New Camera Settings System

nikonpup

Senior Member
unnamed.jpg
 

Horoscope Fish

Senior Member
Tony Northrup wants to establish a new system of camera settings. What do you think?
It could be argued what he is proposing is a more logical approach, and in some ways it probably IS better; these would be topics for a separate conversation.

The problem I have is that I'm so deeply entrenched in the current system I'm simply not motivated to UN-learn it; especially since current gear employs the current system. By which I mean if I were to adopt this new system, my lenses would still show apertures of f/5.6 and f/8 and so on and my D850 would still display current system ISO values. My personal feelings aside, I think the bottom line is that Tony is all but pi--ing up a flag-pole because implementing this system would mean upending the entire industry with no practical (read: monetary) benefit... And that just ain't gonna happen.
 
Last edited:

Patrick M

Senior Member
Northrup makes a valid suggestion. The design of cameras was originally based off photographic film, and that had ISO standard.
So a new way of looking at it makes sense.

In a way, motor vehicle design has gone the same way...uniform conformity to a known global standard....accelerator, brake, clutch etc. Why not “hey Siri , go faster!”


Sent from my iPad using Tapatalk
 

Woodyg3

Senior Member
Contributor
Okay, I'll put in my 2 cents. This whole system, I suspect, was invented by Tony due to his obsession with "equivalent" f-stops for different sensor sizes due to depth of field. His system does not make sense to me for the following reasons:

1. milliseconds for shutter speed seems pretty straight forward, until you get to shutter speeds faster than 1/1000. The you have things like .625 for 1/1600th or .125 for 1/8000, etc. This is not going to be any easier for a beginner, IMO. Also, if you want to move in 1/3 of an f-stop, the numbers get goofy:
1/1000=1 ms
1/800=1.25ms
1/640=1.56 ms
1/500=2 ms


2. His system trades a constant ISO value between sensor sizes with one that has to be converted for every sensor size so that his goofy "equivalent depth of field" aperture system works for exposure.

3. T-stops can't be used to calculate depth of field. Only the area of the opening in the aperture, the true f-stop, can be used. The differences might be small, but important for critical work.

4. Dividing the ISO by 10 to create a supposed easier number is silly. 80 is no easier than 800. 64 no easier than 640.

5. The system we use now works just fine. People who are really in to photography have it down pat. People who are casual about photography will likely never bother to worry, setting their cameras on automatic, and phone users could absolutely care less.

I guess I don't have a problem with using angle of view for describing lenses. I would still want to know the true focal length of the lens too, though. That, combined with the true f-stop, is the real way to calculate depth of field.

Anyway, Tony will hammer this equivalent f-stops between sensor size thing forever, I suspect.
 

Nikonewbie

Senior Member
Blah blah blah blah, Not any disrespect but that's really all I heard and I'm very impressed & I'm pretty sure you guys know what he's talking about.
 
Top