Do I need a Full Frame?

[Reciprocity]

 

[amolitor]

Your arguments really aren't going anywhere Amolitor.

If you prefer you can call me Andrew!

I don't actually see that I have made any arguments. I see some statements of facts, and a disagreement and clarification of terminology.

 

[EIngerson]

Your arguments really aren't going anywhere Amolitor.

If you prefer you can call me Andrew!

I don't actually see that I have made any arguments. I see some statements of facts, and a disagreement and clarification of terminology.

lol, or argument. Mincing words doesn't change what it is.

Fare enough Andrew, I'm Eric.

 

[amolitor]

Neither does asserting that a cow is dog make it woof. You're the one making accusations, it's on you to make your case, which you cannot, so I'm done here.

 

[robbins.photo]

Your arguments really aren't going anywhere Amolitor.

If you prefer you can call me Andrew!

I don't actually see that I have made any arguments. I see some statements of facts, and a disagreement and clarification of terminology.

lol, or argument. Mincing words doesn't change what it is.

Fare enough Andrew, I'm Eric.

Well Eric, if Andrew says that he was referring to the diagram earlier, that's good enough for me - it's not always easy being clear and concise in written communication after all. Now if you'll excuse me I need to get back to my research, we have a grant to study the possibility of genetically altering a cow into a dog. It won't serve any practical use of course but who cares, it's a government grant after all - lol

 

[EIngerson]

Neither does asserting that a cow is dog make it woof. You're the one making accusations, it's on you to make your case, which you cannot, so I'm done here.

Nothing to prove, I'm curing boredom just like you.

 

[astroNikon]

Neither does asserting that a cow is dog make it woof. You're the one making accusations, it's on you to make your case, which you cannot, so I'm done here.

Nothing to prove, I'm curing boredom just like you.

Grab your camera and go take some pictures

 

[kathyt]

Just buy the damn camera runnah! Yes, you need ​it!

 

[TCampbell]

The "exposure triangle" is a specific, terrible, picture which completely fails to reveal a single damn thing about the relationship between the three things. The picture is terrible and yet, somehow, weirdly effective. It gives the impression of carrying a lot of information while in fact containing almost none.

Exposure can be understood without reference to this terrible picture, as evidenced by something like the first 150 years of photography.

I find the name "triangle" only to be useful to describe that three elements are at play. The term "triad" would have been better (especially since "triangle" is a geometric term whereas "triad" simply says there is a relationship between three connected things.)

But you are right... attempts to use the three sided geometric shape to somehow "explain" the relationship gets very awkward.

It was easier with film because we emphasized the difference between shutter speed and aperture and didn't emphasize ISO/ASA/DIN because you couldn't easily change that element (not without changing the film loaded in the camera -- easy if you have a Hasselblad with multiple film-magazines, but hard for cameras with non-removable film magazines.)

 

[Warhorse]

Found this to be an interesting look at full frame vs. "cropped" sensor.

Does "Full Frame" Really Mean Much Anymore? - Photo Tips @ Earthbound Light

 

[bc_steve]

I never heard of the exposure triangle when I was learning, and it doesn't make complete sense to me. I see shutter speed and aperture slightly removed from ISO rather than three sides of the same object. I'm a science nerd though, so to say aperture and shutter speed are inversely proportional says it all. The reason I see ISO separate is it should be the last resort, left at its minimum value unless you want more light but do not want or cannot open the aperture wider or increase exposure time.

As far as FF goes it doesn't always make sense. Quality glass above 200mm starts getting real expensive, so the 'crop factor' certainly can come in handy. A smaller, lighter camera is pretty handy as well. Good for travel and slightly less conspicuous.

Cheaper glass can be a benefit, IF you don't have the idea in your head that one day you will get a FF camera and therefore should only buy FX lenses.

I think for me, upgrading from 16 to 24 MP would be a more significant upgrade than going to full frame, but is the cost worth it? I feel like I am on the-latest-and-greatest treadmill when I think about it.

