Latest activity

AlanF · Dec 22, 2025

I'd like to add two dozen snipe to your 5000, @neuroanatomist.

neuroanatomist · Dec 22, 2025

Bob Howland said:
Consider the number of heated arguments that occur on this web site over trivial issues. In Neuro's previous account, he had over 30,000 postings. I'd bet money that at least ~~10,000~~ 5000 included some unnecessary snipe at another poster.

I 'snipe' at posters who post misinformation or show a clear lack of understanding of facts...and rarely the first time they make such a post. What you may consider unnecessary, I consider well-deserved. As I (repeatedly) state, ridiculous statements engender ridicule.

What I don't do is insult whole swaths of people in an insensitive and puerile manner, like you chose to do. Perhaps your pronouns are he/asshat.

Philnick · Dec 22, 2025

AlanF said:
It's not the larger photosites that give the one-stop advantage in S/N. There have been plenty of posts here from photonstophotos where you can see there is no difference in DR between the R5 and R6, R5ii and R6ii etc where there is a difference in photosite size. Again, it is the area of the whole sensor that is important, not the area of the individual photosites, and that is independent of pixel size. This is highly relevant to this thread for those who are worrying that a 40 Mpx sensor will be noisy because of its very small pixels. It shouldn't be worse than the R7, R50 etc when viewing at the same size.

I am trying to be helpful, not to argue. If you are not interested, OK, but others might find it useful.

And since PhotonsToPhotos also says that an APS-C R5 shot has shot noise comparable to an R7 and is far worse than a full-frame R5 shot, I now understand that I can ignore this entire discussion - and PhotonsToPhotos - on this issue, since you and they are talking about noise produced by appyling a larger degree of enlargement, starting from a smaller image, to get to the same size. That is totally academic and not relevant to my real-world use of my camera.

I care whether the photosites on my sensor are collecting enough light to create a clean image, I don't care about whether my camera's sensor is collecting as much light in total as a larger sensor might collect.

Congratulations! You folks have liberated me.

PS At 32.5 megapixels, I'm applying less enlargement than a user of an 24 megapixel camera might, and even less than the user of an R5, which still has a lower pixel density than the R7 would with the same lens, since an APS-C crop from an R5 would be starting from less than 18 megapixels.

David the street guy · Dec 22, 2025

neuroanatomist said:
I use Prograde cards (and a Prograde reader), they are nearly as fast with a 3400 MB/s read speed.

I know about Prograde cards, but the link you offered is for the United States, and I won't buy from Amazon, having experienced being sent fake Prograde cards twice (and 1 used and broken reader).

That said, the writing speed of the Prograde is 850 MB/s, while the Lexar is 3300 MB/s, a huge difference.

There must be something I don't understand about those cards! Why is the Lexar so difficult to find on the market?

Sporgon · Dec 22, 2025

If anyone wants to try a beautiful 45mm lens at a budget price try picking up a Tamron 45/1.8 SP VC.
When adapted to RF mount the AF accuracy is flawless.

CJaurelius · Dec 22, 2025

mimbu said:
I know that buying a three thousand dollar camera with a sensor using tech that should have been retired a decade ago isn't something I'm interested in doing. Add in the entirely locked down mount and I don't get the attraction at all. In a just world, Nikon and Canon would flip places in market share.

What about the current market share is unjust? If people want to buy "a three thousand dollar camera with a sensor using tech that should have been retired a decade ago" that's their perogative. Sony's Betamax was superior to VHS and look how that turned out.

With that said if you look at market share of Conon, Sony, Nikon and Fuji from a revenue perspective is appears to be getting a bit more balanced. However Fuji is the company gaining the most ground not Nikon.

neuroanatomist · Dec 22, 2025

Philnick said:
I'm still waiting for you to disclose what gear and settings were used for your two side-by-side pictures of violinists designed to suggest, when you click on it to enlarge it, that APS-C gear is terrible. Your silence on the subject is deafening.

