.&nbsp;&nbsp; Sensor size does not affect noise (if the same film). The high gain of film sensitivity and digital pixel size affects noise.His silly 24-70 mm equivalent ....&nbsp; He imagines it means the lenses are equivalent (which is an absurdity), but of course it only means equivalent fields of view on the different size senors.&nbsp;&nbsp; Both lenses obviously can give a f/2.8 exposure (how about that?)&nbsp;&nbsp; Everyone should know that.&nbsp; Really stupid comments. This one ranks way up there in that regard.All that effort for such poor content.&nbsp;&nbsp; There are much better sources.&nbsp; This really sounds like a novice trying to explain his first imagined view of how things are&nbsp;&nbsp; (intending no offense to novices, we all have to start somewhere).&nbsp; &nbsp; <img src="" class="smilie smilie--sprite smilie--sprite1" alt=":)" title="Smile&nbsp; &nbsp; :)" loading="lazy" data-shortname=":)" /></blockquote>

[QUOTE="WayneF, post: 317742, member: 12496"] [b]Re: sony olympus panasonice deceiving[/b] That's the shortcoming of internet, any idiot can post anything. :) I dislike his attitude, but I think this guy surely must be smarter than he puts on, but he certainly does put on a show. I don't understand his motive for such a show. In imagining that lenses and ISO ought to be calibrated for noise, his demonstration never mentions megapixels. He may not want to confuse the troops, or he simply may not understand himself. He is obviously assuming large and small sensors of the same megapixel count. Because otherwise, noise is a factor of pixel size, not of sensor size. Small sensors of same megapixel count necessarily have smaller pixel areas, but this is not a requirement. Digital noise is about the size of one pixel area. Digital ISO does operate differently than film ISO. Higher film ISO provides more sensitive media, where digital uses one sensor and then just multiplies it up, but the results come out the same. Film size varies too, 110, 35mm, medium roll film, 8x10 sheet film. Sensor size does not affect noise (if the same film). The high gain of film sensitivity and digital pixel size affects noise. His silly 24-70 mm equivalent .... He imagines it means the lenses are equivalent (which is an absurdity), but of course it only means equivalent fields of view on the different size senors. Both lenses obviously can give a f/2.8 exposure (how about that?) Everyone should know that. Really stupid comments. This one ranks way up there in that regard. All that effort for such poor content. There are much better sources. This really sounds like a novice trying to explain his first imagined view of how things are (intending no offense to novices, we all have to start somewhere). :) [/QUOTE]

Verification