 

[Braineack]

That's like saying you put subwoofers in your car, but don't worry about the size of the amp powering them.

 

[manaheim]

The whole `smaller camera ` thing doesn't make a ton of sense. If you can't shove it in your pocket then it won't be any smaller in practice than any other camera that you can't shove in your pocket.

 

[bc_steve]

That's like saying you put subwoofers in your car, but don't worry about the size of the amp powering them.

EDIT <<< I had a response but it made no sense because I thought you were talking about something else

The whole `smaller camera ` thing doesn't make a ton of sense. If you can't shove it in your pocket then it won't be any smaller in practice than any other camera that you can't shove in your pocket.

Ya you're probably right. It's not really enough of a difference to be that significant, but I do hike with my stuff a lot.

 

[Derrel]

That's like saying you put subwoofers in your car, but don't worry about the size of the amp powering them.

Sorry, but no, this is not a good analogy. The CLASSIC, TRADITIONAL way to graph expiosure has been known for well over a century by well-studied, educated photographers. What amolitor, and TCampbell,and myself have been trying to say on this board, for well over two years, is that the "Exposure Triangle" is a BRAND-NEW concept, and has until this time, the digital era, been simply unheard of. As in UN-heard of. AS in "did not exist, in any form." The fact that new, internet-age teaching devices, as in "short-cuts" or "short-hands" or "helper concepts" have been put forth by self-taught, unstudied, uneducated YouTubers and noobs attempting to teach noobs, is beside the point; a point which I must say, has ZERO relationship to subwoofers or amplifiers... Sorry, but that's the facts Jack, Or braineack! As the case may be!

Molecular Expressions Microscopy Primer: Photomicrography - Fundamentals of Film Exposure

exposure of film boils down to a simple relationship between two important variables: the amount of time the film is exposed to light and the intensity of that light. Films are formulated by the manufacturer to respond according to the following formula, E = l x t, where E is the proper exposure, l is the intensity of illuminating light rays, and t is the film emulsion exposure time in seconds or fractions thereof.

The term "Exposure" has for well over a century, been the above. As in THE ABOVE EQUATION. That is the correct and proper way to define "Exposure" as a photographic term. E = l x t, where E is the proper exposure, l is the intensity of illuminating light rays, and t is the film emulsion exposure time in seconds or fractions thereof is the correct use of the word.

A related example, "automobile" defines an automobile, whereas "my ride" is slang, as is "my bucket", "my wheels", "my beater", "my Yota", and so on. The Exposure Triangle is a bastardization of a real, actual defined term.

Changing the ISO in use is a modern convention, made commonplace mostly within the digital era, when it became possible to shift exposures by simply turning a dial or pressing a button a few times; the manner in which EXPOSURE, as a photographic term, is used, has not varied. Bringing ISO setting into a proper term of "exposure" is a bastardization of the concept.

If you want to talk meteorology, you define clouds by their type--not as "puffy white sky-marshmallows". If one talks about "exposure", ALL that needs to be discussed is INTENSITY x TIME duration. That is ***it*. THAT in itself **is** the term "EXPOSURE" as it is properly,correctly,scientifically designed. Not with added B.S. from who knows who...

"Changing to a film of new ISO rating also changes the exposure time. A simple equation can be applied to calculate the new film exposure time when changing film speed:
New Exposure Time = (Standard Time x Standard ISO) / New ISOWhere Standard ISO is the film speed (or ASA) of the film having known exposure parameters, and New ISO is the film speed (or ASA) of the new film. As an example, if the correct exposure time for a specimen using Fujichrome Velvia (ISO = 50) is 0.2 seconds, the adjusted exposure time when Fujichrome Provia (ISO = 100) is substituted can be calculated:
New Exposure Time = (0.2 x 50) / 100
New Exposure Time = 0.1 seconds"


So, basically the whole concept of the "exposure Triangle" is a new-fangled teaching device, designed to help noobies understand how to work a camera.