04-07-2012, 06:06 PM
[quote name='Rainer' timestamp='1333819379' post='17367']
Please not again!
Of corse it is correct that f/0.95 does indeed allow a faster shutterspeed than
f/1.4 does allow.
You started this absolutely silly argumentation in a different thread a while ago.
Please stop it. It is utter rubbish!
Rainer
[/quote]
What I wrote is totally correct. If you can not get your head around that, just refrain from reacting.
f0.95 with ISO 100 film does not allow for shorter exposure times (for the same exposure) than f1.4 with ISO 400 film. It really does not.
Also, f2 with ISO 100 film does need longer exposure times than f2 with ISO 400 film.
ONLY when the film sensitivity is the same, one can say that f0.95 needs a shorter exposure than f1.4, outright.
As you can see, exposure times start to vary with different sensitivity film. Since it is that way, exposure times are NOT linked to f-values.
If you have a problem with understanding that ISO with sensors is not about sensitivity anymore, I advice you to do some studying on the matter. A typical 4/3rds sensor and a typical FF 135 format sensor do not have the same sensitivity, and ISO settings should be regarded in that light too.
My argumentation is not silly, it is factual and precise. Just fact. Just plain (and simple) optics and science.
I ask you to refrain from reacting this way if you do not understand what is being talked about. I find it highly offensive that you call totally correct theory "utter rubbish" and "silly argumentation". Of course, if a certain point is unclear, just ask a question or clarification about it.
I case you just want to educate yourself, here is a webpage that explains everything in a very elaborate manner: http://www.josephjamesphotography.com/equivalence/#exposure
Please not again!
Of corse it is correct that f/0.95 does indeed allow a faster shutterspeed than
f/1.4 does allow.
You started this absolutely silly argumentation in a different thread a while ago.
Please stop it. It is utter rubbish!
Rainer
[/quote]
What I wrote is totally correct. If you can not get your head around that, just refrain from reacting.
f0.95 with ISO 100 film does not allow for shorter exposure times (for the same exposure) than f1.4 with ISO 400 film. It really does not.
Also, f2 with ISO 100 film does need longer exposure times than f2 with ISO 400 film.
ONLY when the film sensitivity is the same, one can say that f0.95 needs a shorter exposure than f1.4, outright.
As you can see, exposure times start to vary with different sensitivity film. Since it is that way, exposure times are NOT linked to f-values.
If you have a problem with understanding that ISO with sensors is not about sensitivity anymore, I advice you to do some studying on the matter. A typical 4/3rds sensor and a typical FF 135 format sensor do not have the same sensitivity, and ISO settings should be regarded in that light too.
My argumentation is not silly, it is factual and precise. Just fact. Just plain (and simple) optics and science.
I ask you to refrain from reacting this way if you do not understand what is being talked about. I find it highly offensive that you call totally correct theory "utter rubbish" and "silly argumentation". Of course, if a certain point is unclear, just ask a question or clarification about it.
I case you just want to educate yourself, here is a webpage that explains everything in a very elaborate manner: http://www.josephjamesphotography.com/equivalence/#exposure