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

Started Nov 8, 2013 | Discussions
Great Bustard Forum Pro • Posts: 41,327
I believe it was you...
1

EinsteinsGhost wrote:

ultimitsu wrote:

Just another Canon shooter wrote:

EinsteinsGhost wrote:

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

Now, you tell me how the EVs for two different sensors affects the IQ.

He wont, he will dance around the question all day. How someone can be so driven to be uneducated is truly amazing. He has been schooled for over a hundred times on this issue and he still has no idea that exposure setting depends on light density while image quality depends on total light gathered. The two are different concepts entirely.

Obviously, your eyes are still wet. What has IQ got to do with f-stop and its effect on exposure values?

...who spoke of a strawman argument.  You see, no one has said that the same f-ratio and shutter speed results in a different exposure for a given scene on different formats.  But you keep strutting around like a cock in a henhouse as if you know something someone else doesn't.

What others have been explaining to you, on multiple occasions, is that it is not the exposure that matters, in terms of the visual properties of the photo, but the total amount of light that falls on the sensor.

Wakarimasuka ka wakarimasen?

EinsteinsGhost
EinsteinsGhost Forum Pro • Posts: 11,977
Re: Understand why the earlier 4/3 lenses were so large, and the current ones aren't

CharlesB58 wrote:

EinsteinsGhost wrote:

CharlesB58 wrote:

TrapperJohn wrote:

For a more accurate size comparison, use the µ43 size optimized lenses like the 45 1.8, 75 1.8, 12-40 constant F2.8, 12-35 constant F2.8, 20 1.7, 17 1.8, etc... they are very small for what they can do.

The m43 size benefits comes from its crop factor, just as a camera with 1/2.3" sensor can deliver a 35-600mm (equiv) f/2.8 zoom range, again due to crop factor. But, we could also compare lens sizes and weight by focal length (not equiv.).

Minolta 35-105 f/3.5-4.5 N, a full frame lens for example, was 60mm long, with 55mm filter size and weighed 290g. Whereas, Panasonic 35-105 f/2.8, a m43 lens, is 100mm long with 58mm filter size and weighs 360g. The Panasonic, of course, offers constant f/2.8 zoom which would account for the size gains but the point is ultimately with focal length itself, rather than equivalent FL.

Bad comparison. The Minolta lens doesn't have an af motor inside, whereas the Panasonic zoom does. It's not weather sealed. And that constant, larger aperture is a huge difference.

Try again...

Neither would play a significant role in size/weight.

Actually, they can, along with a number of other factors. Just because you don't know this, or don't think it needs to be included in your contrivances, doesn't mean it doesn't matter.

How much do you think they add to the size/weight of the lens (approx)? Significant?

 EinsteinsGhost's gear list:EinsteinsGhost's gear list
Sony Cyber-shot DSC-F828 Sony SLT-A55 Sony Alpha NEX-6 Sigma 18-250mm F3.5-6.3 DC OS HSM Sony 135mm F2.8 (T4.5) STF +12 more
Great Bustard Forum Pro • Posts: 41,327
Still "No comprendo", eh?
1

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...

Useless...

...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:

http://www.dpreview.com/forums/post/52491690

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

Just another Canon shooter
Just another Canon shooter Veteran Member • Posts: 4,691
Re: No dear...

EinsteinsGhost wrote:

Just another Canon shooter wrote:

EinsteinsGhost wrote:

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

Now, you tell me how the EVs for two different sensors affects the IQ.

If you want to learn that subject, create another thread on it.

For a moment, I took you for somebody who is just confused but is honestly looking for an answer. Nevermind.

 Just another Canon shooter's gear list:Just another Canon shooter's gear list
Canon EOS 5D Mark II Canon EF 15mm f/2.8 Fisheye Canon EF 35mm F1.4L USM Canon EF 50mm f/1.2L USM Canon EF 135mm F2L USM +4 more
EinsteinsGhost
EinsteinsGhost Forum Pro • Posts: 11,977
Re: Still "No comprendo", eh?

Great Bustard wrote:

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...

Useless...

...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.

Oh, don't worry, you've been the one on the stage.

...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.

Good. Let me continue to help you walk through this... and we will even assume the metering logic to be identical (based on a light meter) and the scene of course:

You have 35mm f/4 lens on APS-C and 50mm f/4 lens on FF. Now, what do you expect the shutter speeds to be?

