If this is your first visit, be sure to check out the FAQ by clicking the link above. You may have to register before you can post: click the register link above to proceed. To start viewing messages, select the forum that you want to visit from the selection below. |
|
|
Thread Tools | Display Modes |
#731
|
|||
|
|||
How to measure ISO
In article ,
Sandman wrote: nospam: cite a peer-reviewed source that supports your claims or stfu. Sandman: Like you did? Hahahahahahaha!!! you're the one making the claims, so *you* need to back them up. Which I have no you haven't. still waiting for a peer-reviewed source... - and you have countered with exactly zero support. wrong. absent that, you're blowing smoke. but that much is obvious. Projection, a common tool for the low-life troll. you're rather good at projection. |
#732
|
|||
|
|||
How to measure ISO
In article ,
Sandman wrote: None is so blind as those that will not see. that describes you. |
#733
|
|||
|
|||
How to measure ISO
In article ,
Sandman wrote: Sandman: This has already been supported by me: http://jonaseklundh.se/files/cameras_since_2013.png nospam: that's nothing more than a list of cameras made in the past couple of years. that's not support of anything. Sandman: It shows that contemporary MFT cameras have smaller photo sites than contemporary FF cameras. When comparing cameras, you would rarely do so with a gap of a decade like you want to. But you can add the word "contemporary" to the fact listed above if it makes you feel better. It's always hard to foresee what insignificant detail you trolls will semantically attack next. translated: you're wrong, so you try to narrow the field to just contemporary cameras I have only ever talked about contemporary cameras. Sorry to burst your little imaginary bubble. wrong. originally you said smaller sensors have smaller pixels. when i showed that was wrong you changed it to contemporary cameras. you're also ignoring sensor differences in those cameras. you're all over the map. Sandman: But it does depend on what is being talked about, and I was only concerned with contemporary cameras, or at least comparing cameras from the same time period, since a lot has happened since 2001, and not only in photo site size. again, facts apply to *all* sensors, Not if the facts concern contemporary cameras. Again, learn to read. facts apply to *all* cameras and sensors. facts are not selective to only 'contemporary cameras'. |
#734
|
|||
|
|||
How to measure ISO
In article ,
Sandman wrote: I realized that you were already agreeing with me. yet another thing you get wrong. No need for you to display your ignorance any mo i'm not the one displaying ignorance. foolishness, perhaps, for arguing with someone who won't ever admit their mistakes, but definitely not ignorance. nospam How to measure ISO 11/11/2015 In article , Sandman wrote: With less total amount of light, the signal to noise ratio differs between sensor sizes, meaning that ISO 200 on MFT has the same s/n ratio as ISO 800 on FF. that part is true, but a separate issue. And, "that part", is exactly what I have been talking about for the last thirteen days, even if you want to claim it's a "separate issue" because you didn't understand the context. what you *still* don't get and won't ever get is that you're confusing 'that part' with a lot of *other* parts that are completely wrong. you're *very* confused about the entire topic. ISO 200 on MFT has the same s/n ratio as ISO 800 on FF, meaning that the level of amplification is different between the cameras. you have no way of knowing the level of amplification. Glad we could lay this all to rest now. if only. the way to put it to rest is if you admit you made some fundamental mistakes. but you won't. |
#735
|
|||
|
|||
How to measure ISO
In article ,
Sandman wrote: In article , Whisky-dave wrote: and some foreign ****er that has a reasnable crasp of english but tries to manipulate it to proves he's right. I find it ironic beyond belief when Drunk Dave talks about "reasnble crasp of english". you're actually resorting to spelling flames? |
#736
|
|||
|
|||
How to measure ISO
In article ,
Sandman wrote: Eric Stevens: Posting a list you have pinched from somewhere else without explanation doesn't offer support for anything. Sandman: I made that list, from data from dpreview. Do you have a better list? No? Then it is valid. nospam: it doesn't work that way. Sandman: Sorry, you don't get to decide what "it" is in my comparison data. i didn't decide. a cherry-picked a list is not proof of *anything*. end of story. It's not cherry-picked, it's the "it" in my comparison data, which you don't get to decide. you don't understand what your data even means. it only takes *one* camera to prove you wrong and i gave *three* examples. you lose. Sandman: Those are the MFT and FF cameras released since April 2013 as listed by dpreview. Do you disagree with the list? nospam: who cares. it's nothing more than a list of cameras made in the past few years. big deal. that says *nothing* about photosite sizes. nothing at all. Sandman: It says everything about photo site sizes between those cameras, but not as a general rule. For contemporary cameras, yes. You will argue about *anything* for days and days and days. It's an amazing ability, little troll. i'm not arguing. you're wrong. period. others agree with me, not you. i gave examples and *you* continue to argue. Sandman: This is how proof works. One has a claim, one