SleepyWill

​And here you have the reason why you don't fling words around like assault. The narrow context of how you used it is unimportant compared to the wider context, you've already stated that you are wide open to the idea that not everyone who reads your posts, reads it properly, by telling me to re-read your words, I had misunderstood them. The Dan's of this world take your word as sacrosanct, maybe without having read or understood them properly and make statements as fact when he doesn't actually know the truth and the end result of this misinformation creep can be potentially serious.

​Well, yes you covered yourself, but I acknowledged that you did. I took issue with you deciding that something is assault, and insinuating that any time someone hits someone else, it is appropriate to accuse them of a serious crime or even using the word assault in the context of the incident without waiting for the legal process, which spends a great deal of energy, with privileged access to establish the facts. If that wasn't what you were saying, I hope you will accept my apology, I got my wires crossed - the rest of it, talking about the assumptions we have all made was not aimed at you, but everyone, including myself.

​No worries! All I'm saying is that we don't know what he's done. We've had limited information released by the BBC and I'm afraid I smell a rat. Why release such a statement but not the full facts, if it was an unprovoked attack, then why did they not say it was an unprovoked attack. If there was a cause, why not tell us the cause. It stinks, and I can only think of one reason for releasing a sensationalist, incomplete version of events, they wanted to justify the suspension and didn't believe the full story would. But if it turns out he did assault the producer, I will about-face so quick, your head will spin. I've done it in the past and I'll do it again. I have no special attachment to him that I would not stick up for the rights of the non "starring" crew. After I heard the Christian Bale abuse to the guy who walked on set during a scene, I lost work I was so outspoken about what a moron he had been. EDIT: That guy turned out to be shane hurlbut, the things you learn!

​Because as I said in my first post, I have worked with him. When I worked with him, he was pleasant. He was hard working. These are things I know. I also know that the character he plays on top gear is fictional, he is not that person, he is acting, in the same way that Brad Pit is not Tyler Durden.

​I understand that you disclaimered yourself by stating that you were talking about the hypothetical scenario and that you have no knowledge of what really happened, but I still take issue with this statement. Only the courts get to decide what is and is not assault, and in a limited respect, a police officer in terms that he would not be charged with wrongful arrest for pre-empting a courts decision and arresting a person for a crime he has reasonable grounds to suspect they have comitted. We, the public do not get to shout assault at will, the UK is not a lynch mob state. A person is guilty of assault when and only when they have had a fair and impartial trial. We don't know the circumstances, we can make assumptions, as we all already have, but it's just noise. A court, with all the facts at their command, may rule that it was not assault because the facts may make it clear that it was not. This will probably never go to court, and while we can make up assumptions as to why the producer chose not to press charges, it can't be denied that one assumption that it is possible to make is that maybe the producer threw the first punch. Maybe he misinterpreted an action as aggression, maybe there was a colossal misunderstanding between colleagues after a long and stressful day. Or maybe the guy made a mistake and some monster child man threw his toys out of his pram and broke the guys jaw over nothing. Until we know, let's stop prejudging him and go by what we do know. I know that at work he's a pleasant, hard working chap and I would be surprised if he deserved the suspension. It is perfectly fair to say that if he did assault this producer he absolutely should be suspended, probably sacked. That would be unacceptable, but if you accept that then you also need to accept that if he didn't do anything that any other reasonable human being would have done and his suspension was as a result of his public standing not his true actions, then it is wrong.