 EinsteinsGhost's gear list:EinsteinsGhost's gear list
Sony Cyber-shot DSC-F828 Sony SLT-A55 Sony Alpha NEX-6 Sigma 18-250mm F3.5-6.3 DC OS HSM Sony 135mm F2.8 (T4.5) STF +12 more
EinsteinsGhost
EinsteinsGhost Forum Pro • Posts: 11,977
Re: No dear...

Just another Canon shooter wrote:

EinsteinsGhost wrote:

Just another Canon shooter wrote:

EinsteinsGhost wrote:

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

Now, you tell me how the EVs for two different sensors affects the IQ.

If you want to learn that subject, create another thread on it.

For a moment, I took you for somebody who is just confused but is honestly looking for an answer. Nevermind.

I can see why only confused people would go to people like you for answers.

 EinsteinsGhost's gear list:EinsteinsGhost's gear list
Sony Cyber-shot DSC-F828 Sony SLT-A55 Sony Alpha NEX-6 Sigma 18-250mm F3.5-6.3 DC OS HSM Sony 135mm F2.8 (T4.5) STF +12 more
EinsteinsGhost
EinsteinsGhost Forum Pro • Posts: 11,977
Re: I believe it was you...

Great Bustard wrote:

EinsteinsGhost wrote:

ultimitsu wrote:

Just another Canon shooter wrote:

EinsteinsGhost wrote:

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

Now, you tell me how the EVs for two different sensors affects the IQ.

He wont, he will dance around the question all day. How someone can be so driven to be uneducated is truly amazing. He has been schooled for over a hundred times on this issue and he still has no idea that exposure setting depends on light density while image quality depends on total light gathered. The two are different concepts entirely.

Obviously, your eyes are still wet. What has IQ got to do with f-stop and its effect on exposure values?

...who spoke of a strawman argument. You see, no one has said that the same f-ratio and shutter speed results in a different exposure for a given scene on different formats. But you keep strutting around like a cock in a henhouse as if you know something someone else doesn't.

What others have been explaining to you, on multiple occasions, is that it is not the exposure that matters, in terms of the visual properties of the photo, but the total amount of light that falls on the sensor.

Wakarimasuka ka wakarimasen?

One has wet eyes, another from the collective comes with soiled pants. Keep it clean, answer where you've been asked to, and with what you've asked.

 EinsteinsGhost's gear list:EinsteinsGhost's gear list
Sony Cyber-shot DSC-F828 Sony SLT-A55 Sony Alpha NEX-6 Sigma 18-250mm F3.5-6.3 DC OS HSM Sony 135mm F2.8 (T4.5) STF +12 more
Great Bustard Forum Pro • Posts: 41,327
Re: Still "No comprendo", eh?

EinsteinsGhost wrote:

Great Bustard wrote:

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...

Useless...

...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.

Oh, don't worry, you've been the one on the stage.

...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.

Good. Let me continue to help you walk through this... and we will even assume the metering logic to be identical (based on a light meter) and the scene of course:

You have 35mm f/4 lens on APS-C and 50mm f/4 lens on FF. Now, what do you expect the shutter speeds to be?

Let me direct you to this post upthread:

http://www.dpreview.com/forums/post/52491690

which answers all that, and is followed by a miserable and utter comprehension fail on your part. But, please, "entertain" us by linking and quoting *any* portion of that post that you feel to be incorrect.

I mean, it's plainly obvious that you wish to ignore the fact that you've missed that no one, and I do mean no one, has misunderstood what exposure is, and avoid admitting that the reality is that you have utterly failed, on multiple occasions, the connection between exposure and the visual properties of the resulting photo.

So, I ask once again, that you quote from the link above anything you feel to be incorrect in regards to exposure or anything else.

Of course, you know, I know, and everyone else reading knows, that what we'll see instead is more self-harming posts as you duck and weave.  The least you could do for us is put it to music.

Great Bustard Forum Pro • Posts: 41,327
Re: I believe it was you...

EinsteinsGhost wrote:

Great Bustard wrote:

EinsteinsGhost wrote:

ultimitsu wrote:

Just another Canon shooter wrote:

EinsteinsGhost wrote:

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

Now, you tell me how the EVs for two different sensors affects the IQ.

He wont, he will dance around the question all day. How someone can be so driven to be uneducated is truly amazing. He has been schooled for over a hundred times on this issue and he still has no idea that exposure setting depends on light density while image quality depends on total light gathered. The two are different concepts entirely.

Obviously, your eyes are still wet. What has IQ got to do with f-stop and its effect on exposure values?

...who spoke of a strawman argument. You see, no one has said that the same f-ratio and shutter speed results in a different exposure for a given scene on different formats. But you keep strutting around like a cock in a henhouse as if you know something someone else doesn't.

What others have been explaining to you, on multiple occasions, is that it is not the exposure that matters, in terms of the visual properties of the photo, but the total amount of light that falls on the sensor.

Wakarimasuka ka wakarimasen?

One has wet eyes, another from the collective comes with soiled pants. Keep it clean, answer where you've been asked to, and with what you've asked.

As I said -- your posts have no value other than sheer "entertainment", and even then you disappoint.

Sigh.

Well, from each according to their abilities, to each according to their needs, eh?

Great Bustard Forum Pro • Posts: 41,327
Do it.

EinsteinsGhost wrote:

Just another Canon shooter wrote:

EinsteinsGhost wrote:

Just another Canon shooter wrote:

EinsteinsGhost wrote:

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

Now, you tell me how the EVs for two different sensors affects the IQ.

If you want to learn that subject, create another thread on it.

For a moment, I took you for somebody who is just confused but is honestly looking for an answer. Nevermind.

I can see why only confused people would go to people like you for answers.

In fact, you are the only person confused. I ask again for you to quote *anything* from this post further up in the subthread that you feel to be incorrect:

http://www.dpreview.com/forums/post/52491690

You know, I know, and everyone else knows, that you no can do, and are instead going to dodge the issue, as you have over and over.

Now, quote from the link what you feel is in error. Do it.

EinsteinsGhost
EinsteinsGhost Forum Pro • Posts: 11,977
Re: Still "No comprendo", eh?

Great Bustard wrote:

EinsteinsGhost wrote:

Good. Let me continue to help you walk through this... and we will even assume the metering logic to be identical (based on a light meter) and the scene of course:

You have 35mm f/4 lens on APS-C and 50mm f/4 lens on FF. Now, what do you expect the shutter speeds to be?

Let me direct you to this post upthread:

http://www.dpreview.com/forums/post/52491690

which answers all that, and is followed by a miserable and utter comprehension fail on your part.

No, it resumes the Great Bustard run around (in circles). The question is simple enough, and shouldn't take much more than a sentence. Heck, I will make it even simpler for you to answer with a yes, or a no:

35mm f/4 on APS-C for a scene versus 50mm f/4 lens on FF for the scene, do you expect shutter speed to be about twice as fast for the FF?

 EinsteinsGhost's gear list:EinsteinsGhost's gear list
Sony Cyber-shot DSC-F828 Sony SLT-A55 Sony Alpha NEX-6 Sigma 18-250mm F3.5-6.3 DC OS HSM Sony 135mm F2.8 (T4.5) STF +12 more
EinsteinsGhost
EinsteinsGhost Forum Pro • Posts: 11,977
Your desperation is rather amusing. n/t

Great Bustard wrote:

EinsteinsGhost wrote:

Just another Canon shooter wrote:

EinsteinsGhost wrote:

Just another Canon shooter wrote:

EinsteinsGhost wrote:

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

Now, you tell me how the EVs for two different sensors affects the IQ.

If you want to learn that subject, create another thread on it.

For a moment, I took you for somebody who is just confused but is honestly looking for an answer. Nevermind.

I can see why only confused people would go to people like you for answers.

In fact, you are the only person confused. I ask again for you to quote *anything* from this post further up in the subthread that you feel to be incorrect:

http://www.dpreview.com/forums/post/52491690

You know, I know, and everyone else knows, that you no can do, and are instead going to dodge the issue, as you have over and over.

Now, quote from the link what you feel is in error. Do it.

 EinsteinsGhost's gear list:EinsteinsGhost's gear list
Sony Cyber-shot DSC-F828 Sony SLT-A55 Sony Alpha NEX-6 Sigma 18-250mm F3.5-6.3 DC OS HSM Sony 135mm F2.8 (T4.5) STF +12 more
Just another Canon shooter
Just another Canon shooter Veteran Member • Posts: 4,691
Re: Still "No comprendo", eh?

EinsteinsGhost wrote:

35mm f/4 on APS-C for a scene versus 50mm f/4 lens on FF for the scene, do you expect shutter speed to be about twice as fast for the FF?

Depends who is shooting. You would not know what to do, I can tell that much.

 Just another Canon shooter's gear list:Just another Canon shooter's gear list
Canon EOS 5D Mark II Canon EF 15mm f/2.8 Fisheye Canon EF 35mm F1.4L USM Canon EF 50mm f/1.2L USM Canon EF 135mm F2L USM +4 more
EinsteinsGhost
EinsteinsGhost Forum Pro • Posts: 11,977
Re: I believe it was you...

