[a / b / c / d / e / f / g / gif / h / hr / k / m / o / p / r / s / t / u / v / vg / vm / vmg / vr / vrpg / vst / w / wg] [i / ic] [r9k / s4s / vip / qa] [cm / hm / lgbt / y] [3 / aco / adv / an / bant / biz / cgl / ck / co / diy / fa / fit / gd / hc / his / int / jp / lit / mlp / mu / n / news / out / po / pol / pw / qst / sci / soc / sp / tg / toy / trv / tv / vp / vt / wsg / wsr / x / xs] [Settings] [Search] [Mobile] [Home]
Board
Settings Mobile Home
/p/ - Photography

[Advertise on 4chan]

Name
Options
Comment
Verification
4chan Pass users can bypass this verification. [Learn More] [Login]
File
  • Please read the Rules and FAQ before posting.
  • There are 62 posters in this thread.

08/21/20New boards added: /vrpg/, /vmg/, /vst/ and /vm/
05/04/17New trial board added: /bant/ - International/Random
10/04/16New board for 4chan Pass users: /vip/ - Very Important Posts
[Hide] [Show All]


Janitor applications are now closed. Thank you to everyone who applied!


[Advertise on 4chan]


File: a7s.jpg (181 KB, 1024x908)
181 KB
181 KB JPG
in terms of low-light can anything beat it?
>>
>>3936953
Post a low light photo. My old D750 was pretty fucking insane low light. D4 as well.
>>
>>3936953
Low light video?
No
Low light photography?
Not really, but it's much closer, any full frame Sony will be within 1\3 of a stop

Someone is bound to say "Fuji gfx", but they're wrong, as a camera is a body and a lens ,Sony have lots of f1.4 or faster lenses, Fuji has one f1.4 equivalent and the rest are slow as shit.
>>
>>3936961
But f/1.4 is like f/2.6 equivalent on the gfx
>>
>>3936953
For low light video? On the high end (think $20k), the Canon ME20F-SH. On the low end ($400-$1k) a SiOnyx Aurora won't deliver the same video quality but can see in even lower light. (Though if you full spectrum convert the Sony it might be competitive.) And a true military night vision device with a camera attached to the back will see in conditions that are pitch black on anything else.

For stills? Any modern FF sensor. Seriously. A 1DX mark III looks just as good at ISO 400k as the A7s III. At the high ISOs I'm likely to shoot I would much rather shoot with a high resolution FF sensor than a 12mp sensor because the noise gain, if there's any, is maybe a third of a stop like this anon said: >>3936961

You have to realize that with video the full sensor...every pixel...has to be scaled down using a high quality scaling algorithm if you're going to retain all the light the sensor captured. That's easy for a single photograph in PS at home. That's a bitch at 24/30/60 fps in camera for video. This is why the Sony A7s knocks it out of the park for low light video, but is meh for low light stills.
>>
>>3936953
Everything. It's colours are trash.
>>
>>3936953

For 600 bucks market price right now, probably not.

t. A7s and Df
>>
>>3936953
a7iii is actually nicer for stills in low light. even better than the s2. These were better for low light video.
>>
>>3936961
Theres a 1.2 lens for gfx
>>
Leica Q is much better. I bet my 6D would shit all over an A7 desu.
>>
>>3936953
the a7s2 and a7s3, then cameras with significantly bigger sensors like the phase one 54x40mm digital backs
>>3936962
>aperture equivalent
aperture doesn't change with sensor size, the same amount of light passes through a 50mm f/1.8 lens regardless of the size of the sensor behind it
>>3937282
there is not, the fastest is an 80mm f/1.7
>>
>>3936962
1.4 * 0.79 = 1.1
>>
>>3937300
Surely you know that larger sensor means larger depth of field? The aperture equivalent he mentions means depth of field.
>>
>>3937315
>larger depth of field
holy fuck not this again.

Use your words. "Deeper" or "Shallower".
>>
>>3936962
No, f2.6 on gfx is about f2.0 full frame equivalent, because the gfx sensor isn't even twice the size of full frame, total scam, I'm glad phase one called them out on it.

>>3937282
If we're talking manual focus chink shit, there's plenty of f0.95 lenses for full frame, which coincidentally is exactly the same as f1.2 on gfx. It's almost like they took their full frame lens, whacked an inverted speedbooster on the end and called it a day ;)

>>3937300
>The same amount of light passes through an f1.8 lens

The same amount of light is projected per mm2, correct, and a larger sensor has more mm2, so it gathers more light. F equivalence not only conveys the difference in dof, but also noise performance; it's as perfect a tool as there could possibly be.
>>
>>3936961
>>3936962
>>3937282
>>3937315
>>3937311
>>3937351
damn look at these niggas who don’t even know how f-stops work lol Fujifilm has no “f/1.4 equivalent” lens because a f/2.4 lens will always gather f/2.4 amounts of light regardless of the sensor
>inb4 “B-BUT THE DoF CHANGES!!!!”
the thread is about low light performance and fast lenses, nobody was talking about DoF equivalency, you’re just trying to cover your ass after being made fun of
>>
>>3937420
An f/stop does not equal photons gathered, you fucking retard.
>>
>>3937436
yes it does LOL an f/1.4 hole will let f/1.4 amounts of light pass through regardless of what is present inside of the camera you dumbass
>>
>>3937438
It will let f1.4 light through per mm2, what has more mn2, small sensor or large sensor?

Does a swimming pool collect more rain or a small bucket? The rain is falling at the same rate on both of them.
>>
>>3937439
the light coming through the lens is uniformly distributed on the back of the camera. a larger sensor will collect more light but the density of said light will be exactly the same. you will have an image with a wider angle but the same brightness as a smaller sensor.
>>
>>3936953
>SCN mode
Ducking amateurs
>>
>>3937439
>he doesn’t know they measure rain in depth not surface area
>>
>>3936953
iphone
>>
>>3937444
Wrong
>>3937446
Irrelevant, I could be pedantic and use the t value, but that's the same as the f value unless the lens manufacturer is inept or lying.
>>3937451
I didn't ask which one measures the amount of rainfall, I asked which collected more rain. Rainfall is a good analogy for transmission though.

One very mad sensorlet on here today, what's upset you buddy?
>>
>>3937468
>Rainfall is a good analogy for transmission though.
yes, but since you’re a brainlet LARPing as an expert you can’t even understand the analogy you are parroting from god knows where.

Under the same uniform rain, a 3ft tall bucket and a 3ft tall olympic pool will fill up with water at the same rate. Getting a correct exposure is about filling the pool to the desired height i.e. collecting the correct amount of light relative to the size of the sensor.
If you shined a flashlight at a wall you could observe the wall as a whole or just a portion of it. Either way the wall would be illuminated with the same intensity all throughout it ls surface and it wouldn’t look dimmer if you concentrated only on a single brick

you have an abysmal understanding of the subject at hand, please stop being a retarded faggot
>>
>>3937438
Let's do a little mental experiment:

You already know that aperture is the apparent diameter of the entrance pupil as viewed from the front of the lens, so for instance a 24mm lens at f/1.4 has a 17mm entrance pupil, right?

What's the size of entrance pupil of a 35mm f1.4 lens? It's not 17mm, right? The focal length is bigger, so the entrance pupil would have to be bigger, right? And sure enough, it has an entrance pupil of 25mm. Which is bigger? Which would allow more photons collected from your subject?

I doubt you're going to understand anything in this following article, but that's alright. Maybe someone else is curious and will learn something new.

https://clarkvision.com/articles/characteristics-of-best-cameras-and-lenses-for-nightscape-astro-photography/
>>
>>3936953
Due to light leaks, the Snoy a7 series cannot be used during daylight hours. The fix is to buy more Snoy products with different problems.
>>
>>3937320
Use Ample instead of Fast.
>>
File: incapableboomer.jpg (588 KB, 1892x804)
588 KB
588 KB JPG
>>3937675
All I see on that site is incapable boomer with no knowledge, even less skill, and poorly calibrated monitor. Oh, and he tags his photos. You're not taking your knowhow from him, or are you?
>>
>>3937693
I don't even have to argue anything. His work speak for himself.