UPDATE: I now see that you admitted last night (by the link in post #101 in this thread) that the terrible shot on the left in that pairing is a crop of a shot from an iPhone. Not relevant at all to this forum, much less this thread. Shame on you!

Try to grasp the context. 1) I did not state that I was comparing APS-C and FF, you assumed that, and 2) I mentioned fairies, wizards and magic in that post. But you were still expecting a 'fair' comparison. Regardless, the point stands. If using a smaller sensor to achieve a 'longer effective focal length' had no undesirable consequences, then the iPhone photo would be just as good as the FF image. But it's not. The example is far more extreme than a comparison to APS-C, but the concept is identical.

Philnick said:
Factual information, please. Not snark. I'm not posting shots taken with a phone but with APS-C Canons. You're the one caught in a circle of confusion, insisting that nothing but a full-frame camera is worth considering - a totally out-of-bounds bit of snobbery in a thread about a hoped-for APS-C model.

The fact is that I stated in this thread, "...the higher pixel density of APS-C sensors enables putting more pixels on target for distant or macro subjects. That’s a tradeoff that can be worthwhile, provided you understand what you’re giving up to achieve it," and, "...in bright light with a reasonably close subject and no desire for a shallow DoF, a smaller sensor can produce results that are just as good as those from a larger sensor." All one needs to do is look at some of the images posted with the R7 (by @AlanF, for example), to understand that APS-C sensors definitely have utility.

In case it escaped your notice, I have two FF cameras, two APS-C cameras and a 1.4-type camera (which is essentially m4/3 but in a 3:2 aspect ratio). If you can count, you will see that I have more crop cameras than FF cameras. So why would anyone with a modicum of intelligence or at least the rudimentary ability to read assume I would believe only FF cameras are worth considering, much less insist that is true? Yet...you did make that very assumption.

justaCanonuser · Dec 22, 2025

AlanF said:
No!! You are confusing engineering DR, which is the DR of a single pixel, with photographic DR, which is the DR of the collection of pixels that make up the image. When we look at an image, we don't look at the DR of a single pixel but of the collection. To use your bucket analogy, 4 1/4 sized buckets that occupy the same area of space as a single 4xlarger bucket, hold as much water as the large one. Surely, you must have seen the DR curves on photonstophotos that have been used here 100s of times to show that photographic DR is virtually independent of pixel size. I'll show two pairs: the R7 and lower pixel R10, R5 and lower pixel R6. I recommend you read the first link posted by @neuroanatomist.

View attachment 227175 View attachment 227176

Thank you Alan, I did mean what is called the Full Well Capacity of single pixels, but I didn't want to stress the technical term. In the German physics magazine that I co-edit we had a 2-part in-depth series about smartphone cameras, and in part 2 this was explained. If you don't bother to translate a German article into English, you can read the details here (as I wrote, one of the authors is a ZEISS engineer. Have nice saison's holidays:

https://onlinelibrary.wiley.com/doi/10.1002/piuz.202001583

AlanF · Dec 22, 2025

Philnick said:
I don't doubt that full-frame sensors with larger photosites have a one-stop advantage in signal to noise ratio, as documented by Photons-to-Photos.com, but that doesn't mean that an f/2.8 lens is magically transformed into an f/4 lens by being mounted on an APS-C body, which is what the prophets of "equivalence" insist.

It's not the larger photosites that give the one-stop advantage in S/N. There have been plenty of posts here from photonstophotos where you can see there is no difference in DR between the R5 and R6, R5ii and R6ii etc where there is a difference in photosite size. Again, it is the area of the whole sensor that is important, not the area of the individual photosites, and that is independent of pixel size. This is highly relevant to this thread for those who are worrying that a 40 Mpx sensor will be noisy because of its very small pixels. It shouldn't be worse than the R7, R50 etc when viewing at the same size.

I am trying to be helpful, not to argue. If you are not interested, OK, but others might find it useful.