Great Bustard wrote:

EinsteinsGhost wrote:

Great Bustard wrote:

EinsteinsGhost wrote:

ultimitsu wrote:

Just another Canon shooter wrote:

EinsteinsGhost wrote:

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

Now, you tell me how the EVs for two different sensors affects the IQ.

He wont, he will dance around the question all day. How someone can be so driven to be uneducated is truly amazing. He has been schooled for over a hundred times on this issue and he still has no idea that exposure setting depends on light density while image quality depends on total light gathered. The two are different concepts entirely.

Obviously, your eyes are still wet. What has IQ got to do with f-stop and its effect on exposure values?

...who spoke of a strawman argument. You see, no one has said that the same f-ratio and shutter speed results in a different exposure for a given scene on different formats. But you keep strutting around like a cock in a henhouse as if you know something someone else doesn't.

What others have been explaining to you, on multiple occasions, is that it is not the exposure that matters, in terms of the visual properties of the photo, but the total amount of light that falls on the sensor.

Wakarimasuka ka wakarimasen?

One has wet eyes, another from the collective comes with soiled pants. Keep it clean, answer where you've been asked to, and with what you've asked.

As I said -- your posts have no value other than sheer "entertainment", and even then you disappoint.

Sigh.

Well, from each according to their abilities, to each according to their needs, eh?

Actually, in this latest sequence, entertainment at the expense of your collective has been the point. Now if I had something to discuss...

 EinsteinsGhost's gear list:EinsteinsGhost's gear list
Sony Cyber-shot DSC-F828 Sony SLT-A55 Sony Alpha NEX-6 Sigma 18-250mm F3.5-6.3 DC OS HSM Sony 135mm F2.8 (T4.5) STF +12 more
EinsteinsGhost
EinsteinsGhost Forum Pro • Posts: 11,977
Re: Still "No comprendo", eh?

Just another Canon shooter wrote:

EinsteinsGhost wrote:

35mm f/4 on APS-C for a scene versus 50mm f/4 lens on FF for the scene, do you expect shutter speed to be about twice as fast for the FF?

Depends who is shooting. You would not know what to do, I can tell that much.

Let us assume you know how to shoot... would you know? And if you would... what would you expect?

 EinsteinsGhost's gear list:EinsteinsGhost's gear list
Sony Cyber-shot DSC-F828 Sony SLT-A55 Sony Alpha NEX-6 Sigma 18-250mm F3.5-6.3 DC OS HSM Sony 135mm F2.8 (T4.5) STF +12 more
Great Bustard Forum Pro • Posts: 41,327
Re: Still "No comprendo", eh?

EinsteinsGhost wrote:

Great Bustard wrote:

EinsteinsGhost wrote:

Good. Let me continue to help you walk through this... and we will even assume the metering logic to be identical (based on a light meter) and the scene of course:

You have 35mm f/4 lens on APS-C and 50mm f/4 lens on FF. Now, what do you expect the shutter speeds to be?

Let me direct you to this post upthread:

http://www.dpreview.com/forums/post/52491690

which answers all that, and is followed by a miserable and utter comprehension fail on your part.

No, it resumes the Great Bustard run around (in circles). The question is simple enough, and shouldn't take much more than a sentence. Heck, I will make it even simpler for you to answer with a yes, or a no:

35mm f/4 on APS-C for a scene versus 50mm f/4 lens on FF for the scene, do you expect shutter speed to be about twice as fast for the FF?

Since you are both incapable and unwilling, I shall quote from the link for you:

++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++

The answer I gave before was:

http://www.josephjamesphotography.com/equivalence/index.htm#exposure

This section will answer the following four questions:

  • For a given scene, what is the difference in exposure, if any, between f/2.8 1/200 ISO 400 and f/5.6 1/200 ISO 1600?
  • What role does the ISO setting play?
  • What role does the sensor size play?
  • What does any of this have to do with the visual properties of the photo?

As mentioned in the introduction of this essay, the concept of Equivalence is controversial because it replaces the paradigm of exposure, and its agent, f-ratio, with a new paradigm of total light, and its agent, aperture. The first step in explaining this paradigm shift is to define exposure, brightness, and total light.