Pretty sure indianajones was being sarcastic... I mean, surely he must be! Thankyou for this post! I know the british public have to pay for the BBC, but surely that doesn't give them the right to have this level of transparency? I enjoy Top Gear very much and surely it is obvious that they are playing characters, I mean, these people who believe that Top Gear is a factual program don't believe that The only way is essex is real, and they say far more offensive stuff than that. I've worked with Jeremy Clarkson, and he was a genuinely decent chap, nothing like the caricature he presents of himself on the show. What's nice is that he cares about the production so much, he wants the product to be quality and works hard to help however he can. Whatever the truth of this situation, I can say without any qualms that it must have been an extraordinary situation, and I can't imagine he wouldn't have made right however he could at a later time. We all know how it feels to have worked hard and then faced disappointment, we've all made huge mistakes when stressed and we've all done things we regret, probably more frequently that we care to admit. Only difference with us is that our laundry isn't thrust into the public eye for every idiot to judge us on. And I agree with so much else that you wrote - I'm all for better representation of women, ethnic backgrounds et al, bring it on, but instead of shoehorning it into entertainment made for a different audience, make quality content that the demographic you wish to represent would like to watch. I'm sorry, my wife still isn't going to watch QI just because you force a woman onto every show. Make something she actually wants to watch, you'll actually solve the problem like that, rather than ticking the "diversity" box in your "have we avoided criticism" checklist.

​Yeah, I was going to be nice to you until this. Don't be such a weasel, it is not an option to attack the person if you can't fault the argument. How about I call you a shill for panasonic, out to troll forums to hurt the opposition. Extraordinary claims require extraordinary proof and if you are going to try to drag my (deliberately fake) name through the mud, then you'd better come packing the big guns in terms of evidence for your claims. Put up your evidence that I am "damage control for samsung" or shut up and sit down. By the way, you don't want to change lenses? Then why are you looking at interchangeable lens cameras, where you pay a premium to be able to... I don't fecking well care, I really don't.

​You're right, sorry. Alex, do notice though that Ebrahim said exactly the same thing as you without: 1) Spreading the fallacy that amateurs are less skilled than professionals. 2) Describing a camera that he hasn't tried to use yet as "unusable". 3) Dismissing the opinion of the many who could work around the crop factor with ease just because he can't or doesn't want to.

​Wait, this makes even less sense. Before I was grouching over your choice of language, even though I thought I understood what you were saying. Now you're claiming that the samsung 12-24mm lens is too long to be reasonable, on an apc camera. What in gods name is your wife (who I'm sure is more able than you assume) shooting that needs wider than 4k crop equiv of 26ish mm? Does she need to get her feet and nose in the same shot, from behind the lens? Good god, if she went any wider, she wouldn't need to focus anyway, set it to infinity and shoot everything in perfect focus! Do you really have to shoot all your scenes in 4k? The mind boggles when someone uses such extreme language to describe something. Unusuable - seriously, you literally cannot make a good shot with a camera that doesn't have 4K on at least an apc sized sensor, yet you demand that quality in full auto for less than $1000. Good luck with that! You do understand that getting 4k in aps-c won't suddenly make your hyper extreme wide angles beautiful right? If you can't make them look good in 1080p, you can't make them look good in 4k either, fact. Also, never pre-order. Ever. Especially as you are an amateur (which I regard as being a compliment, I have more respect for those who do something simply for the love and pleasure of doing that thing than I do those who do it because it is their job) and won't lose money if yiu have to wait a month for the camera to be back in stock at your preferred outlet.

​Unusable??? Really??? Isn't that a bit embarrassing to write? I mean, I understand that there are products that you prefer on the market, that's entirely your decision but to publicly admit that, no matter how you earn your income, you couldn't use a camera because it crops the 4k mode is.. well, let's hope Oliver Stone never reads this!

Well, that is most definitely their loss. I find you, your words and your work an inspiration as I'm sure, do many other people and your name next to a post is a sure mark of quality.

​The UK seems to be going this way, at least the places where people are feeling vulnerable for whatever reason - financial, areas of minorities etc, they instantly assume the worst of any camera.

​Not a smartphone As for shooting position, my son was having an absence seizure (He has Doose syndrome, hence the soft protective hat), which was lucky because it saved you from having to see my ugly mug on the skintones "smooth" rendering test. Detail rendering, and everything else - I deliberately resized to obliterate methods other than sensor size characteristics to tell, especially as I know these cameras instantly from a 1 to 1 crop, I guarantee you guys do too. They are photographs, not video clips. When someone gets it right you can see the originals and you may be a lot less impressed. Do remember, if I was trying to cheat, I would have just shown ungraded ff and graded crop sensor, stuck subtle lights around the place stuff like that as all I am trying to demonstrate is that things like "smooth rendering" and "good separation" as claimed by monkey puzzle, when he finally conceded there is nothing unique about the ff fov or dof are a function of the lens and the sensor technology, not the sensor size.

