Re: Hasselblad C 250 f/5.6 Superachromat on Fuji GFX
There's nothing "misleading about my chart."
You have invented an assumption that isn't stated in the chart (that I believe some crop factor relationship has a bigger effect that I should assume it to have), ascribed it to me, and are now arguing with the assumption that you invented.
- - -
What my chart demonstrates is pretty straightforward — for example, the difference between full frame and 1.6x cropped sensor systems should be approximately equal to the difference between 645 MF film and full frame systems, which both calculate to approximately the same 1.62x crop factor.
Are we in agreement so far on that statement? (Please, without any additional extrapolations that you are tempted to make.)
- - -
The chart also demonstrates that the crop factor relationship between miniMF and full frame is smaller than either of the two aforementioned comparisons, whether we compare diagonals of the full 3:2 and 4:3 aspect ratio native formats or crop the full frame example to 4:3.
Are we in agreement with that basic fact, again without bringing in additional elements that I did not introduce? (Note that my chart says nothing about how to interpret those data, so let's not "go there" insofar as assessing the accuracy of what is actually in the chart.
- - -
Your concern seems to be that you imagine that I hold a point of view not contained in the charts, namely that I have somewhere claim or imply (not sure where) that the effect of the crop factor relationship between miniMF and full frame is too small.
Is that what you are assuming?
If so...
Where do my data say anything at all about this concern? (They don't — they just represent raw crop factor information.)
It seems that you have not identified anything intrinsically inaccurate or misleading about the accurate data in my chart.
It seems that you have concocted a position that I have not stated here and which is not contained in the chart, and based on that extrapolation suggest that there is something inaccurate of misleading about these data. I'm even detecting a subtle implication that I'm either ignorant about these things or intentionally trying to mislead people.
To me, your argument seems roughly equivalent to critiquing a chart showing the relative maximum speeds of two cars (objective facts) by suggesting that the person who created the chart is trying to trick people into thinking that the effect of the different speeds is bigger (or smaller) that in actually is. That would not be a critique of the speed data presented. That is an accusation that someone else might not know how to accurately make use of the data or that there is some underlying nefarious motive in presenting these facts.
Finally, if you went to the website you mentioned and used it to calculate the data in my chart, how would the resulting chart data differ from what I have presented?
This is important. I don't take kindly repeated suggestions that I am being misleading or unethical, especially absent any evidence of where the information that I have presented is factually incorrect — but instead what starts to look like an ad hominem on my ethics or intelligence.
Dan
May 12, 2018 at 09:51 PM
Previous versions of gdanmitchell's message #14466093 « Hasselblad C 250 f/5.6 Superachromat on Fuji GFX »
