Why Doesn’t Blocking Email Senders Work?

A Shifted View On The Latest Techology News and Gadget Reviews

Why doesn’t God just show himself?
Its like my internet browser minimizing to my desktop, and a pop up comes up telling me that I am using wifi. Stack Overflow works best with JavaScript enabled. Imagine the overhead in manufacturing a specific case for a specific phone and hoping it sells well. Note, that in my article, I have an entire section that talks about areas where full frame cameras are superior with regards to image quality. I used to use MailWasher too. I understand when it comes to mobile phones, one size doesnt exactly fit all but when the Android brand is harmed because of it, it leaves a sour taste that lingers longer than a good experience.

Finding Out Why Your Oven Isn't Heating Up

Why Food Intolerance Testing Doesn’t Work

The new technology gives access to a lot more computing power than we have ever had before which could also be used for cracking the security systems of Bitcoin and the likes: The goal here is to explain the process by means of easy words, so I have to skip some deep and confusing technicalities.

Bitcoin uses a public ledger to store its data on. It packs all of the data of a specific time period into one so-called block. In order to prevent users from spending the same Bitcoin multiple times, there is a so-called timestamp which is also added to each transaction and stored in the block. And then there is another number called the nonce. A miner checks the transactions which are about to be sent through the network if they are valid by comparing if all the hashes and values make sense.

If they are valid, he grabs the transactions into a block and hashes the whole thing twice using a very famous and secure algorithm called SHA By doing this, a new hash is created and this hash must be smaller than a certain target value in order for the block to be published as the new block of the blockchain. The only value which can be changed by the miner is the nonce , so if the hash is not smaller than the target value, the miner must try another number.

This is a lot of work in terms of calculations and is rewarded by Bitcoins once you find the nonce which verifies the block: All of this together is called mining , which you might have heard of: By the way some food for thought:. Which means that theoretically two miners can find a solution to their problem at the same time, the result would be two mined blocks. So far, so good. The [rest of the miners] are none the wiser because they have no oversight of the mining process.

Of course, the Bitcoin protocol wants to ensure that every Bitcoin can only be spent by its owner. Every wallet has a secret private key so to speak the password to gain access to the bitcoin account and public key which is easily generated from the private key and is published to the network the hash of this key is the wallet address!

You will neither have a better image quality with higher resolution or less noise, nor will it affect the photographic accesoires like strobes, tripods etc. Because of that i decided to use Micro-Four-Thirds as my main system.

The rest is silence. February 4, at 2: At that point, detail will be dependent solely on lens resolution. The only advantage of the greater total light falling on a larger sensor is noise performance. There are other advantages to a larger sensor, but not because gathers more total light. February 11, at 5: I agree with Bob. Across some reasonable and probably very tiny threshold, the amount of light is sufficient to provide as much detail as is possible to record given the effects of air, heat, and other light-affecting phenomena.

Good article and I agree with you all the way. I sometimes get comments on my website about the equivalence thing, but only if I mention a picture has been taken with a m43 camera. The equipment is rather meaningless. The end result is all that maters. The rest is drivel. Us what gets you the shot you want. This pixel peeping and poring over data and arguing quality, etc… ect… maybe fun?

The problem as I see it is that people interpret this in different ways. Good article with a lot of truth in it, but I think your conclusion is wrong.

One could easily pick other cases where it is actually important. It more or less holds regarding ISO. That does not make it completely useless.

The thing is that one should be aware of the limitations of a system when deciding which one to buy or which one to take with you on a trip. That is where the full-frame equivalence comes in handy. February 3, at 2: I believe author did mention it all depends on sensor technologies and their generations. To these photographers, 35mm equivalence has no meaning at all. APS-C would be a much more useful baseline for comparing formats for most people.

Sadly it will probably just add fuel to the flame wars. Prepare to have your article picked apart and criticized by those who enjoy spending so much time discussing such things that you wonder if they ever photograph anything beyond a test chart. Personally I am satisfied with the amount of depth of field control I have as well.

Why should I care? All that matters is that enough light is hitting my sensor to create a good exposure and a pleasing photograph. I also use it on a tripod for landscapes and architecture. I see no point in discussing equivalency between different formats unless you are making a direct comparison.

Just say the actual focal length of the lens! Unfortunately equivalence is almost always misused as a rating system and very often confused with exposure. February 2, at 5: February 2, at 6: IMHO and many others, I can tell! Anything smaller and you begin compromising on IQ and DoF. Anything bigger and you begin compromising on size and weight. MFT sits down just in the middle, giving good enough IQ and DoF for the vast majority of usages, while having a nicely portable and lightweight system.

February 2, at 9: Thanks, very good article. Clear, precise, clever, very detailed and well balanced. Thank you for your useful, clear and well-written article! Thanks for taking the time to explain the concepts of F-stops and aperture equivalency for the photographic community.

Finally… finally someone that put in clear words the facts behind sensor sizes and focal lenghts meaning. Being an engeneer and a specialistic commercial photographer I always had the scientific approach to the matter. However it is a very hard battle against marketing claims and people ignorance. In the same way it is impossible to keep working without an heavy CakiKon camera with you. Thank you for posting this! Your explanation of the different kinds of sensors is clear and I feel more knowledgeable.

Great Article with easy to understand explanations. Depth of field depends on three things: Focal Length, F-stop and Focus Distance distance to your subject. Im a bit confused: February 4, at August 10, at 2: Or even smaller in pocket cameras? What is most common camera consumers have these days? Exactly, 35mm is as rare as is medium format when compared to pocket cameras and especially smart phones. What should be the reference point?

I think full frame equivalence is incredibly useful. I use 35mm film, an APS-C camera, and medium format. Using the 35mm equivalence helps me ground all 3 of them and compare field of view in a sane way.

This article spent all of about 1 sentence on that subject. Thanks for the great article! Wow, I really enjoyed this one Jordan. I have to say, made my day. Now I have to talk about this on my flickr post and share. Thank you very much! Hit the nail on the head. And the work is good and printable much larger than anyone is interested in buying! As we now live Ina multi format world more every day it is useful to have a baseline reference for perspective and DOF.

As most people have experience from 35mm it is understandable to compare with this rather than other formats. I use 35mm FF, 1. Most of the shots I take are on the smaller sensor formats due to portability and convenience. However, this is essentially the ONLY way that it is inferior. Need to be able to differentiate equivalence of light intensity and total light capture. The above is not true. At equivalent f-number the light intensity at the sensor will be equivalent, but the total size of the FF sensor is 4x the size of the M So the total light capture for FF is 4x.

Conversely for same photosensor size or SNR the resolution will be 4x number of pixels in case of FF. Or effectively the ISO is higher in the case of the smaller formats and the noise is greater. Again, not an appropriate comparison. All else being equal this means the SNR will be the same at the same flash output. So the appropriate comparison is the same flash output at 2 stops greater f-number same physical aperture size for M43 vs FF.

What IS true and is correctly pointed out is that for same DOF, all else being equal, the intrinsic image quality can be the same between format sizes. Note this requires smaller f-numbers for the smaller formats and hense ISO setting to be correspondingly reduced. In the studio there is flexibility to achieve this, assuming the M43 lenses are large enough max f-number.

February 2, at 8: This article speaks to using crop factors to define lenses made for smaller formats as if shallow depth of field control is the only meaningful metric. What I wrote IS true. I touch on the point you make following on Page 1. When you want the same or greater depth of field than the smaller format lens can provide wide open, then the 4x light collection advantage of the full frame sensor disappears, as you must stop down two stops more or 1.

Yes, though performance will not be the same unless the sensors are of the exact same design and with the same efficiency, which they are not, but ok….

This, however, is incorrect. If you can shoot at base ISO with your strobes, and recycle time is sufficient, and you have enough power, yes…the full frame kit will still maintain its advantage, but Dynamic Range is not one of them.

So, for all intents and purposes, you simply require more flash power and slower recycle times to shoot full frame in a studio…there is limited advantage except for those who print very large. SNR yes, DR no as mentioned above. But yes, I agree that for many situations, full frame is definitely the superior format.

This article is not saying that smaller formats are equal to full frame in the image quality department in all ways…they are not though the circumstances mentioned in the article present many situations where they can equal the output due to light limitations and the use of faster apertures for the same depth of field. Lenses for smaller formats should be considered solely in terms of the aperture that gives the equivalent depth of field wide open on full frame.

The smaller field of view is inherent in the format… no need to talk about it. And it is necessary to understand other phenomena, such as diffraction. As I said before, you are right with your intention and your conclusion.

But some of your arguments are just wrong. The quoted above is one of them. Yes, FF do collect 4x more light, no one is questioning it.

But it is also dispersing this absolute quantity onto 4x more of area which then again is negating any absolute light collecting gain per sq. SNR is smaller in FF because photosites are larger due to lower pixel count per sq. August 31, at 2: February 3, at 3: Now, coming to sensor size info taken from dpreview specs.

So, the question here is: You want a Nokia …. One day we might have a MP full frame sensor with in-camera sub-sampling. February 3, at 4: I will stand by my comments which relate more to absolute comparisons between format sizes rather than specific camera comparisons which may have different generations of sensor technology.

Your points are valid in that the FF advantage may be less significant in practice due to many other factors. And in other areas like the a ability to manufacture advanced lenses with smaller elements in non-retro focal designs is an area where the smaller formats have advantages over FF.

So the SNR benefit may be fully or partially outweighed by other factors. Also as we now see diffraction starting two stops lower f-number than FF I. As mentioned, I take most shots as the smaller formats sizes but still use FF for critical work.

What a great article — and relief. I almost got a real inferiority complex listening to all this people praising their fullformat cameras. Now I can shed that….. February 3, at 6: You will loose that inferiority complex before first summit. As a point of reference I shoot Canon FF and m43 plus an RX until its accident yesterday, still gutted on that one.

Firstly saying the E-M5 has better dynamic range than the Canons is misleading and probably worth a caveat. Canon have always worked on getting good high-ISO DR in their sensors which everybody seems to ignore for some reason on non-Canon forums and just slag them off at base ISO.

Secondly the reason 35mm film is the standard is that was what the world used. When I was young I knew one person who shot MF but all my friends who were into photography got 35mm film cameras.

Even these days you have a good shot of getting 35mm film. Also I think it is a very handy comparison point because of compact and phone cameras with their endless selection of sensors. How else do you decode what an 8.

Also on depth of field the full-frame cameras can always stop down to get more, the smaller sensors can often not just go to a larger aperture lens to get less. The key differentiator is that and when diffraction starts, as FF can go to a lower f-stop due to bigger pixels even a D has about half the pixel density of the EM Do note on light gathering it is again wrong to say the E-M5 is all that close to the FF Canons really not a fan-boy of any camera system, e.

In low-light the last thing you are likely to do is shoot at base ISO. BTW I did like the strobe cycling point, although with decent strobes the difference is fractions of a second. One last point, for most of its life m43 has had sensors that lagged behind most of the other players. Picking a point where it has finally made a leap forward with the E-M5 and GH3 to compare it with others is maybe not that representative. Perhaps doing it over a period of time would be. But the best camera is the one you have with you….

Hence per picture height is more useful, IMHO, for viewer perception. Thanks for your comments. But for those who would just grab an E-PL5 or a Rebel with kit lens and not add any other lenses for further functionality? In fact, I have already. February 3, at As far as I can see the only issue is the zoom lever is very hard to move, so far everything else looks okay.

The video modes are a lot less good than those on the RX and the AF, while improved, can still go walkabout on occasion. Though a , err ?? February 4, at 6: EM5 is half a stop behind prehistoric 5D??? What camera system you choose is a personal decision, based on your photographic needs, your ergonomic considerations, your budget and so on. I know exactly where it has serious advantages, and I know exactly where it has serious DISadvantages mostly in size and weight, but there are other things as well.

If a better system to fit my needs comes along in a few years, I may very well switch to that. I do not have a huge amount of brand loyalty, and I especially do not have loyalty to a format…I use what works best for me, as every photographer should. Will I be a Fuji fanboy then? When it is pointed out that a 45mm MFT lens has an equivalent field of view to a 90mm full frame, it is not saying that the two lenses have identical characteristics.

More over, the depth of field of a lens is not tied exclusively to its focal length. Consider three different 45mm lenses. The Lumix 45mm macro has an extremely short DOF, at short ranges, but infinity focus at normal distances. The Olympus 45mm f1. The Lumix mm f2. If you know your lenses and how to use them, you can get superior images with the smaller sensor. The big advantage of full frame is with fast wide angle lenses for a shallow DOF. Here is a shot with a Canon 6D with 35mm F1.

I have the 25mm F0. Here are a few more examples of the 35mm F1. May 19, at Yes, but by the same reasoning then you should go to a medium format camera with a fast wide angle ….

For example, the big advantage of APSC is with pictures of small birds at a distance: I am glad I found this web site! I have recently switch from Nikon to Panasonic, for many reasons! Three of the main reasons are weight, space and price! I first tried with the 45 macro lens to play around while walking my dogs.

I did not want to carry the big, bulky, heavy Nikon equipment. I am not an expert in macro shooting, just wanted to have fun and the results i obtain were more than satisfying. Few things I want to point out. I do not care if my is really the equivalent of a but it is close enough and what I see is that the pictures I get from it, either on my GX1 or my brand new GH3 are way more than great. I do NOT regret the switch. I get what I want and I love it! I have great pleasure of using the with which I get even better quality pictures than with my Nikon I am not a nerd in technology, I know what I want and am extremely satisfied with both my panasonic zooms One thing I want to say: I had set both lenses at 2.

Anyhow, I have a brand new camera gear that is way lighter, cheaper, smaller, that gives me what I need and I love it! I was daily carrying only two cameras and two lenses, with one flash, now for less weight, I have three cameras, my two zoom, a macro lens and a zoom and one flash I am not fan of flashes, it is just in case! I recently was mocked by colleagues looking down at my equipment, until I show them the pictures I was getting.

They stopped laughing at me. I saw the french photographer Marc Riboud once using a disposable film camera. Enjoy taking pictures whatever the camera, we have this saying in France: And whatever you shoot with as long as you get what you want! Each individual buys what works for them, be it size, price, or use, and that should just be respected. How many pros put down amateurs, comparing their medium format or 8X10 box….. February 4, at 4: I use a 35 mm Sony a and totally agree with you.

Greater DR mostly 3. And a thing I did not see mentioned in your post, a larger viewfinder. There is still one advantage and that is the lower noise of an FF sensor and because of that a better rendering of the scene when looking through the EVF in low light.

February 4, at 7: I sometimes use my Nikon and Olympus film camera lens on my Olympus pen via adapters, a 35xmm gives me a angle of view of 70xmm which makes it great fun to use these old lens. In my Grandmother gave me my first camera a box camera, my Uncle who had his own darkroom showed me how to develop and print my film. He would not use 35mm he said the negatives where to small, But I remember he bought a 35mm range finder in the s because he could carry it every were he went.

I went digital in but kept some of my film gear because I like the feel of winding the film, taking the photo and waiting to see the results when I get the prints. I am sure some people will argue about the merits of larger sensors as long as there are cameras, but for me its the joy I get from the hobby and unless you are a professional photographer and make a living from it, It is the best hobby there is.

February 5, at 6: Thanks for the nice reading. I agree with most of presented info. I like OM-D and m43 lenses, I prefer it mostly for their lightweight and size. The equipment its much more portable. I would be very glad to have lightweight FF equipment. February 5, at 9: The concepts are challenging, should be no surprise marketing leverages confusion and many lack patience to understand. Thanks for trying to enlighten the impatient.

Ultimately those who really want to understand get value from having comparative measure. Consider how much knowing EXIF can help in understanding learning to emulate images you like.

You can add birds to list of cases where you want fast shutter but not too shallow dof, plus often using mm or longer. I had been craving mirrorless ff until reading your article made me realize losing dof for less noise at high iso may not really be the tradeoff I want.

Funny how photography is all about managing tradeoffs, and yet so many seem to insist on absolute superiority of their favored system. Perhaps ignoing the absolutists would give you peace of mind — after all an absolutist is missing the tradeoffs and therefore missing the thinking part of photography. February 6, at 2: February 6, at 5: That brings up the dramatic difference in potential with almost 2 stops of SNR difference and definitely two stops of subject isolation difference at the same aperture.

February 7, at 6: Thanks for the informative article. Using these unfamiliar equivalences based on an arbitrary, antiquated technology is, for many, simply more confusing than helpful. Other lens-based systems i. There must be calculatable, comparable specifications that can be used without having to return to the analog age for reference.

FFE will slowly fade, as has use of the35mm film cameras from which it was spawned. February 12, at 8: Ironic how you lament the use of FFE, yet in last paragraph you suggest the introduction of a new standard, which amounts to what FFE is. Introducing yet another metric would just mean everyone already familiar with FFE would have to learn a new method.

February 8, at 9: I like your point about the benefits of more depth of field to begin with, in that a lens for a smaller sensor could be shot wide open to allow enough light come in, and at the same time get what you want in focus. But at the end of the day a larger sensor is still better — it gives you more control. But having more control using FF comes at the cost in size and price.

That is how Nikon 1 somehow survived. February 9, at 3: With the 35mm-e everybody has the same frame of reference when talking about different formats, instead of having to do rather complex arithmetic to agree on a common ground, or memorize crop factors and f-stop tables. February 14, at The best photographic tool is the one you have with you when the shot is there to be taken.

There are even times when a little more grain noise yields a more engaging image. If both systems are used to take the same portrait from the same distance, the FF camera will give a more pleasing portrait picture than the APS-C with a 1. Thanks to everyone here for all the input. February 15, at 7: That is not true at all, Richard. Perspective is dependent wholly on distance to subject. May 23, at Thank you for a great article and informative discussion Jordan.

If I use a 35mm wide angle lens on a APS-C crop sensor camera, will the barrel distortion characteristic of the lens be the same on a crop sensor camera as on a full-frame camera? Do 35mm lenses usually have more barrel distortions than 50mm lenses? February 16, at 2: Finally, it is far lower cost to make very high quality small format lenses that equal quality larger lenses.

One issue not discussed but important to a few is diffraction. April 7, at 3: I think we just used to accept sensors limitations and found ways how to compensate them by some degree. I would be really satisfied with the sensor technology if it would match ability of the people eye. Dynamic range ability is also quite limiting for sunny days with strong shadows even at low iso With higher iso dynamic range is falling very match.

By far not comparable with what your eye sees. At the current progress of sensor development I expect that also in 10 years APSC or even FF sensor will not be capable to match peoples eye performance and will limit photographers. January 16, at A camera can record that page even using a 5 year old sensor. February 19, at 7: Thank you for the excellent article.

I am new to photography and trying to learn about the art. For that reason most books bore me to tears before I can get five pages deep. I believe I am now armed with the knowledge I need to understand how to assess an opportunity. February 22, at 2: Thank you thank you thank you. Canikon are dragging their feet and I think knocking out much cheaper Fool Frame cameras to trap a whole new user base who then will be locked into the systems with expensive lens purchases etc.

And as a pro I can tell you most work requires more DOF not less, shooting heads shots with the 45mm at f1. March 2, at 3: APSC is breaking my back disc prolapse. March 28, at 4: Regarding total light and efficiency of different sensor sizes take a look at the size-normalized dxo-iso scores in figure 6 at luminous landscapes article.

April 24, at The only way it would be of use to them would be if you also explained that 50mm on a full frame camera is a very common focal length because it is very close to the field of view of the human eye.

April 28, at 1: May 5, at May 9, at I for one use cameras with different sensor sizes, FF film , 1. May 23, at 1: While the professionals are already well into Full frame and in fact the pro gear is likely to move to BIGGER sensor sizes in the future….