[EXIF data available. Click here to show/hide.]
Camera-Specific Properties:
Image-Specific Properties:
>>
>>3937695
>shock
nasa photograper is shit photographer

Dude, he's got unexplainable noise on his photos >>3937694
, don't have a single idea what wb is >>3937693, and has uncalibrated monitor (all of the samples posted including this one).
>>
>>3937701
I've seen people with canon rebels taking better astro...

[EXIF data available. Click here to show/hide.]
Camera-Specific Properties:
Image-Specific Properties:
>>
>>3937701
lol, so ass-blasted about being wrong that he has to engage in four-post damage control.

get fucked, retard. everyone knows you're wrong here.
>>
>>3937300
>aperture doesn't change with sensor size, the same amount of light passes through a 50mm f/1.8 lens regardless of the size of the sensor behind it
But two different 50mm lenses designed for different formats (imaging circles) pass different amounts of light at the same aperture. Why is this so fucking hard for people to understand?
>>
>>3937706
I have not even went into your rant. You arrogantly posted a link to some wacko site by a pseudo photographer, and I exposed his unknowledge to you by posting his own shitography.
>>
>>3937478
>Getting a correct exposure is about filling the pool to the desired height
But noise is determined by how much water you collected. Not the height nor the time to achieve said height.
>>
>>3937693
>>3937694
>>3937701
>>3937704
I wish I had a superpower: the ability to electrically shock anyone I desire when they commit a logical fallacy. This sensorlet cope would have earned four shocks.
>>
>>3937708
Uh huh. Go ahead and respond to the original point, megafag.
>>
>>3937711
I have. My point. Your source has no idea what he's talking about. His photographic knowledge is in the shitter.
>>
>>3937300
>>3937303

Just here to gloat, feels good being right and showing someone like you wrong.
>>
>>3937709
noise has nothing to do with exposing correctly what the fuck are you talking about
>>
>>3937708
>wacko site by a pseudo photographer
He worked on imaging systems for fucking NASA. He is literally an expert in his field. He could be called before a court to give testimony on this topic. Your shitty opinion on the artistic value of some of his shots is completely irrelevant.

Speaking of your shitty opinion...please post your astro and astro landscape shots that are better than >>3937704 and >>3937694.
>>
>>3937715
>noise has nothing to do with exposing correctly what the fuck are you talking about
Shoot a correct and an underexposed photo of a low light scene and see how they compare on noise.
>>
>>3937713
>I don't like his photos so he's wrong
big brain time. how long can I milk you for lols before you give up, though?
>>
>>3937420
There is a 1.2 lens for the GFX. Not a 1.2 equivalent, f1.2.
>>
>>3937718
>underexpose
>can’t see shit
>photo is useless
all this discussion was about getting the same exposure with different sensor formats, nobody was arguing about fucking noise
>>
>>3937722
>all this discussion was about getting the same exposure with different sensor formats, nobody was arguing about fucking noise
Aperture equivalence is about both DoF and noise.
>>
>>3937717
Dude, he's utter shit at photography. And utter shit at astrophotoraphy. I don't care if he's got masters degree on science, his work is sub par. It's so bad it's not even funny. That's all that matters.

Here's some canon rebel astrophotography from the middle of a city... roftl
>>
>>3937724
This photo is worse than >>3937704 though
>>
File: veil-nebula-large.jpg (171 KB, 1000x608)
171 KB
171 KB JPG
>>3937725
Not even a good troll...

Here's how Veil Nebula looks like. Yeah, it's from the same rebel guy. lol
>>
>>3937723
which will have more noise, an f/5.6 1/500 shot at base ISO or a f/16 1/60 shot at base ISO?
>>
>>3937726
we get it, your zoomer rebel guy knows more photoshop than a boomer NASA engineer, whatevs
>>
File: astrophotography-image.jpg (149 KB, 650x813)
149 KB
149 KB JPG
>>3937728
Probably. But he also knows a lot more about astrophotography than a nasa engineer.
>>
>>3937726
>no low magnitude stars
>blurry
>fake, gay colors

you are such a brainlet of enormous magnitude. i hate zoomers with an unending passion.
>>
>>3937724
Why are you guys still arguing aboit this? You were wrong, theres a 1.2 lens for GFX, making it better in raw low light capturing than any FF.
>>
>>3937724
I said post one of YOUR astro shots that are better than his. That is not yours. That is also not technically better than >>3937704 as Clark's target is the more difficult one to capture.

I'm in a bad mood so I'm going to go ahead and vent for a bit: I hate people like you. No, seriously, I ***fucking hate*** people like you. Rather than be mature enough to admit you are wrong on a complex technical matter and learn something, you resort to personal attacks against an expert in the field to protect your worthless god damn ego. Your opinion on the artistic merit or lack thereof of Clark's photographs is completely, totally, and 100% irrelevant to the question of aperture equivalence. You're still wrong even if Clark photographed dog shit and posted it on his site. And being wrong would be OK in this instance if you just learned something and said "my bad, I was wrong, thanks for the info." But no. Your ego and pretending you're a SmartBoy is the most important thing in the world to you. Not learning. Not growing. Not the truth. Just pretending.

News flash: you're not a SmartBoy. You're just a dumb ass.
>>
>>3937727
Assuming the same format the noise will be the same. If one is shot on a larger format the larger format image will have less noise regardless of which exposure was made on it.
>>
>>3937729
>But he also knows a lot more about astrophotography than a nasa engineer.
No, he doesn't. He might have more time to dedicate to astro photos, he might make artistic choices in post that you prefer. But he does not know more.
>>
>>3937731
>theres a 1.2 lens for GFX, making it better in raw low light capturing than any FF.
anon, we have already gone through this: a MF 1.2 lens lets the same amount of light in as a FF 1.2 lens

also Fujifilm’s gimped medium format sensor makes the f/1.2 lens an equivalent f/0.95 in full frame, which already exist
>>
>>3937737
>same amount of light
>f/0.95 equivalent
Choose one retard.
>>
>>3937739
YOU choose one, retard, otherwise your post makes zero sense
>>
>>3936962
Sadly not that much, GFX has crop factor 0.78
1.4/0.78=1.8
>>
>>3937735
>If one is shot on a larger format the larger format image will have less noise regardless of which exposure was made on it.
False.

GFX100, pixel size 3.76 microns
A7S III, pixel size 8.40 microns

Sony has bigger pixels thus less sensor noise all else equal
>>
>>3937741
Fine: the Fuji GFX f/1.2 lens is f/0.95 equivalent in 35mm meaning more shallow DoF and MORE LIGHT.
>>
>>3937744
>MORE LIGHT.
false, learn how aperture works.
next.
>>
>>3937743
>he thinks pixel size determines noise

[EXIF data available. Click here to show/hide.]
Camera-Specific Properties:
Image-Specific Properties:
Horizontal Resolution144 dpi
Vertical Resolution144 dpi
Image Width1320
Image Height1308
>>
>>3937745
>false, learn how aperture works.
No, it was true. Now YOU LEARN how aperture works.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=f5zN6NVx-hY
https://www.dpreview.com/articles/2666934640/what-is-equivalence-and-why-should-i-care
https://photographylife.com/equivalence-also-includes-aperture-and-iso

Next.
>>
>>3937713
>>3937708
>>3937704
>>3937701
>>3937694
>>3937693
Is he colorblind? That would explain the weird ass toning
>>
>>3937747
>Aperture and Equivalence
>While I’m at it, I’ll mention another thing: this is only talking about depth of field.
>>
>>3937760
Jesus Christ one of the URLs literally ends with "equivalence-also-includes-aperture-and-iso"
>and iso
>AND ISO
Now STFU child.
>>
>>3937737
Its actually more light. Even a 4x5 lens at f4 gathers more light than a 1.2 on FF. This is why speedboosters work.

