From Canon 6D to mirrorless

Started 4 months ago | Discussions thread
Rado R Forum Member • Posts: 50
Re: From Canon 6D to mirrorless

ecka84 wrote:

Rado R wrote:

ecka84 wrote:

Rado R wrote:

ChelseaPhotographer wrote:

Rado R wrote:

ChelseaPhotographer wrote:

Rado R wrote:

ChelseaPhotographer wrote:

Rado R wrote:

ChelseaPhotographer wrote:

ecka84 wrote:

Unfortunately, you and many others (including your suggested youtuber) are terrible at math. Because FF 24-105F4 is equivalent to APS-C 16-70F2.6. Not F4.

So, how big is and how much does the XF 16-55F2.8 weight? Same goes with XF 50-140F2.8, which is simply "destroyed" by the faster, smaller, better and cheaper FF 70-200F4.

Learn equivalence. Don't believe lies.

LOL, I'm loving your posts. It is so true. An f/2.8 lens in APS-C is slower than f/4 in full-frame... And when you compare, say a Fuji X-T4 with a 16-55 f/2.8 with a Sony A7RIII and the Tamron 28-75 f/2.8 they are almost the same size, and obviously the Sony destroys the Fuji in every way (except colors!) ;p

I'm glad you're loving how wrong he is. The type of photography matters. A lot.

The OP uses 17-40 f4 on FF. That's 84x97mm, 475g

The landscape equivalent on fuji is the 10-24 f4 which is 78x87mm, 410g.

These are actually pretty close in size, though the fuji is still smaller and lighter and it has OIS to boot. This will allow the OP to actually shoot in darker conditions handheld.

So for *landscape*, the lenses are smaller!

I think you will find that the one who is incorrect is you. An f/4 APS-C lens is equivalent to f/6.1 in full frame.

Depends what you mean by equivalent. One can argue that they can never be equivalent due to different perspective, but I digress.

So the FF 17-40 is more than 1 f-stop brighter than the Fuji.

Nope. They are exactly as bright in the same area of the sensor. The only difference is that the FF has *more* light, but this light exposes a *different* part of the sensor and therefore it is not any more brighter at the individual pixel. Therefore, your exposure will be exactly the same at the same fstop. Try it. I would love you to prove me wrong.

You are not really comparing apples to apples. And since the fuji lenses are a slower, you need longer shutter speeds...

No, you don't need longer shutter speed. Exactly the same intensity of light hits the individual sensor pixels.

No, you are getting a lot more photons because of the larger area of the sensor, and no, if I take a photograph with an APS-C camera at f/2.8, in order to get the same image with a full frame camera I would have to close the aperture to f/4. And if instead I shoot at f/2.8 with the full frame, I will have to make my shutter speed 1 f-stop faster, otherwise the image will be 1 f-stop lighter than that of the APS-C camera... <sigh>

Again, I appreciate the comments of ecka84 because, unlike you, they know what they are talking about...

Lol! It's funny that you think you know what you're talking about. Yet, you are talking about an entirely different thing.

Ok, I'll bite.

Yes, if you want to take the "exact same image" (which is actually impossible due to the different perspective of the different focal lengths) you will need to take into account aperture because of the depth of field.

... here comes the big BUT...

But, if you read the OP, we're actually talking about landscape photography here.

This is important! It is, in fact, the key point.

Have you ever done landscape photography? How important do you think shallow depth of field is for landscape photography?

It's not! Landscape photographers usually shoot stopped down. F8 or even higher.

So ... let's revise what "exact same image" means with respect to landscape photography. It means:

1) same field of view

2) same exposure.

Depth of field is irrelevant.

Now, answer this: how come there is no focal length in the exposure triangle? Do light meters care about how big is your sensor?

The answer is no, sensor size and focal lengths don't matter for exposure.

Now ... how about field of view?

Yes, that matters. A 24mm on FF will have the same field of view as a 16mm on 1.5x crop sensor.

Therefore, for LANDSCAPE photographer, the "exact same image" can be taken with:

- Full Frame at 24mm, f4, ISO 100, and 1/60

- Crop Frame at 16mm, f4, ISO 100, and 1/60

But you don't have to believe me. Try it. Maybe you'll learn something.

OMG. Pretty much everything you said is incorrect. I am not here to educate you and this is getting tiresome. But I will try one last time. Start with the last part. You say these two images will be the same...

- Full Frame at 24mm, f4, ISO 100, and 1/60

- Crop Frame at 16mm, f4, ISO 100, and 1/60

...but you are incorrect. The full frame image will be 1 f-stop brighter than the APS-C image. (I don't know if you have an APS-C and a full frame camera, but if you do, please just take the picture before you keep on going on...)