Contrary to what many people think, one of the reasons pros use BIG sensors is not only lower noise or shallower depth of field. The reason is optical. You can shrink sensor sizes but a lens optical system hits a limit of precision. The difference is that, for an equal megapixel count, the BIGGER the format, the less line-pairs per milimeter demanded from the lens. Read that twice please. But there is another related item: This also means that, to reach an equivalent definition, the larger sensor demands LESS from the lens.

This is why a so-so zoom lens on a Full Frame camera can achieve equal or better actual detail definition than an APS-C camera fitted with a better quality lens. June 5, at 9: The lenses that are designed for these smaller formats are getting that extra resolution required of the tighter pixel density.

The fact is, the native glass for these smaller formats is easily delivering and in many cases exceeding the resolution that the full frame systems are getting with their lenses. August 6, at 1: Who wants to call small format aka 35mm as standard are idiots.

They dont have anything for what to backup the claim, not the popularity, not the quality, not the history etc…. That isnt actually true. Now and then there comes these claims that it is easier to make a sharper lens for larger format. We can even go and take extreme examples like a lens for observatories or satellites and then lens for smart phones.

The other lens is by diameter about cm or even cm and other is mm. Now to make the larger lens, it takes lots of time for polishing and very high quality glass to be melted etc. But smaller lens requires as well high quality glass and polishing but much less. Much better resolution than most APS-C or even some 35mm sensors has and with much sharper lens than Canon L lenses has etc.

The light needs to be slowed down via lens to bend it. And when we bend it more, more optical power we have. And more we have, more the light will distribute larger area.

Think about example the prism. You get all light colors from it, but further the surface where light is projected is, more distribution light gets. And the light hits more directly to pixel than in angle like with larger sensors.

To make a sharper lens for smaller format, it requires less polishing, less glass, less optical power designs, less high quality glass overall and it is faster and cheaper to make.

But, when demand is small, prices are high. Production is short and it takes as much workers as to design a large batch of other lens.

That is by optical quality limit to distance. July 12, at 3: I think you should add a section about t-stops transmission stops. August 1, at 9: Today, when ever I read about cameras, new digitals coming out, there are only two things that seems to be important to those new upcoming photo freaks, what is DOF and the ability to produce low noise at ISO. The main reason is the body, the distance that the lens is away from the film.

If you make the distance longer and make lenses to match that distance, you get better sharpness all over. Now, the medium format had this advantage what is a disadvantage when you consider body size. Look at fast Leicas and the distance of the lens to the sensor, and look at the bokeh. Now, the question is always the same.

What do you want, what is your goal. Want sharpness all over for the family album, stay with smaller sensor, want bokeh and nice portrait shots, go bigger. For sure, you can get good shallow DOF with a small sensor by using a fast lens, but, as you wrote it, you can never get the same bokeh as a FF with the same fast lens. But, there are spacers that can do that, and, there are adapters that have a tread and you can turn in and out and adjust this.

I have seen god shots from just any size of sensor, I use 4 sizes myself, and all is about what size you use for what shot. The ideal camera that does all the way you would like it to do will never exist anyway.

Some of all those newbies should step back in time, take a Mamyia C, a light meter, a ASA and try to do the same job they do today on their PC and a digital. I think they are a bit too spoiled and they criticize all. I have lived times with no TV, no cellphone, no PC, and bikes you worked on for 4 days to be able to drive 2.

Then, suddenly I realized that I could have fun with a Kodak Instamatic that my father bought for my birthday. August 26, at I prayed someone would write an article like this. I find it irritating when people speak in terms of these ambivalent equivalences. If you are after particular blurry look then yes, bigger is better but I can imagine just as many situations where having a larger depth of field is beneficial. September 5, at Given that m43 seems to have hit a sweet spot in terms of image quality vs.