Now while a photo with the same settings on both will have the same exposure, the MF exposure is made up of more light. Just like a photo with a speedbooster. Not thqt hard to grasp if youre at least sort of educated on optics.


PS further up the thread, som r tard thought that GFX lens apertures were FF equivalent and not real f stops, leading to those brainded posts about f2.4 or whatever.
>>
>>3937743
All else is not equal since the MF photo is sampled from more light. Its not all about pixel size. MF at identical settings has a higher light to noise ratio since the lens lets through a lot more light at the same f stop.
>>
>>3937732
based
>>
File: 1592196744087.jpg (96 KB, 600x600)
96 KB
96 KB JPG
Speedboosters make light travel faster, which is why more light hits the sensor because the light gets compacted and sped up
almost like concentrated light.
trust me.
>>
>>3937769
Speedboosters may work, but unless they've been specifically designed for a single lens, they suck ass and turn your image quality to poop.
>>
File: Quality_Image.jpg (1.36 MB, 3000x2000)
1.36 MB
1.36 MB JPG
>>3937777
pic related is a Pixco speedbooster used on a Sony a6400

[EXIF data available. Click here to show/hide.]
Camera-Specific Properties:
Equipment MakeSONY
Camera ModelILCE-6400
Camera SoftwareCapture One 21 Windows
Maximum Lens Aperturef/1.0
Image-Specific Properties:
Horizontal Resolution300 dpi
Vertical Resolution300 dpi
Exposure Time1/250 sec
Exposure ProgramManual
ISO Speed Rating320
Brightness1.2 EV
Exposure Bias0 EV
Metering ModeCenter Weighted Average
Light SourceUnknown
FlashNo Flash, Compulsory
Image Width3000
Image Height2000
RenderingNormal
Exposure ModeManual
White BalanceAuto
Scene Capture TypeStandard
ContrastNormal
SaturationNormal
SharpnessNormal
>>
>>3937780
Yep, looks like it too.

Look how fucked the focal plane is, middle of the shot is focused to infinity, on the right the foreground branches are more in focus than the background, and only a tiny area not quite in the centre of the shot is actually sharp. You should have bought an a7ii instead of the a6400, it's not too late to sell it and buy a proper camera.
>>
>>3937780
>Quality_Image.jpg
kek
Looks like rainbow shit.
>>
>>3937785
i upgraded to an a7c awhile ago
>>
nasa has the best photographers, deal with it pussy.
>>
>get a tripod for my 'ra
>suddenly my low light photos actually look good
>>
>>3937831
>yet have no soul
>>
>>3937777
Thats not what we were arguing. You were saying that MF lenses dont let through more light, which they do. If they dont, how are speedboosters possible?
>>
>>3937844
I wasn't saying anything of the sort, I was just saying speedboosters look like shit and aren't an alternative to a larger sensor if you care about image quality.
Fwiw, this is me
>>3937439
>>
>>3937732
Anon, you seem like a decent enough guy so I'm going to give you a piece of life advice. You will come in contact with retards, assholes and general nigger tier behavior all the time, both offline and online. Sometime they are just too stupid to realize they are behaving like human trash, sometimes it's on purpose, sometimes they just don't care. This is a fact of life, there's nothing to be done about it. What can be done is how you react when encountering these types of people. You can choose if you want to get emotionally invested in a troll discussion and potentially ruin your evening or not. Also, meditate more.
>>
>>3937858
I know you mean to help but my evening was already ruined, so I wanted to lash out a bit. Maybe anon will learn a lesson and change his behavior and some good will come of it. Otherwise...yeah, you're right.
>>
>>3937675
Which would work... if there were not lenses next to that aperture. It does no good if you have a massive aperture if it's acceptance cone is so narrow it can't gather light from the same solid angle of the scene.
And guess what? People already did the math on that: Combine the focal length and aperture area for an f1 lens at 12mm or 300mm, and the amount of actual light accepted and projected to the SAME COVERAGE ANGLE will be the same! The coverage angle bit is important, and is why a 90mm f8 lens for APS-C can be teeny tiny but a 90mm f8 lens for 4x5 needs to be much larger: more light must pass through total, but it spread out over a larger exit cone. But both lenses will have the same amount of light per unit solid angle exit area (e.g. if you took an APS-C sensor and stuck it behind either 90mm f8 lens, you'd have the exact same exposure).
>>
>>3937881
And if you took the aps-c lens and put in front of the 4x5 it would cover about 3% of the total area, and therefore gather about 3% the amount of light. Light is the signal in photography; therefore 4x5 has about 33 times greater signal to noise ratio than crop, which equates to around 5 stops better performance.
>>
>>3937884
>therefore 4x5 has about 33 times greater signal to noise ratio than crop, which equates to around 5 stops better performance.
A does not follow B, as you are capturing different images (i.e. the image produced by a 90mm lens on APS-C is not the image produced by a 90mm lens on 4x5). If you were to take a 25x16mm crop of a 4x5 frame, you would have an identical exposure and SNR to a 'native' APS-C frame. That's a like-for-like comparison. If you wanted a frame-for-frame comparison (same view when both images are projected/viewed at the same physical size, e.g. if you blew the APS-C image up to 4x5) then you would instead need a 500mm lens on the 4x5 for the same view.
Angle of view is something most photographers ignore completely because they're used to just using lenses for 35mm/full-frame, but it can't be ignores when it comes to actual measurements of light gathering. The focal length along is NOT sufficient to compare two lenses.
>>
Has the Sony shilling been increasing lately?
>>
>>3937420
There is a larger sensor area to gather light, more photons. Therefore, more light gathered for the same everything else kept constant. Same ISO, same f-stop, same shutter speed, etc.? More sensor area = more photons gathered. Then it’s just down to how restricted you are on the other measurements. How high of an ISO setting can your sensor handle before it looks like shit? How fast do you need the shutter to be? And so forth. Maybe you can get away with an iPhone, maybe you need 8x10”.
>>
>>3937893
the focal length is completely irrelevant when discussing SNR, all you need is the transmission (aperture value is good enough) and sensor size.

Take your misguided and irrelevant sanctimonious mindset and envelope it deep inside your own arsehole, you're just making yourself look like a tit.
>>
>>3937976
>More sensor area = more photons gathered
the light that reaches the back of the camera is uniform. you can put a bigger sensor that will gather more of it, but that will only give you a wider image, not a brighter one
>>
>>3937977
>the focal length is completely irrelevant when discussing SNR, all you need is the transmission (aperture value is good enough) and sensor size
False. You also need to know the focal length and acceptance and exit angles. And if you want to compare /different/ sensor sizes, you need to also change focal lengths (and acceptance and exit angles) or you end up with two different images.
Otherwise you are just taking two completely unrelated captured images and going "BUT BRIGHTER".

Remember, SNR involved photons captured PER UNIT AREA, not just total photons captured. Otherwise shooting a panorama would magically change the SNR of a given sensor.
>>
>>3937983
jesus christ you're dumb as fuck
the subject in the photograph is completely irrelevant when we're just discussing noise performance.
And the aperture/transmission takes the relationship between pupil size and focal length into account, so again, focal length is irrelevant.

You could put a 500mm f4 lens on an mft, and a 10mm f4 on a 4x5, and it's not going to change the amount of light hitting the sensor per unit area.

>shooting a panorama changes the SNR of a sensor

Yes, this is true, it does, you fucking idiot. SNR is measured per total photo, the more data you put in the photo, the higher the SNR and higher the dynamic range. Imagine you had a camera with 4 pixels, and it records either black or white, and you shoot something that's 25% grey, sometimes you'll get 1 black and 3 white, and you'll have 25% grey, but there's also a 25% chance that all 4 are white, if you take a panorama, and have 8 pixels, you've reduced your chance of getting all 8 white by half, and now you've doubled your dynamic range, as you've gone from 5 possible average values, to 10 possible average values.

