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.

In article ,
Sandman wrote:


None is so blind as those that will not see.

that describes you.

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'.

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.

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?

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.

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****.

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

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

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