Quoted By:
>Photons to photos
His charts are inaccurate and can not be used to compare cameras. He uses an objectively incorrect definition of dynamic range, an objectively incorrect method for measuring it (SNR of a pink square lmao), and then fucks it even harder by charting against labeled ISO (marketing number) instead of measured sensitivity (actual exposure).
Step wedge and shadow/highlight recovery tests done with ev step wedges are the ONLY way to measure dynamic range. DR is also a subjective measurement. Noise floor cutoffs mean less than viewer discrimination - circles of confusion etc.
>Equivalence
Equivalence does not actually even out formats performance IRL. Very, very rarely, ie: in DOF critical closeups in low light, do you actually HAVE to shoot equivalently. In all other situations you have something to give to lower the ISO.
Micro four thirds wildlife photography is a great example. Whether its a 100-400 f4-5.6 or a "50-200 f4-5.6" the background is going to be blurry, the MFT is just going to be less blurry and look like noisy phone tier dogshit. Hence nobody fucking uses it, <1% market share. The mft faggot will then say "BUT U DIDNT TAKE THE SAME PHOTO, U HAD TO STOP DOWN!!!!!" - correct, the full frame user took a better photo. A blurrier background is preferable to a blurrier subject. Micro four thirds sucks no matter how much equivalence you theorize about and anyone capable of holding it level has out-skilled their gear and would benefit from upgrading. Likewise, full frame is worse than fuji GFX.
Now remember medium format is meant for studio use, where base ISO is the only ISO anyone uses.
Furthermore, differences in sensor tech and pixel pitch break equivalence. A GFX100S is ***OVER A STOP*** cleaner than 24mp FF when downscaled to 24mp and impervious to aliasing. A 45mp ff is better than a 25mp mft even at equiv ISOs when scaled to 25mp. Meanwhile a GFX50R is only "a little better than" full frame and basically looks the fucking same.