You're close to getting this right, but still being a fucking moron.
>>
>>3937989
>You could put a 500mm f4 lens on an mft, and a 10mm f4 on a 4x5, and it's not going to change the amount of light hitting the sensor per unit area.
Which is exactly the point: SNR is measured per unit area, not 'per phote', because a photo can be any goddamn size.

>and now you've doubled your dynamic range,
No you fucking haven't. Go look up the definition of dynamic range. Hint: it has fuck-all to do with pixel count.

I have no clue why you are so confident SNR is area-dependant when you don't even know the definitions of basic terms.
>>
>>3937881
Read the article I included in my post.
>>
>>3938012
You mean this one: https://clarkvision.com/articles/characteristics-of-best-cameras-and-lenses-for-nightscape-astro-photography/

The one that describes etendue and the need to account for acceptance angle (subject solid angle, because the subjects in astrophotography are discrete), not just f-stop? And explicitly states that sensor size is NOT part of the equation? That article?

>NOTE: we do not need to know anything about
>SENSOR SIZE
>, pixel size or number of pixels in the camera--those parameters are not part of the Etendue equation and are not needed

Maybe you need to read it.
>>
>>3938017
I never said one thing about sensor size.
>>
>>3937981
So explain how speedboosters work if there isnt more light?
>>
>>3938072
speed boosters concentrate the same light in a smaller area, thus increasing the density of the light
>>
>>3938008
>I have no clue why you are so confident SNR is area-dependant when you don't even know the definitions of basic terms.
Area or total SNR is relevant because we look at WHOLE PHOTOS, and we tend to view them at one of several common monitor and print sizes.

When you're reach limited SNR per unit of area is the more important measure. But in all other photographic scenarios total photo SNR is more important. Yes, larger sensors gather more light. Yes, this is why they are "better at high ISO." I can't believe we're still debating this shit, go watch this video https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=f5zN6NVx-hY and replicate the experiments in your own home.

>>3938017
>And explicitly states that sensor size is NOT part of the equation?
You either didn't read the article or are purposely misrepresenting what he is saying. Sensor size is not relevant in reach limited scenarios and astrophotography is, by definition, a reach limited scenario.

>inb4 muh pixel size! what...about...muh...pixel size!
Almost entirely irrelevant. See: >>3937746 The only reason I say "almost" is because at the most extreme ISOs read noise differences related to pixel size can start to become relevant.
>>
>>3938079
Think about what you're saying. If it was "the same light" then the exposure on the larger sensor would be different in the first place.
>>
>>3938163
the lens passes through a certain amount of light. nothing that you put behind the lens can somehow make it pass more light.
what makes the exposure work is light density, not its total amount. denser light? brighter image.
>>
>>3938227
>denser light? brighter image
so, more light.
>>
>>3938232
a FF lens projects on the back of the camera a circle of light with a certain density. If you put a FF lens on an APS-C camera the smaller sensor will be hit with the same density of light so the image will be as bright as if it were a FF one.
However the circle of light would not be optimized for the sensor size so what a speed booster does is to gather all the wasted light and rearrange it in a denser circle exactly the size of the smaller sensor.

At the end of the day a smaller sensor works like digital crop. Does your image get dimmer when you crop it in photoshop? No.
>>
>>3938162
Based Tony not allowing his hole to speak.
>>
>>3938227
>the lens passes through a certain amount of light. nothing that you put behind the lens can somehow make it pass more light.
Assume a FF imaging circle. How many photons are recorded by a FF sensor? Now how many photons are recorded by an APS-C sensor?

Are you getting it yet?
>>
>>3938238
>a FF lens projects on the back of the camera a circle of light with a certain density. If you put a FF lens on an APS-C camera the smaller sensor will be hit with the same density of light so the image will be as bright as if it were a FF one.
You are confusing brightness with signal. Stop doing that. The term is SNR not BNR.

>However the circle of light would not be optimized for the sensor size so what a speed booster does is to gather all the wasted light
>wasted light
>WASTED
You just acknowledged that a FF sensor collects more light.

>At the end of the day a smaller sensor works like digital crop. Does your image get dimmer when you crop it in photoshop? No.
SNR absolutely and observably goes down. And it does so every time.
>>
>>3938244
>You just acknowledged that a FF sensor collects more light.
>>3938242
>How many photons are recorded by a FF sensor? Now how many photons are recorded by an APS-C sensor?
it collects more light but the FOV is wider so the density is the same because the photons are spread on a bigger area. do you even know basic maths pal?
if I put a big and a small pizza in a microwave for 30 seconds the big pizza will be barely warm while the small pizza would be hot to the touch. that’s because they absorbed the same amount of radiation but on the smaller pizza it was more densely concentrated
>>
>>3938246
>it collects more light but the FOV is wider so the density is the same
>density
STOP. Brightness is NOT signal. Exposure density is NOT signal. You could grasp this if you weren't being so god damn stubborn.

>do you even know basic maths pal?
And STOP being an arrogant ass when you are so completely and provably wrong. Jesus Christ you can literally perform the same experiments done in the fucking YouTube link I posted at home by yourself. That is if you even own a camera.

>if I put a big and a small pizza in a microwave for 30 seconds
False analogy. A FF lens, by analogy, is NOT the same power microwave as a crop lens.
>>
>>3938008
>Snr is measured per unit area
Wrong, snr is measured based on your total output, ie total photo. This is basic electronics.
>Dr has nothing to do with pixel count
Correct, it's about how many values you can ascertain from your data. 10 values is twice as much as 5 values, and therefore double the DR, read my post again.
>Why do you think snr is area dependent
Because it is, Dr is just snr at max capacity, and look at camera sensors, double the size and you gain a stop of DR, one stop is a doubling\halfing of snr.

>>3938017
Read his site again, if you're measuring by pixel, the total sensor size is irrelevant, if you're measuring by photo, sensor size is critical. Your lack of understanding is hilarious.
>>3938079
Yes, you do get a brighter image, iso is an arbitrary figure to reach a reference value, in reality the gain applied per pixel is lower with larger pixels because larger pixels gather more light.
>>3938163
Correct, iso is an arbitrary value to reach a reference brightness. Higher iso is just applying a higher voltage to a pixel, smaller pixels need more gain to reach the same brightness. Downsampling is just as effective as larger pixels too, hence total sensor size is all that matters.
>>3938227
Iso. Is. Arbitrary. Smaller. Pixels. Need. More. Gain. To. Reach. The. Same. Reference. Brightness. Level.
>>3938238
>Does your image get dimmer if you do an apsc size crop
No, but when you output at the same resolution as the full size sensor, your image quality (SNR & DR) will halve; which is the same level of degredation as going up an iso stop.
>>3938246
If I put 5 pepperoni per slice on a pizza, and I have one pizza with 4 slices and another with 8, which one has more pepperoni? The level of pepperoni per unit area hasn't changed, but the area has, and the more slices, the more pepperoni.
>>
>>3938279
>Higher iso is just applying a higher voltage to a pixel
No. Absolutely nothing to do with the photoconverters.
>>
>>3938282
I'm going to make clarkvision easier for you to understand by only showing you the relevant parts. You're clearly getting confused.
>>
>>3938079
Exactly, so lenses for bigger sensor pass through more light st the same f stop. Proving you wrong. Glad we agree.
>>
>>3938279
>Wrong, snr is measured based on your total output, ie total photo. This is basic electronics.
No, you're just incorrect. Any measurement of sensor SNR is going to per per unit area. Heck, your basic Photon fluence (Fin) is always defined per unit area.

