Tony Northrup Cheating Accusations

<snip>
- Photographically, the VERY POINT of using smaller sensors is to have more depth of field.
<snip>

Hey, good points! And not the same points that I've been seeing over and over, which is VERY refreshing :).

Re: the point of small sensors being to have more depth-of-field, I mostly disagree. The flip side to my argument is that you can get the same DoF with big sensors if you math right.
<snip>

No. Assuming the same photograph (identical content and perspective), you can get more DOF from a smaller sensor camera. There is no flip side math that will permit a larger sensor camera to produce an equivalent amount of DOF and Solarflare makes a real good point about diffraction there. What's the crop-factor calculation to equalize diffraction?

Joe
 
I found his video very helpful. I'm constantly switching between FF, APC-S, 4/3, and CX so it's nice to see someone finally standardizing things between all four.

He's right about the sleazy marketers, but there's no news there. The problem with the way he's standardizing things is that he's left one really major "thing" out of the equation. Consider that I'm heading over to the school gym this evening to watch my nephew play some basketball -- going to get some snaps with my compact camera. When I get there I'll just tell the maintenance crew to cube the amount of light in the gym for me to equalize my camera's crop factor. Yes it's true that with a smaller sensor camera I can get away with slower shutter speeds, but not crop factor slower when I'm photographing action. I do have a fast f/1.4 zoom on my compact, but there's no way I'd come out equal against a crop factor adjusted zoom on a full-frame able to shoot reasonably clean at ISO 3200. Unless I can apply his crop factor to the amount of available light (then it wouldn't be available would it ;-)), smaller sensor cameras "in practice" are noisier, because "practice" is always pushing our limits.

Joe
 
<snip><snip><snip>I thought the video Tony did was a bit ambitious, and tried to address too many issues. Refuting myths and misconceptions is a tricky business. The he said/she said side of the video made for some less than fun viewing for me. I thought he covered so many issues that it might have been better to have made three, separate videos which addressed the issues and ideas without any accusatory or condescending tones. But then too, the flak his video got over at that mirrorless users' forum was kind of expected. Also...using close-range, frame-filling headshots as a basis for comparison, and the assertion that focal length is now "meaningless", and the idea that the system of ISO is, well, also basically useless...I dunno...this video really seemed like one tough row to hoe for Tony.

I think making a single video that covered all the ground he covered would be incredibly difficult. Plus, there's a lot of misunderstanding that audience members have about terminology, like bokeh as opposed to depth of field or selective focus; background blur as it relates to focal length; and even what statements like "Less depth of field" and ,"More depth of field," actually refer to. The lack of agreement about the terms used makes an internet audience ripe for freak-outs and disagreements and talking at cross-purposes. I thought Tony grabbed a tiger by the tail...and he held on for a loooong time too! He is indeed tenacious!

</snip></snip></snip>
 

Most reactions

New Topics

Back
Top