Philnick · Dec 22, 2025

scyrene said:
I don't have a dog in this fight but I observe that you have been given ample evidence and explanations of the technical issues involved, with various suitable caveats, but have rejected them and been at least as rude as you perceive others to have been. Nobody has insisted - or even really insinuated - that smaller formats aren't fine for many people or uses. But you seem to want to believe that larger sensors have no objective advantages, which is contrary to the evidence presented. Quibbling over neuro's image (which was clearly meant to humorously demonstrate that larger sensors have advantages in some situations) isn't making you seem as clever as you seem to believe.

neuro's image was given with no caveats or explanation at all of what it was, in the course of a discussion of the relative merits of full frame vs. aps-c.

Neuro inserted a comparison of an iPhone picture to an R3 shot, probably at 200mm, with no disclosure of what it really was until 38 posts later in a very elliptical way:
"Smaller sensors aren’t magical, which is why it’s so easy to distinguish the iPhone shot from the R3 + 70-200/2.8 in my earlier example."
Which would only tell you it was that photo comparison if you actually followed that link.

I don't doubt that full-frame sensors with larger photosites have a one-stop advantage in signal to noise ratio, as documented by Photons-to-Photos.com, but that doesn't mean that an f/2.8 lens is magically transformed into an f/4 lens by being mounted on an APS-C body, which is what the prophets of "equivalence" insist.

My answer is to put a Sigma f/1.8 17-40mm RF-S lens on my R7, enabling me to put a stop and a third more light onto each photosite than an f/2.8 standard zoom would, for a net gain of a third of a stop of signal-to-noise ratio given the smaller photosites. But it's still an f/1.8 lens, in terms of exposure and depth of field at a constant distance.

I don't post intentionally-deceptive comparison shots and lecture the hoi-polloi that their gear is not as good as they think it is, which is what neuro has done.

scyrene · Dec 22, 2025

AlanF said:
The total amount light is relevant in this way. If you illuminate for example a FF image of 36mmx24mm or a APS-C of 22.5x15mm or a 2/3" of 8.6mmx6.6mm, with the same f-number and exposure time, you will see a S/N over each sensor proportional to the square root of the total number of photons hitting the surface area of the sensor in that exposure time. So, for those 3, the S/N will be in the ratio 1.6:1:0.4 calculated from their relative areas. Then, when you look at the image after enlarging them all to the same size, the S/N in each will have been proportional to the total amount of light gathered across the whole sensor, 1.6:1:0.4.

I salute your continued technical replies, which will hopefully help bystanders, but I am put in mind of that analogy of playing chess with a pigeon.

scyrene · Dec 22, 2025

Philnick said:
The factual information I was asking for was provided, not by a reply to my request but elliptically in another post, by means of a link to that pair of photos of violinists that mentioned offhandedly that an iPhone shot was used. Thus, the pair of photos designed to prove that full frame was superior to APS-C turned out to be a fraud: a comparison of who-knows-what to an iPhone shot.

The textual insistence on full-frame came in the form of arguing about "equivalence" of lenses that insists that lenses on APS-C bodies lose a stop of exposure, turning an f/2.8 lens into an f/4 lens - the implication being that if you want to be able to take shots in low light you need a full-frame body, with the pairing of violinist shots being the coup d'grace - "See how terrible your little camera's picture is compared to my full-frame rig?"

That's why my conclusion is, as they shout on the floor of the House of Commons - "Shame!"

I don't have a dog in this fight but I observe that you have been given ample evidence and explanations of the technical issues involved, with various suitable caveats, but have rejected them and been at least as rude as you perceive others to have been. Nobody has insisted - or even really insinuated - that smaller formats aren't fine for many people or uses. But you seem to want to believe that larger sensors have no objective advantages, which is contrary to the evidence presented. Quibbling over neuro's image (which was clearly meant to humorously demonstrate that larger sensors have advantages in some situations) isn't making you seem as clever as you seem to believe.

P-visie · Dec 22, 2025

AlanF said:
Yes please. We haven't travelled much recently and a trip to Holland birdwatching would be fun. I learned my bird photography from nedpix.nl where the mods pulled you apart if you ddn't meet their standards!