posts supporting data, which remains valid until it has been invalidated. Merely claiming it isn't valid is just nospam-like hot air. nospam: claiming that a list of recent cameras is somehow proof of something is beyond ludicrous. it's truly ****ed up. Sandman: Best endorsement I could ever get. be glad that's what you got. Yes, your insults shows you have nothing. what i wrote above is not an insult. yet another thing you get wrong. nevertheless, you continue with: Whatever you say, retard. They are when that is being used as an example, retard. those are insults, which means you have nothing. either it applies to all sensors or it's void. Ignorance about the word "fact" duly noted. wrong on that too. your claim that smaller sensors have smaller pixels is wrong. it's often true, but it's not always true, therefore it's not a fact. that makes *you* ignorant about the word fact. You've been doing this for twelve days now - making empty claim after empty claim. It's like you're allergic to supporting your view. it ain't just me. No, Eric is making lots of empty claims as well. But he at least had a momentary lapse of reason where he was actually able to discuss these matters for period of time. I think until he made a mathematical observation that agreed with my math and he had to start blocking. you're really lost. eric, myself, alfred, alan, savageduck, bill, whisky dave and several others all think you're full of ****. *many* people have shown just how wrong you are during the 12 days. You just can't show any of those instances. Great, so your claim is then just as empty as the hundreds you made before it. Good job! it's been shown many times. you ignore *all* proof that you're wrong because you can't admit you made mistakes. if you want some real proof, post your crap to dpreview's forums and let's see how well that works out for you. you won't, because you know you'll be raked over the coals within minutes. fortunately, there's a 150 post limit per thread there, so it won't go on forever. |
#737
|
|||
|
|||
How to measure ISO
In article ,
Sandman wrote: Asking you questions you find hard to answer is trolling? Gercha! Now that you made your point. Please stop. Do you really care what he says. Please, of course he doesn't. I second this desire for him to stop. bull****. |
#738
|
|||
|
|||
How to measure ISO
On 11/24/2015 7:43 PM, Eric Stevens wrote:
On Tue, 24 Nov 2015 16:33:30 -0500, PeterN snip BS Now that you made your point. Please stop. Do you really care what he says. Only when he says it about me. So what? Consider the source and move on with your life. I would not let him bring me down to his level. -- PeterN |
#739
|
|||
|
|||
How to measure ISO
On Tue, 24 Nov 2015 20:40:21 -0500, nospam
wrote: In article , Sandman wrote: nospam: cite a peer-reviewed source that supports your claims or stfu. Sandman: Like you did? Hahahahahahaha!!! you're the one making the claims, so *you* need to back them up. Which I have no you haven't. still waiting for a peer-reviewed source... - and you have countered with exactly zero support. wrong. absent that, you're blowing smoke. but that much is obvious. Projection, a common tool for the low-life troll. you're rather good at projection. If this goes on long enough Sandman will convince himself he is winning. -- Regards, Eric Stevens |
#740
|
|||
|
|||
How to measure ISO
On Tue, 24 Nov 2015 20:40:23 -0500, nospam
wrote: In article , Sandman wrote: I realized that you were already agreeing with me. yet another thing you get wrong. No need for you to display your ignorance any mo i'm not the one displaying ignorance. foolishness, perhaps, for arguing with someone who won't ever admit their mistakes, but definitely not ignorance. nospam How to measure ISO 11/11/2015 In article , Sandman wrote: With less total amount of light, the signal to noise ratio differs between sensor sizes, meaning that ISO 200 on MFT has the same s/n ratio as ISO 800 on FF. that part is true, but a separate issue. And, "that part", is exactly what I have been talking about for the last thirteen days, even if you want to claim it's a "separate issue" because you didn't understand the context. what you *still* don't get and won't ever get is that you're confusing 'that part' with a lot of *other* parts that are completely wrong. you're *very* confused about the entire topic. ISO 200 on MFT has the same s/n ratio as ISO 800 on FF, meaning that the level of amplification is different between the cameras. you have no way of knowing the level of amplification. Glad we could lay this all to rest now. if only. the way to put it to rest is if you admit you made some fundamental mistakes. but you won't. Based on past experience, the only way to put this to rest is to kill-file the arrogant pig. -- Regards, Eric Stevens |
Thread Tools | |
Display Modes | |
|
|
Similar Threads | ||||
Thread | Thread Starter | Forum | Replies | Last Post |
Can one measure colour temperature with the Nikon D3? | Dave[_27_] | Digital Photography | 12 | September 8th 08 06:01 PM |
Can one measure colour temperature with the Nikon D3? | Dave[_27_] | 35mm Photo Equipment | 12 | September 8th 08 06:01 PM |
Don't measure a film! | Von Fourche | 35mm Photo Equipment | 0 | June 27th 06 11:02 AM |
5x4 - How to measure film /plate register ? | Malcolm Stewart | Large Format Photography Equipment | 3 | February 19th 05 01:07 AM |
How to measure ink(toner) usage! | AVPSoft | Digital Photography | 11 | November 9th 04 10:09 PM |