Discussion in 'X-T2, X-T1, X-T20, X-T10' started by Paul20, Mar 5, 2016.
Hm - maybe I'm critical of that guy, but I feel he just wasted 2 minutes and 20s of my life, by talking about anything but IS. The rest of the time didn't provide anything new about IS other that he tells us the manual is crap, just as other books about the X-T1 are.
Go out and shoot instead.
His name "Angry Photographer" should have been a clue as to the value of his video/blog content.
I still don't believe that any APS-C sensor can provide more information/detail than a properly exposed ASA100 medium format negative.
And these have far less surface area (number or photosensitive crystals if you want) than a 4x5 or even 13x18cm large format. (Let's not start about the 20x24" cameras from the roaring twenties)
A 13x18cm camera has 6.5 times the resolution of a 6x6 medium format and about 28 times the resolution of 135 film.
I believe your observation reflects his reputation.
It can't but there is no reason to try and explain that to this guy. He's got a camera, he's got a mike and he's got a forum and posted to YouTube so he must be right!!
Perhaps this is one of those internet debates that will never end but Zack Arias has a pretty persuasive presentation on the various sensor sizes relative to film sizes in this U Tube video. Not directly on point but close enough to bring information to bear on the thinking on this issue.
Zack should stay away from his developper chemicals..
But I can't imagine that the 2,4x larger surface area of a full frame sensor doesn't perform significantly better.
From the same DIE you can cut a 36 MP sensor for full frame and several 16 MP sensors for APS-C.
The iso performance would be identical, but the resolution.. oh, the resolution.
If you had a 16 MP full frame sensor, each pixel would be 2,4x larger than its APS-C brother and the low light capability would be significantly better. (a full stop better, after all!)
Now I want to shoot 8x10 ...
I watched the video, but ended up uncertain of his key point. Was he saying that fewer pics would be blown with continuous IS, or with shooting-only IS? I may have tuned out during the 2-second window in which that was clearly stated. But I certainly cannot bear to watch it again to find out.
Save yourself some time.
This is the same guy who, without any preamble, posted some weather resistant camera rant here and got himself banned in short order.
Sorry can't be bothered to watch the original video as been very unimpressed by him in the past. On the sensor size point though. For me the key is that @Mischa is clearly right bigger sensors are - well - bigger. It's not my (or Mischa's) opinion that FF is bigger than APS-C (never mind 5x4 film) it's simply a fact. It's equally a simple fact that you can, therefore, either have a greater resolution and the same size photosites or have the same resolution and larger photosites. The latter having an obvious benefit for lower light levels.
However, it's equally true that bigger sensors need bigger lenses. So it's perfectly fine to choose a smaller sensor/smaller lenses if the resolution and low light capability is good enough for your needs. Zach Arias has taken some stunning images - so clearly a smaller sensor works perfectly well for him. As sensors improve over time we get more and more choice. It's a great time to be a Photographer.
Is he sponsored by Under Armour?
I am hoping that we don't get a repeat for what happened the last time he was mentioned on this forum. The diatribes he felt he needed to post in reply were totally opposite to the general level of discussion here.
There is no way I am wasting my time viewing his YouTube channel and assisting raising his view counts.
I only started the video and noticed his mumbling about how large format film couldn't compete with digital APS-C, then I cut it off..
Looking at the images Zach Arias linked to in his blog post that were shot with large format cameras by the various Gregs he mentions, I can't help but lust for something like this..
The focus falloff really is from another world entirely.. the image with Jesus is just supernatural
too bad, you can put away a 20$ bill for every picture you take. (and that's on 4x5 here.. no idea how much 8x10 would be..)
I've looked at a lot of YouTube in checking out Fuji cameras of late and will say this -
IF you can't set a proper white balance, get proper sound or get the basic lighting right when shooting your video - you have lost me.
Going back to when I first checked out the XT-1, I liked this video -
The TCS and DigitalRev stuff has been good and I like Damien Lovegrove's stuff because it's clear and to the point.
He is not stupid at all, he just repeats himself often and he admits that, some kind of disease he says. He really flourishes when it comes to magnetism and he speaks Greek and Russian too peace
Its apparent you know nothing about digital sensors. But that is very common.
A larger sensor has absolutely NO bearing on its performance. Many things however do.
1. pixel pitch (photosite size)
2. AD converter
3. SNR firmware
3. applicable native gain of the system under a given exposure.
Wow, how generous of you to simply rip my sentence out of context for some smart-arse remarks to show off some knowledge..
Here's what I wrote directly below that first sentence:
I'm going to refrain from speculating on what you may or may not know about tact... or punctuation.
Wow! It is nice to have an electrical engineer on board. It is a shame you know nothing about good manners, photography and physics.