Otherwise, you end up in the bizarre situation where cropping an image changes the SNR.
>>
>>3937756
He shouldn't be shooting landscape in that high contrast scene in the first place. Only thing that looks good in that scene is telephoto on a detail.
>>
>>3938308
Here's a (non paywalled) paper on the subject, that explicitly describes measurements as being per-unit-area:
https://arxiv.org/pdf/1909.11797.pdf
>>
>>3938313
Article is talking about computational imaging. That's a thing where you take a shit ton of images then remove noise by calculating which pixels have it. Phones and smaller sensor have a potential advantage in this, since they can capture and process more for the same processing power. Phones, are the most active proponent of this tech, since they can already do it so fast that you can get normal exposures that way. Digital cameras only start correcting for noise on longer exposures, but tech is already there. Most, if not all, newer cameras do computational noise reduction on long exposures.
>>
>>3938308
>cropping changes the SNR
Which it does.
Hence why the larger the camera sensor of the same generation, the larger the dynamic range, dynamic range is a function of SNR, the higher the SNR, the higher the DR.

You're being purposefully obtuse at this point, probably because you're butthurt you can only afford a baby sensor camera from 10 years ago.
>>
>>3938322
>Which it does.
Cropping an image does not increase SNR. Or decrease SNR. Or change SNR in any way.

>Hence why the larger the camera sensor of the same generation, the larger the dynamic range

Nothing to do with the sensor size, everything to do with the pixel size. Those are the fundamental photon-buckets that determine signal from noise, making those larger allows for more photons to be collected for a given picture element. That larger sensors have larger pixels is mostly down to it being a hard sell to label "less megapixels is better!" by taking the same size sensor and reducing pixel count.

Remember, for any meaningful SNR comparison you need to compare like with like. That means comparing sensors using the same lens and aperture. If you start messing with all three values (lens focal length, aperture, sensor size) at the same time you are basically just making shit up.
>>
>>3938336
>Cropping an image does not increase SNR. Or decrease SNR. Or change SNR in any way.
this. to imagine otherwise is breathtakingly stupid.
>>
>>3938336
>>3938337
>iT's PixEl SiZe
wrong, otherwise a sony a7riv would have significantly less dynamic range than a sony a7iii.

As it happens, when you measure DR (and therefore SNR) A7Riv and A7III are almost identical, yet if you take an aps-c crop from a full frame shot, you lose a stop of dynamic range.

I'm sorry you can't wrap your pea brain around this.
>>
>>3938308
>No, you're just incorrect. Any measurement of sensor SNR is going to per per unit area.
On this point you are BOTH wrong. You can measure it per unit of area or for the total area, and engineers use both all the time in a wide range of applications. Photography is NOT the only application where arrays of sensor elements exist.

Once again, for photography: if you are REACH LIMITED then SNR per unit of area is the important measurement. If you are NOT reach limited, then total sensor SNR is the important measurement.

>>3938313
>muh paper!
You can just as easily find papers which discuss total SNR for the device as for a single element of a device. Stop being autistic.
>>
>>3938336
>>Which it does.
>Cropping an image does not increase SNR. Or decrease SNR. Or change SNR in any way.
Yes it does, and it does so in a way that is visible to a casual observer who is not thinking about SNR at all.

Do you even own a camera?

>Nothing to do with the sensor size, everything to do with the pixel size.
Debonked here: >>3938379
>>
File: SNRchart.png (124 KB, 1291x785)
124 KB
124 KB PNG
>>3938379
>wrong, otherwise a sony a7riv would have significantly less dynamic range than a sony a7iii.
>A year of sensor development means nothing

You seem to like clarkvision links, so here's one for you:
https://clarkvision.com/articles/digital.signal.to.noise/
Scroll to that table at the bottom of sensor size vs. SNR. Or to make it easy for you, I've transcribed and plotted those values. Hint: notice the complete lack of correlation between sensor size and SNR?
>>
>>3938383
>muh nasa
No horse in this fight, but pointing out that the guy works out at nasa, and thinking that somehow means he is right, makes you a brainlet.
>>
>>3938383
Wait which side did the nasa post try to take. Large sensorz or low senzors?
>>
>>3938379
>yet if you take an aps-c crop from a full frame shot, you lose a stop of dynamic range.
sure, taking a raw photo from a full frame and cropping it suddenly magically TRAVELS THROUGH TIME and alters the sensor the image was captured on
>>
>>3938383
>nasa
Based f5 shooters
>>
>>3938446
You would be right if the guy in question worked at NASA on like, I dunno, rocket engines or food science or some shit.

But the motherfucker literally works in imaging science. He fucking literally discovered water on the goddamned moon using scientific photography. His whole career for the last 50 years has been digital imaging. I think he knows more than some autistic know-nothing retard on 4chan with shit taste.
>>
>>3938463
Well Clark seems to use full frame for all his shots ;)

>>3938439
That article didn't mention sensor size at all.

Here's a little test for your brain, if you wanted to photo a perfectly even grey wall, and you had a perfect lens locked at f4, and you were shooting at iso 25k, which do you think would give a more accurate recording of the actual color of the wall.

A Sony a7iii, using all of its sensor and then averaged, or the same camera, but you're using just the centre 4 pixels (4 so you don't get pedantic over the Bayer filter, but if you're going to not be that disingenuous, let's call it 1 pixel)

Uh oh, looks like the bigger sensor does have greater SNR eh bud ;)
>>
>>3938439
>>3938477
Why did you both ignore the pic posted with that post? Which clearly shows if you measure a full frame sensor, and a centre crop of that same sensor, the dynamic range goes down a stop?
>>
File: 1631311631751.png (735 KB, 1864x661)
735 KB
735 KB PNG
>>3938503
We may be on to something here. All signs point to a clueless yesman puppet boomer.
>>
>>3938505
"surface area" is a retarded metric. You should organize it by pixel pitch.
>>
>>3938504
>Well Clark seems to use full frame for all his shots ;)
He clearly uses crop in many of them.
>>
>>3938504
>>3938505
you have to talk in terms dumb people understand
>>3938477
if you wanted to find the width of a crayon as accurately as possible, and all you had was 100 crayons and a tape measure, do you -

A: take one crayon and try to measure it

B: put all 100 crayons side by side, measure them all, then divide by 100

you understand crayons don't you boys?
>>
Here's clarky boy explaining that for equal performance between crop and full frame, you need a faster lens on crop to get the same noise performance, he also points out this leads to larger, more expensive gear on crop than FF due to the insanely fast lenses needed for crop to keep up.

This makes /p/overtybois mad.
>>
>>3938505
>>3938512
literally nothing to do with your claim about a time travelling sensor that somehow forgets it was full frame when you crop its output.
your stupid explanations fall apart with the most basic socratic inquiry
>>
>>3938512
>if you wanted to find the width of a crayon as accurately as possible
>A: take one crayon and try to measure it
You just measure the crayon you want.
Putting 100 side by side is useless because they're all different widths, and measuring their average answers a completely different question to what you're asking.
>>
>>3938439
>>A year of sensor development means nothing
A7R dynamic range has remained pretty much the same since its introduction. High ISO image noise is dominated by shot noise until extreme ISOs where e-noise starts to play a much larger roll. And shot noise varies with sensor size.

DR is dominated by e-noise. E-noise is determined by the overall sensor architecture, but primarily the readout ADCs, and truly new ADCs are pretty rare. We saw one shift in the Sony/Nikon world around the time of the D7000, and one shift in the Canon world around the time of the 5D mark IV to finally start competing with Sony's ADCs/DR.

[EXIF data available. Click here to show/hide.]
Camera-Specific Properties:
Image-Specific Properties:
Horizontal Resolution144 dpi
Vertical Resolution144 dpi
Image Width3158
Image Height1320
>>
>>3938446
Just because an expert claims X is true doesn't mean X is true. But completely dismissing the statements of an expert in the field with ***zero hard evidence*** that he is wrong is being an idiot.

>>3938477
>MUH...TIME...TRAVEL
You won't understand any of this until you accept that for most photographic purposes whole sensor SNR is the measurement that matters.

Or fucking believe in time travel if you wish. It doesn't matter what you believe. What matters is this...
* I shoot a scene at FF and at APS-C on my FF camera.
* Same exposure.
* Same development in ACR.
* Crop the 2nd picture to APS-C.
* Now if I push shadows has hard as I can on both, I will find the APS-C version has 1ev less shadow room because of 1ev more noise.