Lets keep the APS-C settings as a given

- Crop Frame at 16mm, f4, ISO 100, and 1/60

In order to get "the same" lightness in the image from the full frame camera you can do any of the following:

- Full Frame at 24mm, f/6.1, ISO 100, and 1/60

- Full Frame at 24mm, f4, ISO 50, and 1/60

- Full Frame at 24mm, f4, ISO 100, and 1/120

If you don't understand this, then you are simply not getting it. The change in aperture is not so that you have the same depth of field, although it is a byproduct. It is so that you halve the exposure of the full frame camera so that you have the same lightness.

Sorry, you're wrong. Both images will be just as bright (assuming both cameras have the same iso "sensitivity")

The only differences will be perspective and DoF. That's it.

Think about it. It seems you know the exposure triangle...

Think about it!

ISO... aperture ... shutter speed. That's it!

I can make shots with crop and FF later to show you, but someone else will likely chime in before then. Anyway, you can even do the experiment yourself with any camera that has a zoom lens:

1) Frame and expose a scene

2) Lock in your exposure

3) Take a photo

4) With the exposure still locked and the camera in the same position, change the focal length

5) Take another photo

6) Compare the exposure of the same area in both photos. It will have the same brightness

Edit: Here, I found a YT video you can also watch:

Actually you both are missing the equivalent ISO part while reproducing the same image on different format cameras.

APS-C 16mm F2.8 ISO160 1/60 = FF 24mm F4.3 ISO400 1/60

APS-C 16mm F4 ISO160 1/60 = FF 24mm F6.1 ISO400 1/60

APS-C 16mm F8 ISO160 1/60 = FF 24mm F12 ISO400 1/60

FF 24mm F4 ISO100 1/60 = APS-C 16mm F2.6 ISO43 1/60

FF 24mm F2.8 ISO100 1/60 = APS-C 16mm F1.8 ISO43 1/60

FF 24mm F8 ISO100 1/60 = APS-C 16mm F5.2 ISO43 1/60

Unfortunately, you might not get the same brightness in practice, because Fuji cheats with ISO and you will get darker images.

Edit: You should watch that video. Proves my point.

Lol. Did you even watch the video?

I did watch that video when it was new. But you definitely didn't watch it.

He was normalizing the focal length to achieve the same DoF. Nothing more, nothing less.

That's not what happened. Go watch the video.

The exposure was exactly the same with the same settings.

Which is irrelevant. If all you care about is getting the same exposure by setting the same numbers in cameras, then you have no right to teach photography to anyone. Because you know nothing about it.

Only DoF was different.

Not only DoF. Noise was different too. Framing was different. Resolution was different. Go watch the video.

You would have a point if OP cared about DoF.

DoF is just a side effect. Stop suggesting that it is the only FF advantage.

But you don't. Landscape photographers don't care about DoF!

You are wrong. Once again.

Watch again 2:10 ... look at the exposures.

Watch again 5:20 ...

And at 2:20, he has it spelled out just for you with big letters: "Sensor size does not affect the brightness or the exposure of the image"

Which is true, while irrelevant in sensor size comparison. Sensor size affects light gathering, image quality, framing and distance to subject. Which is pretty much all of it, everything that makes the difference.

I would have said "good try", but after so many posts, it is a bit like beating a death horse.

I'm charging my old apsc and I'll post photos later for educational purposes.

Sure. Do that. Maybe you will learn something.

Lol ... I mentioned earlier regarding IQ and perspective, so good try at changing the subject.

Let's try and pay attention here.

We are talking about landscape photography and exposures. Not DoF, not IQ, not perspective, not high ISO performance, not dynamic range, not resolution. Just exposure.

Are we on the same page?

Now ...

A landscape photographer wanting to capture the same photo (or close enough ... see the not(s) above) with the same settings on different sensor cameras only has to change the focal length to compensate for the crop factor. That's it. DoF is irrelevant when you want your entire image to be sharp. Actually less shallow DoF is usually preferable.

I posted a test with the same camera above that simulates sensor crop factor. Check it out.

 Rado R's gear list:Rado R's gear list
Canon EOS 450D Canon EOS 6D Canon EF 50mm F1.4 USM Canon EF 70-200mm F4L USM Canon EF 100mm f/2.8 Macro USM +5 more
Post (hide subjects) Posted by
Keyboard shortcuts:
FForum PPrevious NNext WNext unread UUpvote SSubscribe RReply QQuote BBookmark MMy threads
Color scheme? Blue / Yellow