Birdpix had a reputation for that. I’ll pm some information to you, might take a bit to gather it.

Noreaster · Dec 22, 2025

Do you see the old man in this cattail?

AlanF · Dec 22, 2025

Philnick said:
Total amount of light gathered is relevant to what? Exposure and signal to noise ratio both depend only on the intensity of light hitting each photosite and the exposure time. What does total amount of light gathered across the whole sensor affect? Answer: Nothing, unless you're trying to use your camera to sunbathe.

The total amount light is relevant in this way. If you illuminate for example a FF image of 36mmx24mm or a APS-C of 22.5x15mm or a 2/3" of 8.6mmx6.6mm, with the same f-number and exposure time, you will see a S/N over each sensor proportional to the square root of the total number of photons hitting the surface area of the sensor in that exposure time. So, for those 3, the S/N will be in the ratio 1.6:1:0.4 calculated from their relative areas. Then, when you look at the image after enlarging them all to the same size, the S/N in each will have been proportional to the total amount of light gathered across the whole sensor, 1.6:1:0.4.

Philnick · Dec 22, 2025

scyrene said:
You first.

Where?

The factual information I was asking for was provided, not by a reply to my request but elliptically in another post, by means of a link to that pair of photos of violinists that mentioned offhandedly that an iPhone shot was used. Thus, the pair of photos designed to prove that full frame was superior to APS-C turned out to be a fraud: a comparison of who-knows-what to an iPhone shot.

The textual insistence on full-frame came in the form of arguing about "equivalence" of lenses that insists that lenses on APS-C bodies lose a stop of exposure, turning an f/2.8 lens into an f/4 lens - the implication being that if you want to be able to take shots in low light you need a full-frame body, with the pairing of violinist shots being the coup d'grace - "See how terrible your little camera's picture is compared to my full-frame rig?"

That's why my conclusion is, as they shout on the floor of the House of Commons - "Shame!"

AlanF · Dec 22, 2025

P-visie said:
Yes, Texel is a bird photographers paradise during the breading season, with lots of birds and accessible locations. And are there dragonflies as well. Let me know if you need more information.

Yes please. We haven't travelled much recently and a trip to Holland birdwatching would be fun. I learned my bird photography from nedpix.nl where the mods pulled you apart if you ddn't meet their standards!

scyrene · Dec 22, 2025

Philnick said:
Factual information, please. Not snark.

You first.

Philnick said:
insisting that nothing but a full-frame camera is worth considering

Where?

P-visie · Dec 22, 2025

The same spectacled eider (Somateria fischeri), taken on almost the same spot, at almost the same time on the Dutch Island of Texel. It had just returned from sea and spent a lot of time preening, with its back to the camera.
R5 Mk II + RF 200-800mm + 1.4 extender:

R5 Mk II RF 200-800mm @ 500mm:

P-visie · Dec 22, 2025

AlanF said:
Texel looks like a worthwhile trip from the UK. Is it good in Spring and Summer?

Yes, Texel is a bird photographers paradise during the breading season, with lots of birds and accessible locations. And are there dragonflies as well. Let me know if you need more information.

Philnick · Dec 22, 2025

Quack said:
There are 2 aspects to light/exposure/noise that might be important to photographers. And are often confused. Your f-ratio measures the intensity of light in a given area, but his is not the total amount of light gathered. Since exposure is intensity, it does not change if sensor size is different. This is why an exposure of f/2.8 is the same regardless of sensor size. But light gathered is a different measurement and is tied into how much noise (S/N ratio). How much light is gathered depends on the size of the entrance pupil - not the f-ratio. For example:

Using a 300mm lens on your FF camera at f/4=75mm entrance pupil (300/4=75mm)
To get the same field of view on your Canon crop camera, your focal length is approx. 187.5 (300/1.6). Your 187.5 focal length divided by your f/4 f-ratio=approx. 47mm entrance pupil. Smaller entrance pupil means less light gathered by the sensor, even though your f-ratio is the same.
To get an equal amount of light on the Canon crop sensor, you need to get the same size entrance pupil, which is 75mm.
187.5mm focal length divided by 75mm entrance pupil = f/2.5 f-ratio.