​Feel free to ask someone you trust, who has known ability to reproduce this test. I've just put in a great deal of effort to offer evidence that what I'm saying is accurate, but if even that's not enough for you, I guess you'd have to be with me at the time while I did it and even then, I bet you would find some other way to argue. I'm pretty much going to ignore you now, I hope you do the same for me. For everyone else, the challenge still stands!

​I used a monopod, and you don't know who I am or what I do. You don't know who I work with or what I've worked on, nor how much I earn. Besides which, I don't think they are matched all that well actually. In fact the blacks are really bad, shamefully bad!

​It's almost as if sensor size is irrelevant and skill (and skill at equipment choice) is everything! But sure, hit the conspiracy theories instead. Is there anyone on this board you trust to perform the test? Or will you only trust them after the test, if their shots are easy for you to tell apart.

OK, here we are then. 4 cameras, 4 different sensor sizes, 8 of the blandest lenses in my collection (read: most uniform). One camera is full frame, one is crop, one is 4/3's and a lot of kudos if someone identifies the other, with sound reasoning. My method was to use the full frame camera first, to take a shot. Then I examined it and set up all the other cameras to attempt to get them to replicate that look precisely. I used every trick in, on and around the camera that I know, with the exception of additional lighting, reflectors etc. Once I was happy with my setup for each, I took all four shots (including the ff again). Camera profiles were the most basic straight forward, consumer friendly ones, the reason being, so that the only post processing done was in photoshop where I combined the 4 shots into a single picture. No work was done on the pictures beyond pasting them into a square and putting a letter on them. The question is, of course, can you tell which sensor size took which image, failing that can you identify only the full frame?

​Another deflection, I was thinking you could just link to one of these countless other threads, or instead of coming up with proof, just state your theory, e.g. "I believe the size of the sensor increases the area of the sensor at a different rate to the propagation of, say f2's worth of light being spread over a different area. This means that it is impossible to have as shallow dof at any given ambient light on a crop frame sensor and have them expose the same, thus the full frame look is about proper exposure with natural light" See, easy. You could even, if we were using my example, simply say "FF exposes better", without having to dive into those awkward technical details.

​Yes, by recommending full frame, the budget option, as I explained in my second comment in this thread. You do realise it took you just as long to write that you're not going to tell us as it would have taken to just tell us. Is there a reason you won't?

​In english, we use the word repeat when we are saying something a second time. You haven't ever told us what the difference that you see is. You've said: While being sarcastic,and: while talking about doing the practical test with a different lens, and: After talking about a link to wikipedia being proof enough, which then you then later explained the maths in that article to be " wrong and only is semi accurate", next: Which was as helpful as a chocolate teabag. So no, you haven't ever told us what you think the difference is. You've told us now that it definitely isn't field of view or depth of field as you agree they can be replicated interestingly enough using primary school maths to work out how to select the correct lens for the equivalence. If it's a fact, as you say it is, state the factual differences, in a clear, precise way, without calling people colourblind or retards or any "sarcasm" [sic]. Maybe someone with an A7s and speedbooster would prepare a blind test for us, to see if we learn from your mighty intellect that shines through in every word you write. Perhaps you would lower yourself to take part in such a silly, easy little quiz, just to cement your superiority over us minions, begging at your feet for scraps of knowledge.

