Inserted, unlabeled, into a discussion about using an APS-C sensor to get more reach from a lens - and prefaced by mocking those who believe in the magic of a crop sensor - no one would assume it was a smartphone photo unless they were familiar with you having done that kind of thing in the past.
The smudging from AI-driven noise reduction by the iPhone is very evident to anyone who knows what to look for. I guess now you know what to look for, as well.
As a relative newcomer to this forum, I didn't know I was dealing with someone as deceptive as you, and was entitled to take your post at face value. Once again, you try to evade responsibility for a deliberate deception by blaming those who didn't see through it.
Again, no. You were deceived by your own ASSumptions about what I posted. I was not attempting to deceive anyone, for example by claiming that I was comparing FF and APS-C. I use the term 'smaller sensor' and that was accurate. I find your characterization of me as being deliberately deceptive to be offensive. I strive to always post factual information, and when posting my own opinions I indicate them as such. I do make mistakes, and when those are pointed out I am grateful for the correction because it often means I have learned something new (though I'm certainly guilty of the occasional typographical or copy/paste error).
Please stop trying to justify your actions by blaming those who criticize them. What's appropriate would be an apology from you - but I'm not holding my breath waiting for one, since an apology from you would be totally out of character.
I apologize when I am incorrect. In this case, I am not.
At this point, I'd settle for you shutting up about this dispute.
The real issue here is that you are triggered by factual information about areas where APS-C sensors are inferior to FF. The 'dispute' did not start over the iPhone/R3 comparison images, your
first response to me in this thread was about the effect of sensor size on DoF, and that reply was full of misinformation. Let's review that first response:
Leave the camera in the same place and let the framing change because of the smaller sensor and the depth of field and background blur are unchanged.
That is false. Are you going to admit that you were wrong...and apologize for it?
Telling folks just getting into photography, and are primarily concerned with whether the lens/camera combination they're looking at can capture enough light in low light situations that the f/2.8 lens they're looking at is really an f/4 lens is totally misleading to the ordinary photographer, and is primarily designed to steer them to buy more expensive full-frame gear.
Does 'the ordinary photographer' not care about noise in their images? Maybe you don't, that's fine. I suspect most photographers, especially those using ILCs, do care about noise in their images. The fact is that image noise is inversely proportional to sensor size.
If a blurred background is the paramount virtue you aim for in photography, go for it - but you're not talking the language of most photographers.
Do you speak for 'most photographers'? Wedding and portrait photographers outnumber most other genres, and for them a blurred background is very commonly used. The same is often true for wildlife, macro, and other genres, and the reason is that when a photograph has a key subject, there is often a desire to separate that subject from the background. As I pointed out in my previous reply, smartphones are the most popular camera type in the world (by far!) and they all now offer a 'portrait mode' that uses AI/ML to identify the subject and blur the background.
So, that question was rhetorical. You were wrong there, too...are you going to admit that and apologize for it?
At this point, I'd settle for you shutting up about this dispute.
You are free to do so by choosing to not respond to my posts. You may want to at least refrain from arguments over technical matters, you are clearly out of your depth (pun intended) in that arena. Not just the above corrections, there are several other posts in this thread where you've exposed your lack of technical knowledge (e.g., your
statement that, "..an APS-C R5 shot has
shot noise comparable to an R7" when you mean 'noise in the shot' and not shot noise, which has a specific definition and is a one component of image noise that is independent of the ISO setting).