If you go to the Clarkvision website, you will see there are actually a few other factors, but I think this gives you a good starting pint about exposure versus light gathering/noise. I think once you get these basics, you can make an informed decision as to what sensor size camera you might want, what lenses you will want, and how they deal with equivalence when it comes to both exposure and light gathering/noise. So this way you can steer yourself to whatever gear you want.

Total amount of light gathered is relevant to what? Exposure and signal to noise ratio both depend only on the intensity of light hitting each photosite and the exposure time. What does total amount of light gathered across the whole sensor affect? Answer: Nothing, unless you're trying to use your camera to sunbathe.

P-visie · Dec 22, 2025

Bob Howland said:
Not if you consider the human race to be a highly social species where social dominance matter.

Your reply is worse than ridiculous:
1. You insult people who are transgender (+/- 1% of the population of the USA).
2. You insult @neuroanatomist.
3. As @AlanF has pointed out: your analogy is completely irrelevant to the subject.

Philnick · Dec 22, 2025

neuroanatomist said:
No. But, if you ever find your way out of the circle of confusion that you are clearly trapped within, perhaps then you'll understand. That highlighted bit is a hint, you may want to google that (or not, if you'd prefer to continue in your mistaken belief that you fully understand what factors determine DoF).

You can frame how you want and set the DoF based on your artistic choice (within the limits of your lens). Artistic choice matters when comparing what one likes best. It's irrelevant when discussing equivalence.

I'm sorry that you find factual information misleading. I prefer to educate people about the facts, not suggest that they ignore them...or worse, present them with misinformation. Granted, the latter is all too common these days but I choose to be part of the solution rather than part of the problem.

Sure, sure. I mean, smartphones don't even offer Portrait Mode because no one wants a blurred background.

Use Portrait mode on your iPhone - Apple Support

Add captivating lighting effects to your image, or even take a selfie.

support.apple.com

Use Portrait mode or Live Focus on your Galaxy phone

Portrait mode and Live Focus let you capture unique shots on your Galaxy phone.

www.samsung.com

Portrait mode on the Pixel 2 and Pixel 2 XL smartphones

Posted by Marc Levoy, Principal Engineer and Yael Pritch, Software Engineer Portrait mode, a major feature of the new Pixel 2 and Pixel 2 XL smartp...

research.google

And those are for most photographers, those of us using ILCs are a small minority of people out there taking pictures.

If you post correct information, I'd be happy to thank you and move on. But if you continue to post misinformation and make asinine statements, I will continue to set the record straight.

I'm still waiting for you to disclose what gear and settings were used for your two side-by-side pictures of violinists designed to suggest, when you click on it to enlarge it, that APS-C gear is terrible. Your silence on the subject is deafening.

UPDATE: I now see that you admitted last night (by the link in post #101 in this thread) that the terrible shot on the left in that pairing is a crop of a shot from an iPhone. Not relevant at all to this forum, much less this thread. Shame on you!

Factual information, please. Not snark. I'm not posting shots taken with a phone but with APS-C Canons. You're the one caught in a circle of confusion, insisting that nothing but a full-frame camera is worth considering - a totally out-of-bounds bit of snobbery in a thread about a hoped-for APS-C model.

EricN · Dec 22, 2025

scyrene said:
I don't disagree with this, but I still fail to understand its relevance to anything that came before.

I don't think anyone but Bob can truly understand it and that's ok along with whichever pronouns Bob wishes to be called and whatever laws of optical physics they, he, or she wants to ignore. I'm going to go pretend I can levitate because I don't want to admit gravity applies to me when using a Harryfilm camera!

Latest activity

Latest activity

Filter

Forum statistics

Gallery statistics