I think the notion of FF = heavier lens may not be true

Started Nov 8, 2013 | Discussions thread
Great Bustard Forum Pro • Posts: 40,599
Still "No comprendo", eh?

EinsteinsGhost wrote:

Great Bustard wrote:

EinsteinsGhost wrote:

Great Bustard wrote:

EinsteinsGhost wrote:

Great Bustard wrote:

EinsteinsGhost wrote:

Perhaps that realization is leading you to your usual run about. This was the question you didn't answer:

Put 200/2.8 on a FF camera, take note of your exposure variables. Turn crop mode on (I understand Canon can't do it, but Sony and Nikon allow it). Do you expect exposure values to be off by a stop?

The answer I gave before was...


...to people who lack the ability and/or are unwilling, to understand.

Straw man arguments come from those who have reached the end of line. So please try to turn around and get on the right track.

Your lack of cognitive capacity does not make the facts a strawman argument.

Feeling cornered, again?

At this point of the game, "entertained" is how I'm feeling. Thanks for not charging us for the show.

...and nothing to do with the question.

If that were so, then we'd be left with one of two situations:

  • The question is meaningless in terms of the visual properties of the photo.
  • The question ignores the context of what role the exposure plays in the visual properties of the photo.

The question is a question. Now, that it doesn't help your propaganda makes you go in circles and such inane arguments remain your signature.

Either you lack the cognitive capacity to understand that the same exposure has a different effect on different formats, or you are being intentionally disingenuous.

Same exposure? I guess we're getting something from you... sort of.

Um, link and quote where anyone said or implied otherwise. No can do? Yeah...

So, what are these numbers? Looking for your awareness.

Well, ISO 125 means that the brightness of the captured photo is amplified by 1/3 of a stop. f/4 means that the diameter of the lens aperture was 1/4 the focal length of the lens. 1/800 means the sensor was exposed to the light for 1/800 of a second.

What do you think the numbers mean?

Exposure values. Now, tell me, how would sensor size change any of these.

Again, your lack of cognitive capacity and/or disingenuous motives shine through. No one said that the sensor size changes the exposure.

Good. So, why do these self professed experts on the subject keep hammering the opposite?

Link and quote. That is, I want a link to the post where someone said otherwise and a quote of where they said it.

In other words, you agree, that if you have f/4 in aperture priority, you would expect 1/800s, regardless of the sensor, right?

Assuming the same scene and metering. Who has said, or implied, otherwise? Link and quote. Do it. For reference:


Oh, that kind of hurts, doesn't it?  Nah -- "entertainers", in my experience, don't feel any pain.

Post (hide subjects) Posted by
(unknown member)
(unknown member)
(unknown member)
Keyboard shortcuts:
FForum PPrevious NNext WNext unread UUpvote SSubscribe RReply QQuote BBookmark MMy threads
Color scheme? Blue / Yellow