Science doesn't get any simpler than being able to replicate experiments yourself in your own home.
>>
>>3938516
>This makes /p/overtybois mad.
You don't need to be rich to own FF now that consooomers are dumping their gear for mirrorless animal butthole AF.
>>
>>3938583
Should have added: while DR is dominated by e-noise (dominated by ADC architecture), leading to examples of smaller sensors having more DR than larger ones, sensor size is a relevant secondary factor. Given the same architecture a larger sensor will have higher DR.

>>3938584
Forgot a relevant pic.

[EXIF data available. Click here to show/hide.]
Camera-Specific Properties:
Image-Specific Properties:
Horizontal Resolution144 dpi
Vertical Resolution144 dpi
Image Width3172
Image Height1440
>>
>>3938584
that is not what you claimed
you claimed that cropping fullframe to apsc (or anything else) somehow magically changes the image that was captured, increasing snr/dr/noise/whatever.
i'm saying its the same fucking image, and cropping has no effect whatsoever. what you're trying to say is that the image time travels back, forgets the sensor it was taken on and reimagines itself as something smaller, and then comes back with qualities of a different sensor.
the idea is so incomprehensibly stupid. how thick are the callouses on your knuckles?
>>
>>3938588
>that is not what you claimed
The experiment replicates exactly what was claimed.

>you claimed that cropping fullframe to apsc (or anything else) somehow magically changes the image that was captured,
Of course it changes the image that was captured. Both the FoV and the total SNR change. Duh.

You know what? I don't believe in cropping digital files or digital zoom features any longer. They don't exist. You can't open an old FF RAW file and crop it to APS-C size. You just can't! IT WOULD BE LIKE TIME TRAVEL!

>i'm saying its the same fucking image,
OK. Fine. Shoot ONE IMAGE at FF of a gray card. The card fills the FoV. Develop that ONE IMAGE in ACR. Crop the center. Guess which one has higher SNR, the original or the crop?

>what you're trying to say is that the image time travels back
You're either an idiot or a stubborn ass. In photography SNR is whole image. Cropping the image affects SNR which affects DR. Simple as.
>>
>>3938591
if im looking at something like a photo, and then i cut out my favourite clipping from it, nothing about it has changed, no matter how much you stamp your feet like a child. the clipping in my hand has not changed in dynamic range, exposure, signal, nothing.
>>
>>3938593
>if im looking at something like a photo, and then i cut out my favourite clipping from it, nothing about it has changed
WE SCALE PHOTOS TO A DESIRED VIEW OR PRINT SIZE. Cut out your favorite clipping and then enlarge it to the same size as the original. The noise (digital) or grain (film) will now be larger relative to the original. Get it yet?
>>
>>3938595
>WE SCALE PHOTOS TO A DESIRED VIEW OR PRINT SIZE
IF YOU'RE FUCKING SCALING EVERYTHING THEN DONT BLAME THE SENSORS
>>
>>3938604
>i always print my aps-c images smaller than my ff images
Then I guess you don't have to worry about SNR. What do you do with your phone? Print a postage stamp?
>>
Imagine spending your Saturday and Sunday night arguing about this lol
>>
broskis how do i get my astro shots looking better? they're always out of focus
>>
>>3938625
>imagine living during tyrannical pandemic lockdowns
>>
>>3938630
Sucks to be you
>>
>>3938588
>Durr removing half the signal doesn't reduce the signal to noise ratio durr
You should spend less time putting your finger in things then sniffing it you retard, of course your DR will go down if you lower the SNR

>>3938604
>Hurrr don't scale
Oh so show me this 61MP screen you have then buddy.
And again, Irrelevant, the full frame shot will either have more pixels or larger pixels and the result is the same, more granularity\accuracy and therefore better SNR.

>>3938625
Uh oh, looks like it's finally clicked in one retards brain.

>>3938642
90% of the replies in here debating my side of the argument aren't me, but as this post clearly made you mad af my welfare is now $32k a year, I bought a VR setup (don't worry, it works great, I have a 3080 ti) and a $1500 3d printer in the last month, and I still am on the cusp of having too much money :)
Great to see that you've finally worked out you were wrong all along and resorted to your classic "but you're a person I don't like and am envious of" routine ;)
Never forget, you're completely obsessed with me, and I have no idea who you are, nor do I care, para-social relationships aren't healthy young man, you should go outside and touch some grass.
>>
>>3938642
Based and NEET pilled.
>>
>>3938661
It's not trolling babe, it's called being right.

Great to see we finally taught you something though! And sorry to let you down, but I've never been attracted to 6' tall mtf, small town, inbred yokels with an underbite big enough to catch rain; but if it makes you happy to think at least one person within a 5'000 mile radius likes you, I'm going to let you keep hold of that, you clearly need it.
>>
Lmfao, I swear every week some butthurt retard loses an argument, turns to identity politics then dissapears from the thread. Imagine being this dumb and having someone live so vicariously rent free in your head.
>>
>>3938716

I never understood the concept of rent-free, how do people live daily life with that kind of shit on their mind. I have actual shit to do without having to think about what some retard on an Indonesian competitive underwater basket weaving forum said about me.
>>
>>3938297
They pass the same amount of light. The projected image circle is condensed to fit the smaller sensor, so the sensor gets more light than if the booster wasn't there.
>>
>>3938934
So you're saying the larger sensor gathers more light? And aperture equivalence is real? Hmmm
>>
>>3938953
Larger sensors don't gather more light if the lens doesn't transmit that light. An MFT sensor with a speedbooster and X lens is gathering more light than X lens with its own host camera because the light from that lens is being condensed onto a smaller area on the MFT camera. If you only used a spacer, the MFT sensor would be gathering the same amount of light on it as the MFT-sized center of the non-MFT sensor.
>>
>>3938953
Put a magnifying glass in the sun and hold it over your hand. See how that tiny dot is burning a hole in your skin but the rest of your body isn't being cooked like the retarded pig you are? That's what a speed booster does. It's not making more light. Standing outside is the same as a sensor size of infinity, staring into the sun is focusing all of the light onto the back of your eye and burning our optic nerve out. You're eye isn't generating that light.
>>
>>3938955
What kind of moron considers a lens without a sensor gathering the light, yes a 50mm f2 lens transmits the same light per unit area, but that means a FF sensor gathers twice as much light as crop and 4 times as much as mft.

And that leads to the point that a 50mm f2 and entry level full frame is cheaper and smaller than an apsc camera and 35mm f1.4, and much cheaper and smaller than an mft with 25mm F1 lens.

>>3938957
>If you take a crop from the centre 1\4 of a FF sensor, it gathers as much light as an mft camera.

What a dumb thing to say, who shoots for capturing only 1\4 their sensor? And look at the speedbooster shot up further in the thread, it looks disgusting and very low quality. No point gathering signal to noise ratio and destroying it at the same time by buying an expensive adapter that only works with full frame lenses; only a complete idiot would do that.

>>3938958
I have no idea what point you were even trying to make here, but maybe you should stop huffing cum.
>>
>>3938720
Except for when you cry about people not approving of you
>>
>>3938661
*User has left the chat*
>>
>>3938666
Show us your $1500 a day photoshoots moop
>>
>>3938960
>considers a lens
lenses don't know anything about what's behind them. it's completely irrelevant. they're just glass casting an image circle.
>>
>>3939017
Just casting an image circle, on a sensor
Ftfy
>>
>>3939031
or a piece of film, or a white sheet, doesn't matter, the lens doesn't know about or care
>>
>>3938934
>They pass the same amount of light.
If that were true then the exposure would be lower on FF, and the speed booster wouldn't "speed boost" anything it would just end up being the exposure expected for a crop lens.

They are NOT passing "the same amount of light." Exposure is intensity per unit of area. But to maintain intensity per unit of area a larger format lens must project more light to cover the larger area.