​You didn't answer my first question. It was the on topic and important one

​So, am I to understand that you believe that one can't adjust the aperture on a camera lens to change the depth of field, such that it matches the depth of field that a different sized sensor would have for an equivalent fov? See image: Am I also to understand that you have changed your mind since december? And that you changed your mind regarding medium and large format cameras between 12:31 on sunday: and 7:21 on sunday:

​Show me then, come on, put up or shut up, demonstrate to me a single specific example where either 1) Change in aperture does not change the DOF with all other setting remaining the same 2) Change in sensor size does not change DOF with the focal length adjusted to give a fov equivalence but all other settings remaining the same Because that is what you are arguing right now. Unfortunately, that specific principal of maths, that is taught in primary schools, is the basis for algebra, being that if you can equate thing a with thing b and thing a with thing c, you can equate thing b with thing c. It doesn't matter how deep into optical physics you delve, the most basic principle of algebra, the bedrock for all of modern mathematics remains true.

​I didn't actually do any math, don't know if you noticed, I just quoted formulas drawn directly from wikipedia, the reference you supplied us with earlier. So if your own evidence is "semi accurate" and the variances are not "lineal" [sic], it is actually irrelevant. All that matters is that there is a relationship between aperture size and dof as well as a relationship between sensor size and dof. Which you acknowledge there is. So you use one to adjust for the change in the other, because by understanding that there is these two relationships, you understand that there is a relationship between aperture size and sensor size for any given dof. This is primary school math. If you understand that there is a relationship between aperture size and sensor size, then you can achieve the same depth of field on a different sensor size by changing the aperture. Simples.

​Does it though? Do this thought experiment with me. Go into your darkroom, rig up some clamp stands and clamp a lens into one. Peek it through your curtains, then set up a piece of white paper inside, the proper distance from the lens, so the lens is projecting it's image circle onto the piece of paper. Notice it's depth of field characteristics. With me so far? Good. Now change the piece of paper for a differently sized piece of paper. Notice how drastically the depth of field of your lens has not changed. So now that we have established beyond any doubt that the size of the sensor does not change the optical characteristics of a lens, what we are left talking about is this: If we change the lens to a different lens, will it have the same depth of field . This is trickier to think about (Please note jcs has already shown you the following absolutely working in practice) So let's think about two lenses on your rig now, both projecting images next to each other onto two pieces of paper. They are two identical copies of the same zoom lens. These perfect specimens of theoretical lenses do not exhibit any variance in their pincushion or balloon distortion through their range, just for now. You set one lens to focal length fa and aperture aa. You set the other lens to focal length fb and aperture ab. The images projected are different, right? We know for certain that aperture affects depth of field in a linear predictable way, so it makes sense that we can equate the ratio of depth of fields. As it turns out, depth of field is inversely proportionate to the diameter of the lens opening. Which leads us to the following equation, for our two perfect lenses: DOFa/DOFb = db/da where d is diameter and DOF is Depth of Field. So for any given depth of field, at any aperture, we can match that depth of field with the other lens. Will they be projecting the same image, no, one is magnified. What is that ratio of magnification? Well, again it turns out that changing the angle of view changes the depth of field in a linear predictable way and again, this shows a direct proportional relationship, which is: DOFa/DOFb = la/lb We have an equivalence: db/da = la/lb So for any given depth of field, there turns out to be a linear predictable relationship between the angle of view (which is of course a function of sensor size and magnification) and the diameter, such that you can, with simple maths show the difference in angle of view. So what does this establish, that given a perfect lens, you can match the depth of field on any different sensor size by merely adjusting both aperture and zoom. As jcs already showed you yesterday. No-one disputes that different lenses have optical differences, but that is not what this thread is about, it's about sensor size. You have just been proven correct, that format size (angle of view) does indeed change the depth of field, but because it is a linear, predictable change, and because aperture also changes depth of field with a linear, predictable change, then given any fixed depth of field on two fixed sensor sizes with known focal lengths, perfectly matched to fix an angle of view, you can work out the aperture to set your lens at to give that depth of view on any sized sensor. So please stop with the personal attacks, it is making you look really really bad. If I, jcs et al are wrong, then you can attack our arguments with logic and wisdom, rather than calling into question our motives and calling us names.