# Tony Northrup Cheating Accusations



## Solarflare (May 18, 2014)

The errors in Tony Northrups "cheating" accuse video. | Mirrorless Rumors

I would like to add:

- Most cameras offer lowest ISO 100. Some offer 80, 160 or 200, but either way, thats the lowest noise level your camera can possibly have. Giving more light to a smaller sensor will thus NOT lower the noise further - it will simply overexpose, giving no image at all. This is massively ignored by this video, implying that you can use a 25mm f/0.95 on a MFT camera just like a 50mm f/1.9 on a full frame sensor. This is not true, the f/0.95 cannot create images with as low noise, simply because the sensor cant offer lower ISO than the full frame sensor.

- Photographically, the VERY POINT of using smaller sensors is to have more depth of field. Using huge lenses on them to get the same amount of light on the sensor as for larger cameras will remove this advantage again, and it will make these lenses quite complex and expensive, just to reach the same level. Even worse, this complexity is repeated for every new lens repeated again. Its thus much cheaper to just use a larger sensor instead.

- Some technology is available for small sensors thats not available for larger sensors. Right now thats the BACKLIT sensors. Backlit means that in the production of the sensor, the photodiodes are created first and thus end up on the lowest level; every other circuit is above them, and theres a good layer of silicium above them either way, blocking light. Backlit means the sensor is cut on the other side until the photodiodes are reached and then the sensor is flipped, so the light comes from behind, hitting the photodiodes now sitting directly below the surface. This technology is for example used in the Sony 1" Sensors, as used in the Sony RX100M2, RX100M3, and RX10. This means this sensor performs much better than expected for its size, as can be seen for example in the impressive DxOMark ratings for that sensor.

- The video also ignores the problem of diffraction, which physically limits the possible resolution.


----------



## DarkShadow (May 18, 2014)




----------



## TonyNorthrup (May 18, 2014)

Solarflare said:


> The errors in Tony Northrups "cheating" accuse video. | Mirrorless Rumors
> - Most cameras offer lowest ISO 100. Some offer 80, 160 or 200, but either way, thats the lowest noise level your camera can possibly have. Giving more light to a smaller sensor will thus NOT lower the noise further - it will simply overexpose, giving no image at all. This is massively ignored by this video, implying that you can use a 25mm f/0.95 on a MFT camera just like a 50mm f/1.9 on a full frame sensor. This is not true, the f/0.95 cannot create images with as low noise, simply because the sensor cant offer lower ISO than the full frame sensor.
> 
> - Photographically, the VERY POINT of using smaller sensors is to have more depth of field. Using huge lenses on them to get the same amount of light on the sensor as for larger cameras will remove this advantage again, and it will make these lenses quite complex and expensive, just to reach the same level. Even worse, this complexity is repeated for every new lens repeated again. Its thus much cheaper to just use a larger sensor instead.
> ...



Hey, good points! And not the same points that I've been seeing over and over, which is VERY refreshing . 

Re: the point of small sensors being to have more depth-of-field, I mostly disagree. The flip side to my argument is that you can get the same DoF with big sensors if you math right. And there are people who say, "I'm never shooting below f/16 on full frame anyway, so a small sensor won't be a challenge." and I applaud that guy for his knowledge and math. But that's not most people who buy small sensors. As I demonstrate by reading Amazon reviews, many people wrongly think they can get the same results as fast, full-frame lenses, and that's a shame.

Re: the lowest ISO being ISO 100, I don't mention it in the video because I wanted to keep it more theoretical... getting into the specifics of different sensor technologies would have required even more than 40 minutes of video. Anyway, I did have this discussion in the comments, and I'm personally frustrated with Olympus for not supporting less than ISO 200. They should give me ISO 25, but they don't.

Re: different sensor technologies, like I mentioned, I wanted to keep it theoretical so it wouldn't become an 8-hour video, but I do say repeatedly, "given different sensor technology." But yeah, sensor technology varies. I will say that in my examples I used three sensors from different manufacturers (Canon, Sony, Olympus) and the example worked just fine. 

Re: diffraction, yes, that kicks in at some point, and I don't know exactly where it is, but I don't think it will impact any of my examples. It is something I deal with regularly, because I have an MP-E 

Thanks for watching and paying attention! Honestly, 98% of people who disagree with me say something like, "BUT F/2.8 IS F/2.8!" or "BUT THE SAME SETTINGS WORK ON ALL CAMERAS!" and they clearly didn't even watch the video.


----------



## rexbobcat (May 19, 2014)

I feel like he's leaving information out to make his argument more validated. 

He doesn't look at pixel size, nor does he realized that visually, a MFT lens looks like a FF lens at f/5.6, but physically it's still f/2.8. 

He's trying to confuse people with math instead of educating them with logic.


----------



## Scatterbrained (May 19, 2014)

Solarflare said:


> ...........
> 
> ......Using huge lenses on them to get the same amount of light on the sensor as for larger cameras will remove this advantage again,...........
> 
> ............


