sony olympus panasonic deceiving

rocketman122

Senior Member
[video=youtube;DtDotqLx6nA]http://www.youtube.com/watch?feature=player_embedded&v=DtDotqLx6nA[/video]


something we all do but I didnt realize this till I saw this video. lenses are calculated regarding FL but not their apertures.

its long but very informative. it gets going slowly because hes giving you the base first but well worth to know.
 
Last edited:

AC016

Senior Member
Re: sony olympus panasonice deceiving

Ahh, Tony Northrup. Interesting story: Someone on a Fuji forum shared one of his videos and everyone started to dump on him, especially because he seemed to have a hard time attaching the camera strap. Anyhow, after a few pages of negative remarks, guess who shows up?? Yep, that's right, Tony himself. It was quite amusing to see everyone apologizing and back-tracking on what they said.
 

rocketman122

Senior Member
Re: sony olympus panasonice deceiving

Ahh, Tony Northrup. Interesting story: Someone on a Fuji forum shared one of his videos and everyone started to dump on him, especially because he seemed to have a hard time attaching the camera strap. Anyhow, after a few pages of negative remarks, guess who shows up?? Yep, that's right, Tony himself. It was quite amusing to see everyone apologizing and back-tracking on what they said.

hahaha. At first when I saw his first video way back when I said, cmon, this guy needs to work in the mens section of a bloomingdales. but over time, in my eyes, he has a lot credibility.

I also like how explains things, even though a bit slow and geeky. I prefer it to the clown acting Kair from digitalrev or matt or fro. If I want to learn something I look at his video.

weird how he looks young but has salt and pepper hair. psss, his wife is hottie. those eyes and lips..
 

WayneF

Senior Member
Re: sony olympus panasonice deceiving

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). :)
 
Last edited:

randyspann

Senior Member
Guess I assumed that everyone knew: FX = less apparent noise and less depth of field. Doesn't mean we can't get great photos with our crop sensor cameras.
 

Steve B

Senior Member
I watched about the first 10 minutes of this and then decided it was a waste of my time. Large sensors collect more light. Really??? But that doesn't matter. What matters is how much light each photosite (pixel) collects. These are the types of videos that really confuse people.

To use his bucket in the rain analogy, the larger bucket will have a greater total volume of water but the depth of water in each bucket will be the same.
 
Last edited:

Steve B

Senior Member
Guess I assumed that everyone knew: FX = less apparent noise and less depth of field. Doesn't mean we can't get great photos with our crop sensor cameras.

Depth of field is based on true/actual focal length not on "equivalent focal length". Of course "equivalent focal length" is a meaningless term in the first place. The only thing that really changes is FOV.
 

Browncoat

Senior Member
I've never been a fan of this guy. He sounds more like he's trying to convince himself that he's right, versus coming from the voice of experience and knowledge who is passing that along to others. In other words, he reminds me a lot of KR.

He's in the business of selling how-tos and writing books, not making photographs.
 

randyspann

Senior Member
I've never been a fan of this guy. He sounds more like he's trying to convince himself that he's right, versus coming from the voice of experience and knowledge who is passing that along to others. In other words, he reminds me a lot of KR.

He's in the business of selling how-tos and writing books, not making photographs.

And we know you have a soft spot for KR! ;)
 
Top