September 6, at 1: I did some calculations as to determine the DOF for different focal lengths and apertures rounded:. APS-C, 40 cm distance: Changing distance to object: YOu even have advantages doing macro shots using m September 22, at 5: If DOF is too shallow, get more aperture. Higher ISO will be better. Full frame cameras of similar sensor technology to their smaller counterparts will yield lower noise images at its baseline….. And maybe better for video. Page 1 was excellent, but page 2 is rather flawed.

January 24, at 2: Very nice article, Jman. I have been a pro. Times, they do change. One decision I applaud Fuji for is to make their primes in focal lengths that mirror the full frame equivalents: The reason I think these are good decisions is simply the convenience of having a spread of prime that history has shown will cover most situations.

March 12, at 4: Generally engineers trade that off to sharpen the image and reduce noise etc. Taking an idiots approach I get better results with most large format cameras than most smaller cameras.

Of course it all depends on the guy behind the camera, but the idiot in question me being equal there must be a difference in the optics. March 12, at 5: Remember that a 14mm lens pulls in a significantly wider field of view more area of light through that hole, while the mm lens captures just a few degrees. March 13, at 6: March 14, at 1: April 1, at April 18, at 8: There is no crop of the image circle in any way with this combination.

The same confusion exists in other sensor formats. Medium Format is both larger than so-called full frame yet also a crop sensor in the current vernacular. May 18, at 1: Bot give same depth of field at same aperture, but bot give different T-stop.

So you can get two different exposure values for same depth of field. Instead of focal length equivalences, I prefer using the horizontal angle of view easily calculated for lens comparisons between formats. May 19, at 5: I am sorry but there is a point where your logic comes tumbling down. If you need more depth of field, you can also achieve it with a larger sensor: If you need the same exposure as with a smaller sensor, raise the ISO by the same amount. On top of this, there is the magnification advantage, of which you make no mention.

As it is only logical, larger sensor have better or equal IQ, and this can be demonstrated on paper. May 19, at 6: It seems you did not read the whole article seems to be a common occurrance. I specifically address this in the article. However, equivalence is often thrown about as if it is universal to the format, which it clearly is not, as there are many APS-C sensors that are on par or superior to older full frame sensors.

There is not one point where I say that smaller formats have better image quality than a new full frame camera. However, speaking as if wide open depth of field is the most important criteria of a camera is also folly. It manifests itself in the other image quality parameters predominantly lower noise , but is nothing on its own. Modern lenses designed for smaller formats are correspondingly sharper with the smaller area captured and will very often result in similar resolution to a great lens on full frame.

Magnification means very little if you have the same resolution and a lens that can resolve the same detail corresponding to that resolution. May 19, at 8: Jordan, this is not a debate, I am not debating with you, I am just pointing out some errors. Since you are writing in a public place, you are supposed to correct errors, or openly state who sponsored you.

Well, at least in a perfect world. Here is an error-crammed sentence: Error 1 Equivalent lenses are mostly not always! Other posters have already corrected you on this. I have seen you made no amends though. May 19, at 9: That statement is true…if you are stopping down for more depth of field and increasing ISO to compensate for the smaller aperture you need to use vs.

Note, that in my article, I have an entire section that talks about areas where full frame cameras are superior with regards to image quality. No one disputes this. They vary by each individual lens, and often, the lenses with slower apertures on full frame are nowhere near as optically corrected as their faster crop sensor brethren. That much we can agree on. However, you pay for that in size notably bigger than those lenses and price…despite not having too large a depth of field advantage.

Anything that is optically similar in the mm range is going to be the high end optic in a lens lineup, and will come in at notably more expensive and definitely larger than the Olympus.

May 20, at 2: Article feels like a long-winded self-justification why small sensors are good too. Hey, whatever floats your boat. Do you want to sell all your stuff by then? May 20, at 5: We are at a point of diminishing returns already. Sensors will get better and better, but the improvements will be harder and harder to see. There comes a point where these improvements become very subtle for most shooting. It would have been far easier financially to simply continue to upgrade my camera body, but I found carrying the huge kit had a negative effect on my photography.

