A few words on Equivalence and comparing systems

Started Apr 2, 2013 | Discussions thread
 Like? 2
 Re: On "f/2.8 = f/2.8" and "being anal" In reply to Alumna Gorp, Apr 3, 2013

Alumna Gorp wrote:

Great Bustard wrote:

Alumna Gorp wrote:

Great Bustard wrote:

Alumna Gorp wrote:

"in other words, simply because 35-100mm f/2.8 on mFT is equivalent to 70-200mm f/5.6 on FF"

Jeez man, not again, a 2.8`s, a 2.8 unless your being anal.

Saying "f/2.8 = f/2.8" is no more or less true than saying "50mm = 50mm".  In other words, it makes no more sense to compare f/2.8 on mFT to f/2.8 on FF than it does to compare 50mm on mFT to 50mm on FF.

Nope a 2.8 is a 2.8, any light meter will tell you so

50mm = 50mm -- any lens will tell you so.

Not just DOF, but the total amount of light projected on the sensor for a given shutter speed.  For example, 50mm f/2.8 1/100 projects four times as much light on the sensor as 25mm f/2.8 1/100 on mFT (resulting in half the noise for equally efficient sensors), or, alternatively, 50mm f/5.6 1/100 on FF projects the same total amount of light on the sensor as 25mm f/2.8 1/100 on mFT (which will result in the same noise for equally efficient sensors).

So, instead of quoting numbers without knowing what these numbers have to do with the visual properties of the final photo, you might wish to instead consider how these numbers relate to the visual properties of the final photo.

I`m a bloody artist not a ******* scientist

Then why do you get involved in the discussion for the first place???  Was it very difficult to understand from OP that the discussion was going to be of technical nature.

Get a life......

You have a life because some people chose Engineering as their career path. Not everything in universe could be done by taking artistic route.

-- hide signature --

::> Knowledge is mother of efficiency.

Complain
Post ()
Keyboard shortcuts: