Science or crazyness?

Discussion in 'Technical threads' started by Ade, Jun 24, 2014.

  1. I found this video. In it the fella talks about science of ISO, aperture and total light gathering. I'm not sure what to make of it. It sounds sensible but I don't know if it misses something.

    Unfortunately it is quite long but worth watching I think. Anybody have any opinions?
  2. What I think is that the argument is pointless. This is click-bait.

    Comparing apples to oranges is all well and good but will it actually make anyone a better photographer knowing any of this stuff? Learn your camera, learn it's plus and minus points and use them to your advantage. If you are thinking "well ISO 100 on a full frame is = to 400 on a crop body", then you are utterly missing the whole ******* point of photography.
    Obi Col Kenobi and Rob Edwards like this.
  3. P.S. I bet this guy is a blast at parties!
  4. #4 Rob Edwards, Jun 25, 2014
    Last edited: Jun 25, 2014
    Sounds convincing, though I hesitate before applying the word "science" to a marketing video.

    I couldn't spot anything that's actually wrong, though I'm not used to thinking about photography in this kind of detail. He bangs on about antiquated ISO and f/stop systems but offers no solutions.

    The messages I take from this are:

    1). Be wary of marketing (but I'm a colossal skeptic anyway).
    2). Different cameras from different manufacturers with different sensors handle light differently - who would have guessed????? and would anybody who has used more than one camera ever think otherwise? I doubt it somehow.

    Basically, this is an approach to the subject seemingly founded on logic and maths (not bloody "math"). An approach which is not beyond anyone of reasonable intelligence. That said, I honestly think shooting this way would take all the joy out of the process for me ...... if the shot looks wrong, I adjust the parameters to get closer to how I imagined the final image. To my mind, life is far far too short for this, and it all seems a bit anal.
  5. HAH ...... great minds thinking alike.
  6. I'll watch it at lunchtime, but is it just me or does that guy have a remarkably punchable face?
  7. I wanted my first post to be neutral - not leading the crowd. What others have written though is closer to my reaction. I did find the point about maximising the light captured in a photo interesting at an academic level. It does fail the "so what" test for me though in that it doesn't have any impact on the way I would shoot.

    As for click bait, absolutely I agree. Isn't that what all Youtube channels and blogs do though?
  8. Well I'm only 6 minutes in and I've given up. If this guy were a part of a bell, it would certainly be the end
    moroseduck likes this.
  9. i think i fell asleep to that one night, must have been good
  10. I lasted 10 minutes, spending most of it wondering if he looked like Jonathan Edwards or the dog whisperer.
    evilmunky and Andy Grundy like this.
  11. I thought he was a cross between the dog whisperer and Phillip Schofield
  12. Ok, so the video is click bait. Have you noticed though that DPReview is taking the concept of equivalent aperture more seriously? This review of the Sony DSC-RX100 III has a whole section on equivalent aperture and the difference between up-market compact cameras.
  13. Having finally skim watched as I can't tolerate that smug git for 30 whole goddamn minutes, I just don't get the point. There is a reason to have a crop factor for focal length (although I think too many people don't understand why there is a crop factor) but for aperture or ISO? Just... why? Surely only a complete idiot would expect different cameras to produce exactly the same image using comparable settings? Hell, I wouldn't necessarily expect the same camera to produce the same image using the same settings. And why would you want to anyway?

    It's just another guy getting too hung up on the technicals rather than the art, and trying to flog us crap we don't need, obviously.
    Chris likes this.

Share This Page