For me, the Fuji lenses are really about as large as I want to carry anymore. If the Sony FE line gets fleshed out with small high quality lenses in addition to fast ones, it would be an option, but there is a ton to be said for interface and comfort as well.

May 20, at 3: I tend to agree with you. Have you tried the Leica M? The lenses are really small and the results are amazing.

Have you given it a try? May 23, at 5: Would you recommend starting with a free platform like WordPress or go for a paid option? June 6, at 4: I now have a solid understanding of this. It has told me that I made the right decision to stick with my crop dslr. June 21, at 8: I have made a similar statement on my blog after I realised the confusion that exists with crop factors in relation to aperture.

He was changing the physical distance of the focal length to match the equivalent distance of the full frame to get the f-number. July 2, at 5: One thing I might add, though, is that manufacturers often try to get consumers to believe that their smaller format, wide aperture lenses are equivalent to full frame lenses at the same aperture.

When you take into account that larger-format lenses also require more materials, you really must wonder why that 32mm is so expensive. Maybe what we need more of is price equivalence….

Wow, my apologies, I did not intend for that comment to turn into such a long rant haha. September 29, at 1: I understand that business is business though. Not like Panny are really making a killing in their camera business for example, they have the right to charge what they want for their lenses. So my hope is for Sigma to come in to the mft market in a big way to really shake things up, in speed and price.

August 6, at 6: Thanks for the article. Great thing about Pentax is that they make relatively compact but rugged cameras that fit nicely and are very nice to use.

Even so I can see that some day I might be tempted to acquire a full frame if Pentax ever put a compact FF DSLR out as part of my photographic journey and photography is a journey in my view. The viewfinder in my old Pentax ME film is just wonderful and its a relatively compact camera too. September 13, at 3: All depending of how you wish the photo to look like of course.

For example… Two best friends are out in the wild to catch some action with their diffrent systems. Both using their beloved mm f4,0 lenses at f4,0. They hear a suspicious sound coming from behind. Both turning around at the same time only to see a scared deer running of. A deers behind is better then no deer at all right? Now both guys will have the same deer in the same DoF, only the aps-c guy will have more scenery around the deer in his frame. Of course none of the guys is satisfyed and wants to crop their photos.

Then of course pixel density, sharpness of the lens used and iso managment comes to play. In some situations the larger sensor user benefits from beeing able to choose a shallower DoF, in many others we take what we get.

September 18, at 3: For example, using a FF 50mm F1. I think I understand the facts you are presenting, but disagree on the conclusions. I agree with other commentators that the fact that the f1. I certainly did not a few days ago.. I mean I understood the difference in dof thing, but the total light on the frame issue tricked by iso I had no idea. The more f1. October 5, at 7: The world hopes for even more passionate writers like you who are not afraid to say how they believe.

Always go after your heart. November 10, at This post will assist the internet users for setting up new weblog or even a blog from start to end. November 28, at 1: I enjoyed your website, and I like your article. I am a converted fujifilm Xs and X-M1 user. For the completeness of argument, however, I would like to point out that larger format sensors have another advantage over smaller format sensors.

In wikipedia, this article on image sensor format gives a technical analysis, http: A similar but easy-to-understand argument can be found here: The basic idea is as follows. The resolution of all optical systems is limited by diffraction. This blur is called the Airy disk http: The radius actually the center to the first minimum of the airy disk is given by 1. Increasing the number of pixels will not increase the resolution if the airy disk is already covered by 4 pixels 2X2.

This puts a limit on the number of pixels on a given sensor. For MFT sensor Note that the limits are for the same f-number: You might notice that the E-M1 is already pretty close to that limit.

In fact any camera without an AA filter is probably not far from its resolution limit Fujifilm is an exception because of the pattern of their X-Tran sensors. The above being said, for myself, I am happy with 16M pixels. I have never and probably will never make prints larger than 16X11, and my computer monitor is only at X December 23, at 1: But at larger apertures the size of the airy disk decreases right?

Given the increased depth of field of m43 I find that I shoot wide open or nearly wide open much of the time. Do I have that right?

Misleading email addresses

Leave a Reply