I don't understand this statement.  Using larger lenses to get the same amount of light?  Aperture is aperture.  2.8 is 2.8 in so far as light gathering is concerned (ignoring t values for the moment) and will render the same exposure regardless of sensor size.    Think of three different vessels left outside in a storm. A wading pool, a bathtub, and a large bucket.  After the storm they will all have different amounts of water in them by volume, but the level will be the same for each (assuming similar shape), this "level" is what represents your exposure, not the overall volume.


----------



## Braineack (May 19, 2014)

I found his video very helpful.  I'm constantly switching between FF, APC-S, 4/3, and CX so it's nice to see someone finally standardizing things between all four.


----------



## Raj_55555 (May 19, 2014)

I'll take a month to figure what you guys are saying. Meanwhile, Tony, can I get an autograph! :mrgreen:


----------



## runnah (May 19, 2014)

I just move dials until the thing is in the middle of the other thing.


----------



## rexbobcat (May 19, 2014)

runnah said:


> I just move dials until the thing is in the middle of the other thing.



And then you do the thing right? Please tell me you do the thing.


----------



## vintagesnaps (May 19, 2014)

There will be a video update shown at 5:00 pm according to his Facebook page. 

I watched til about 15 minutes in. I don't think the ISO measurement is the issue, I think it's that the surface where you're recording an image being smaller or larger depending on what camera you're using. 

I have a Ricoh digital that's APS and a Voigtlander 35mm film rangefinder that use the same lenses. I can see if I'm using both to photograph something how different the field of view is with each camera, using the same lens. I haven't compared to see if I changed settings significantly going back and forth, but now I'm curious to do that. It's like when using 120mm film, the size of each frame of film is larger than 35mm so you don't have to enlarge as much. I would think it's comparable with the sensor size, depending on how you use an image or view it, that basically you'd be enlarging it more if it's being recorded on a smaller sized surface. 

If he wants to shoot 25 ISO (as he mentions not being an option with digital cameras) I guess he'll have to put some pan film in that camera on the shelf behind him and take it out for a spin.


----------



## vintagesnaps (May 19, 2014)

Is anybody else watching this?? I'm wondering how much longer it will be til they get to the big question... 

And I thought it was a bug on an office chair.


----------



## pixmedic (May 19, 2014)

sounds like hes just click farming rather than trying to address any actual new issues or information.


----------



## runnah (May 19, 2014)

I am watching Cars for the millionth time.


----------



## vintagesnaps (May 19, 2014)

I've stepped out of the room but for the most part seems to be answering questions and looking at photos and websites. 

I just lost audio... Back on, who's Ron we're waiting for?


----------



## vintagesnaps (May 19, 2014)

I think I give up, they must not be getting the guy on and are reading questions and insulting comments from viewers.


----------



## Ysarex (May 19, 2014)

TonyNorthrup said:


> Solarflare said:
> 
> 
> > <snip>
> ...



No. Assuming the same photograph (identical content and perspective), you can get more DOF from a smaller sensor camera. There is no flip side math that will permit a larger sensor camera to produce an equivalent amount of DOF and Solarflare makes a real good point about diffraction there. What's the crop-factor calculation to equalize diffraction? 

Joe


----------



## Ysarex (May 19, 2014)

Braineack said:


> I found his video very helpful.  I'm constantly switching between FF, APC-S, 4/3, and CX so it's nice to see someone finally standardizing things between all four.



He's right about the sleazy marketers, but there's no news there. The problem with the way he's standardizing things is that he's left one really major "thing" out of the equation. Consider that I'm heading over to the school gym this evening to watch my nephew play some basketball -- going to get some snaps with my compact camera. When I get there I'll just tell the maintenance crew to cube the amount of light in the gym for me to equalize my camera's crop factor. Yes it's true that with a smaller sensor camera I can get away with slower shutter speeds, but not crop factor slower when I'm photographing action. I do have a fast f/1.4 zoom on my compact, but there's no way I'd come out equal against a crop factor adjusted zoom on a full-frame able to shoot reasonably clean at ISO 3200. Unless I can apply his crop factor to the amount of available light (then it wouldn't be available would it ;-)), smaller sensor cameras "in practice" are noisier, because "practice" is always pushing our limits.

Joe


----------



## Derrel (May 19, 2014)

<snip><snip><snip>I thought the video Tony did was a bit ambitious, and tried to address too many issues. Refuting myths and misconceptions is a tricky business. The he said/she said side of the video made for some less than fun viewing for me. I thought he covered so many issues that it might have been better to have made three, separate videos which addressed the issues and ideas without any accusatory or condescending tones. But then too, the flak his video got over at that mirrorless users' forum was kind of expected. Also...using close-range, frame-filling headshots as a basis for comparison, and the assertion that focal length is now "meaningless", and the idea that the system of ISO is, well, also basically useless...I dunno...this video really seemed like one tough row to hoe for Tony.

I think making a single video that covered all the ground he covered would be incredibly difficult. Plus, there's a lot of misunderstanding that audience members have about terminology, like bokeh as opposed to depth of field or selective focus; background blur as it relates to focal length; and even what statements like "Less depth of field" and ,"More depth of field," actually refer to. The lack of agreement about the terms used makes an internet audience ripe for freak-outs and disagreements and talking at cross-purposes.* I thought Tony grabbed a tiger by the tail*...and he held on for a loooong time too! He is indeed tenacious!

</snip></snip></snip>


----------