I just don't understand how this is difficult for people. It's literally swimming pool vs. water glass under 5" of rain. Do people really believe the swimming pool has no more water than the glass? Is it an IQ issue or a sensorlet coping mechanism?
>>
>>3939033
You don't take photos without a sensor.
>>3939036
Coping mechanism, look at the cognitive dissonance involved in ignoring
>>3938586
And
>>3938379
Actual measurements showing cropping from a FF sensor reduces DR and SNR.
>>
>>3939017
A mft 50mm f/2 casts a smaller imaging circle than a FF 50mm f/2. So yes, the FF lens is gathering more light. The physical aperture diameter may be the same, but the FF lens is collecting light across a wider FoV.

If you put the FF lens on mft you will get the same FoV as the mft lens, but only because part of the imaging circle is falling outside the sensor. If you attach it via a speed booster you get a brighter exposure because the speed booster is concentrating the EXTRA LIGHT down to a mft imaging circle. You can't attach the mft 50mm using a speed booster even if there was no registration distance issues because...drum roll...there's no extra light to concentrate down.

This shit really isn't that hard to understand.
>>
>>3939010
Post you quoted wasn't me anon.
Clients photos are for clients anon.
Stay mad and irrelevant anon.
>>
>>3939169
you own the rights to those photos so you canpost 'em all you want. Go ahead. Call it free marketing.
>>
>>3939174
Bad enough that I earn more in one day than you've earnt in your life for photography anon :)

>>3939175
Ahh yes, marketing, because I want a handful of butthurt basket weavers trying to doxx me, harass my clients and Photoshop my images.

My site for photography is out there anon, and it has plenty of sample images, I haven't attached my details to it due to the harassment my neighbours have received from 4chan users, but you're welcome to try to find it, it gets updated about once a month, but has been a bit quiet the last 18 months for obvious reasons :)
>>
>>3939178
>I haven't attached my details to it due to the harassment my neighbours have received from 4chan users
If your info isn't attached to it, how do people know who your neighbors are?
>>
>>3939181
Because there's photos of the area that I live in, and speaking from experience, some people here are obsessed with me enough to guess my address based off rough GPS coordinates on one of my photos exif details, and send all sorts of shit through the post.

>>3939180
>It's dox not doxx
Pic related, Wiktionary seems to agree with me ;) why are you so upset over this though anon?

>Yeh but you must have done something to make people hate you.

Sure, I posted better photos than them and have nicer equipment than them. This isn't really a me problem nearly as much as it's a you problem.

You're welcome to ask people what I did that was so bad though, be prepared for a lot of "yeh, well, err, one time he gave me critique on my photo and it made me feel bad".

There's a handful of people here that have literally nothing going on in their lives and 4chan is the closest they can get to feeling like a real human, with social interaction and a sense of purpose; I have absolutely zero influence or control over their emotional outbursts or how they react to seeing other people with more varied and exciting lives than them. Just look how upset they got when I went to India for 3 months, when they're stuck at home probably for the rest of their lives. I believe this feeling of injustice in them is particularly elevated because I'm not in regular work like them, yet still enjoy a varied and exciting life. Honestly I wish them the best, and hope that they manage to break free from their self imposed prison they have found themselves trapped in, and that's why I always advise people to go travelling, or at least chase the means to allow themselves to go travelling. I honestly believe that little taste of real life is all the push they need to start improving their lives in all its aspects.
>>
>>3939190
Anon, GPS doesn't give you an address, it gives you an approximate location, you dumbass.

I didn't say I didn't do nothing, i quite clearly stated I have a more varied and exciting life than some others, and am better at photography than most people here. And this, combined with not being in regular work, makes some people think "it's not fair".

And you've just confirmed you're one of the ones upset by your illiterate emotion posting. oops!

And I'm not single either :)

Go on, just try and come up with one thing I have done that you think justifies the level of hate you have inside you over a guy you don't know living hundreds of miles away. LOL! You really have worked yourself up into quite the flurry of emotions anon, why don't you relax with a nice session photoshopping more of my photos you've saved on your hard drive.
>>
>>3939201
>why do you think i hate you
If it's not hate, it's clearly some other level of extreme emotional attachment, blindly sending post all over someones street in an attempt to contact someone isn't normal behaviour, nor is storing dozens of photos, some that are over 15 years old, on your computer.

And no, she's not canadian, I haven't had a canadian girlfriend since the one i brought back from canada, again, pretty alarming of you to be so invested in my life.

>I bring light to details of your life you want to hide

Again anon, very unhealthy behaviour for you to think you know the first thing about someone hundreds of miles away, whose only interactions you know are those that you've had online; and then to think you can use information to try and shame/belittle someone because of what, because they're more attractive or succesful than you and you're jealous? That's not a strong look. Parasocial relationships like this aren't healthy, you should really try to find a real friend, i think it would help you a lot. :)
>>
File: bojo.jpg (366 KB, 3000x2082)
366 KB
366 KB JPG
>>3939230
>Again anon, very unhealthy behaviour for you to think you know the first thing about someone hundreds of miles away, whose only interactions you know are those that you've had online; and then to think you can use information to try and shame/belittle someone because of what, because they're more attractive or succesful than you and you're jealous? That's not a strong look. Parasocial relationships like this aren't healthy, you should really try to find a real friend, i think it would help you a lot. :)
Yeah. I agree 100%

Moop, you should leave poor isi alone!
>>
>>3939190
>>3939201
>>3939250
Wow this is sad and desperate, why do you bring up moop in every thread anon? You still haven't said why you're so obsessed with her.
>>
>>3939255
I'm doing a research on children of single mothers
>>
>>3939186
I just want a little fast of the welfare life :(
>>
>>3937731
>Why are you guys still arguing aboit this? You were wrong, theres a 1.2 lens for GFX, making it better in raw low light capturing than any FF.
This is true, but since 51.4mp is as low as GFX cameras go; a standard 24mp FF camera should still have lower noise, assuming all other variables are equal.
>>
>>3939260
I wasn't raised by a single mother anon; are you projecting, or is this just more of this fantasy narrative you've invented about me, because I've been your obsession for years - but you're too shy/awkward/weird to even say hello. :(
You really should talk to someone about how your obsessed with a stranger online anon, and as always, my DM's are open if you want to chat, you clearly have something on your mind.

>>3939250
>leave isi alone
?? I'm the one who's name you can't keep out of your mouth. Does anyone even mention isi anywhere apart from her own threads these days?
>>
>>3937831
>get a remote for my 'ra
>blow all those FF canon boomers with their gitzo tripods out of the water while shooting from a bent 20 bucks hama
>>
Take a good look at this thread. Rather than finally admit he was wrong, the sensorlet successfully turned this into a conversation about moop's life.

This is what's wrong with the world. This is what happens every day at every level of our society. This is what our politicians do ALL THE FUCKING TIME. You can make a mistake that costs millions their lives, and still win an election by slinging shit at the other guy. And now, with social media, we have bots slinging shit 24/7.

As I said earlier: I *hate* people like this.
>>
>>3939464
Believe it or not anon, disabled people can lead varied and exciting lifestyles, whilst still finding aspects challenging.

Somehow you supposedly don't have any disabilities, yet there you are, in your parents home, never leaving your dingey little hole.

What's your excuse anon?

>>3939476
Welcome to every thread regarding gear or technical aspects of photography for the past 10 years. This anon gets upset that he's a poverty riddled loser, that loses every argument he gets himself in, then starts crying moop.

The astounding part is that he keeps getting called out, having a breakdown, then repeating it all again the next week. I bet you anything he's already started another thread in which to have his next breakdown.
>>
>>3937724
What shithole city do you live in lol.
>>
>>3937746
Oh boy a crop of a 100mp medium format has less noise than the identical crop of a 60 42 and 24mp camera at equal isos.

