02-02-2016, 05:08 PM
How about stop talking bullshit and prove with showing, linking or writing a formula in which a given area does matter and changes ISO or sensitivity from a larger to a smaller sensor. And YES a exposure meter does tell me this sort of stuff because normal use of it is to choose a shutter speed or an aperture and an ISO number. You're always trying the same boring trick, using a distraction and questioning common sense. I don't know any exposure meter where I have to put in a film size or sensor size into the equation.
And the fact that a sensor is no film but is dealing with ISO, shutter speed and aperture as if it were a film doesn't matter. Basics is, two different sensors will need different ISO but a single sensor will be at the same parameters if you use it full frame or half frame. Any math acrobatics is caused by different sensor technologies, but not by sensor size. By comparing sensors, we need to stay in the same type, not compare X-Trans with Bayer or Foveon. And it's the topic of "area" which is discussion base, not the sensor type.
Anyway is this whole ISO thing metaphorical as sensors behave differently and their output of data is influenced by tons of other parameters. One stop faster remains one stop faster.
And the fact that a sensor is no film but is dealing with ISO, shutter speed and aperture as if it were a film doesn't matter. Basics is, two different sensors will need different ISO but a single sensor will be at the same parameters if you use it full frame or half frame. Any math acrobatics is caused by different sensor technologies, but not by sensor size. By comparing sensors, we need to stay in the same type, not compare X-Trans with Bayer or Foveon. And it's the topic of "area" which is discussion base, not the sensor type.
Anyway is this whole ISO thing metaphorical as sensors behave differently and their output of data is influenced by tons of other parameters. One stop faster remains one stop faster.