Holy shit you're a jenius.
>>
>>3939480
>Projecting that hard
Let your employer/government project that hard into you too you ballsack muncher
>>
Wait, is moop actually based af?
>>
>>3939503
>3.8 µm a7r4 has roughly same noise as 8.4 µm a7s3
>3.8 µm gfx 100 has less noise than either
Since you're not a genius, let me spell it out for you: high iso noise is driven by total sensor size and not pixel pitch.

>>3939525
Sounds that way. He's more based than the sensorlet that's for sure.
>>
File: 1628460810129.png (402 KB, 602x573)
402 KB
402 KB PNG
Why does every thread with sonyfags always end up in chart dumps and no photos?
>>
>>3939631
>£17 isn't expensive for a burger
>Posted from 2014 iPhone 6

Fucking lol.
>>
>>3939665
>>3939664
>>3939663
what the fuck is this cringe shit. no one cares, faggot.
>>
>>3939663
I'm confused anon, what does living in an apartment have to do with income?
And you're posting from an iPhone 6, clearly someone's hit a nerve with you.
Why don't you tell the class about how you think it's totally ok to be an adult that still lives at home with parents, using their old hand me down phones to triggered post on 4chan, because you're too poor to move out or own a computer.
>>
>>3939665
>>3939664
>>3939663
>>3939631
imagine having a meltdown like this as an adult in your parents home on an iphone 6 in your 30's
LMAO
>>
>>3939591
>why does a thread about gear discuss gear, don't you know that upsets me! >:(
>>
>>3939357
Again, otjer variables are NOT equal. MF frame is sampled from more light, so its got way better signal to noise ratio.
>>
>>3939665
>>3939664
>>3939663
>>3939631
i heard on discord that isi was obsessed with someone called moop, but this is fucking wild, stalker level obsession
>>
>>3939665
>>3939664
>>3939663
>>3939631
Somebody got really triggered by these comments. I wonder what they contain.

If it only would be some sort of archive of /p/ posts...
>>
>>3939743
LMAO, look at the archive, it's not just the posts doxxing moop that got deleted, but EVERYTHING from that user.

And surprise surprise, it's the same person that keeps bringing up the GFX whenever full frame cameras are mentioned.

What an unhinged and insecure individual, I guess we'll see them back in 3 days. LOL!
>>
>>3939745
Here's another one for you mods :)

And anon, why are you so ashamed of your iphone 6 and living with your parents?
>>
>>3939750
Why do you post this? it's pretty good and definitely better than you can do. Are you more upset about moop having more money than you or being more talented than you?
>>
File: llllllllllllllll.jpg (68 KB, 549x558)
68 KB
68 KB JPG
>>3939753
Hi moop!. Because it looks exactly like your favorite picture.

Who would that know, it was selfie all along.

[EXIF data available. Click here to show/hide.]
Camera-Specific Properties:
Image-Specific Properties:
Horizontal Resolution72 dpi
Vertical Resolution72 dpi
Color Space InformationsRGB
Image Width549
Image Height558
Scene Capture TypeStandard
>>
>>3939750
>I'm seething 24/7
Clearly, you nohome iPhone 6 poster
>>
File: 1631697203484.jpg (142 KB, 481x354)
142 KB
142 KB JPG
>>3939750
obligatory
>>
>>3939788
anon, by the fact that every one of your posts gets deleted, and all of moops posts stay up, are you finally understanding how unwanted you are here? But after talking to your mom, it's clear that staying in places you're not welcome anymore is your speciality.
>>
>>3939770
moop you are really boring lolcow, because you keep projecting your personal issues on others. You call other people poor, because you are in constant fear of Tories taking away your neetbux. You think you can insult me by saying Iphone 6 (lol), because consumer electronics and other toys are everything to you. You try to cast me as some sort of obsessed stalker, because everything all your unemployed ass do is bait people on various websites.

Flexing on you would be easiest flex of my life. So easy in fact that I wont even put any effort in it. I'm capable enough to use fucking public transport, you are not. LMAO.

Now go cry to jannie about da ivul trollz and report my post from 5 ips, you thin skinned faggot.
>>
>>3939791
>please stop posting, i'm on a edge of meltdown ;_:

lol
>>
>>3939793
Pretending you're not absolutely addled by poverty when you're using a 7 year old phone is hilarious. You know you get a free phone with contracts right? But of course you need to pass a credit check for a contract, and that will require a regular income.

If you wanted to flex on me, you would have by now.

Also, that's not me you've replied to.

And should you really be ban evading? Do you not learn your lesson? You're clearly very upset, but at least I managed to get you out of the house to the next phone tower so you could reply to me.

>>3939794
This is quite the projection.

And keep stacking L's and bans, I don't mind anon. :)
>>
>>3939796
Force me to stop posting faggots!
Spoiler: you cant
>>
This moopco redemption arc is 10\10
>>
>>3939801
>User has left the chat
>>
>>3939830
That's a weird way to spell nophoto meltdown.
>>
>>3939830
I don't even know who moop is or why he has a bad rap, but his behavior seemed fine in this thread. It's the sensorlet who was such a big baby he couldn't have an adult conversation about a technical issue and, upon realizing he was wrong, say 'my bad, glad I learned something." Oh no, let's freak out and attack whoever moop is because the laws of physics didn't bend to big baby's will.
>>
File: 1614602270877.jpg (32 KB, 657x527)
32 KB
32 KB JPG
>>3939999
>I don't even know who moop is or why he has a bad rap, but his behavior seemed fine in this thread.
>but his behavior seemed fine
>>
>>3940006
Can you say why you don't think his behaviour was fine here?
>>
File: taxi.png (215 KB, 500x918)
215 KB
215 KB PNG
>>3940087
>MUST CONTROL NARRATIVE BUY I'M TOTALLY NOT A MOOP I SWEAR

Maybe after all you didnt lie do get your benefit because you might be retarded enough to get lost in public transport.
>>
>>3940102
So that's a no, and instead you're just going to showoff how butthurt you are again. Looks like you're just mad that he's richer than you.
>>
File: hmm.png (104 KB, 1008x1813)
104 KB
104 KB PNG
>>3940103
>>
>>3940105
What are you going to tell them
"I think moop is doing welfare fraud because he has nicer things than me and can afford his own place and a phone nicer than an iPhone 6, and that makes me mad >:("
OMEGALUL
Just get a job you fucking retard
>>
>>3940109
>>3940109
Oh, so you are moop after all! Ah, imagine my shock. Anyway, you are still notorious troll and in business of making people angry on this board and many more, despite being fully doxed.

This is incredibly fucking stupid of you.

Your data is like on a plate. All it needs to happens is enough pissed people to file a report and you will get investigated. So sweaty, if you want to live on your neetbux you might rethink your life choices. Or else you might have to become wagie.
>>
>>3940110
>People having nicer things than me is trolling
Lmao
>I doxxed you
You sure do care a lot about moop, it's good you have someone to care about.
>Moop might be investigated for fraud
I'm sure the government will prioritise an angry nerd off 4chan living in his Uzbekistani parents basement over medical records.

You still haven't said what moop has done wrong, or why you're so upset. Use your words pal, I know it's tough but I believe in you
>>
>>3940112
>medical records.
Wow. How do you know this much about moop medical problems? Maybe because you are moop, pretending are not.

Just how crippled are you?
>>
>>3940087
Explain iphone 6 part.
>>
File: laughing-pepe.jpg (27 KB, 399x385)
27 KB
27 KB JPG
>>3940109
>Just get a job you fucking retard
Welfare queen tells somebody to get a job.
>>
>>3940102
In photography SNR is determined by total sensor size, which is why larger sensors have better high ISO performance. And while aperture+shutter determines light intensity per unit of area, making exposures the same for a scene across formats, lenses for larger formats are still collecting more light to cast across a larger total area.





Delete Post: [File Only] Style:
[Disable Mobile View / Use Desktop Site]

[Enable Mobile View / Use Mobile Site]

All trademarks and copyrights on this page are owned by their respective parties. Images uploaded are the responsibility of the Poster. Comments are owned by the Poster.