Now let me flesh it out by quoting more from the link:

Mathematically, we can express these four quantities rather simply:

  • Exposure (photons / mm²) = Sensor Illuminance (photons / mm² / s) · Time (s)
  • Brightness (photons / mm²) = Exposure (photons / mm²) · Amplification (unitless)
  • Total Light (photons) = Exposure (photons / mm²) · Effective Sensor Area (mm²)
  • Total Light Collected (electrons) = Total Light (photons) · QE (electrons / photon)

So, we can now answer the questions posed at the beginning of the section:

The exposure (light per area on the sensor) at f/2.8 1/100 ISO 100 is 4x as great as f/5.6 1/100 ISO 400 for a given scene luminance, regardless of the focal length or the sensor size. However, the brightness for the two photos will be the same since the 4x lower exposure is brightened 4x as much by the higher ISO setting. If the sensor that the f/5.6 photo was recorded on has 4x the area as the sensor as the f/2.8 photo (e.g. FF vs mFT), then the same total amount of light will fall on both sensors, which will result in the same noise for equally efficient sensors (discussed in the next section).

If you are still confused, please let us know.

++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++

Now, are you honestly telling us that you lack the cognitive capacity to understand that the above says that 35mm f/4 on APS-C and 50mm f/4 on FF will meter for the same shutter speed assuming the camera's meters meter in the same manner?

Are you honestly telling us that you cannot understand that the exposures, while the same, will result in over twice as much light falling on the FF sensor (as well as a more narrow DOF on FF), and that this is why FF has less noise than APS-C for a given exposure and sensor efficiency?

Are you honestly going to dig your hole that much deeper with such self-harming posts? Wow. Well, it takes all kinds, I suppose.

Great Bustard Forum Pro • Posts: 41,327
Re: I believe it was you...

EinsteinsGhost wrote:

Great Bustard wrote:

EinsteinsGhost wrote:

Great Bustard wrote:

EinsteinsGhost wrote:

ultimitsu wrote:

Just another Canon shooter wrote:

EinsteinsGhost wrote:

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

Now, you tell me how the EVs for two different sensors affects the IQ.

He wont, he will dance around the question all day. How someone can be so driven to be uneducated is truly amazing. He has been schooled for over a hundred times on this issue and he still has no idea that exposure setting depends on light density while image quality depends on total light gathered. The two are different concepts entirely.

Obviously, your eyes are still wet. What has IQ got to do with f-stop and its effect on exposure values?

...who spoke of a strawman argument. You see, no one has said that the same f-ratio and shutter speed results in a different exposure for a given scene on different formats. But you keep strutting around like a cock in a henhouse as if you know something someone else doesn't.

What others have been explaining to you, on multiple occasions, is that it is not the exposure that matters, in terms of the visual properties of the photo, but the total amount of light that falls on the sensor.

Wakarimasuka ka wakarimasen?

One has wet eyes, another from the collective comes with soiled pants. Keep it clean, answer where you've been asked to, and with what you've asked.

As I said -- your posts have no value other than sheer "entertainment", and even then you disappoint.

Sigh.

Well, from each according to their abilities, to each according to their needs, eh?

Actually, in this latest sequence, entertainment at the expense of your collective has been the point. Now if I had something to discuss...

Indeed.  If you only had something to discuss.  But you don't, so...

Great Bustard Forum Pro • Posts: 41,327
As I thought -- no can do.

EinsteinsGhost wrote:

Great Bustard wrote:

EinsteinsGhost wrote:

Just another Canon shooter wrote:

EinsteinsGhost wrote:

Just another Canon shooter wrote:

EinsteinsGhost wrote:

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

Now, you tell me how the EVs for two different sensors affects the IQ.

If you want to learn that subject, create another thread on it.

For a moment, I took you for somebody who is just confused but is honestly looking for an answer. Nevermind.

I can see why only confused people would go to people like you for answers.

In fact, you are the only person confused. I ask again for you to quote *anything* from this post further up in the subthread that you feel to be incorrect:

http://www.dpreview.com/forums/post/52491690

You know, I know, and everyone else knows, that you no can do, and are instead going to dodge the issue, as you have over and over.

Now, quote from the link what you feel is in error. Do it.

So, I did it for you:

http://www.dpreview.com/forums/post/52502613

Seriously, doesn't it hurt?  Even a little?

Just another Canon shooter
Just another Canon shooter Veteran Member • Posts: 4,691
Re: Still "No comprendo", eh?

EinsteinsGhost wrote:

Just another Canon shooter wrote:

EinsteinsGhost wrote:

35mm f/4 on APS-C for a scene versus 50mm f/4 lens on FF for the scene, do you expect shutter speed to be about twice as fast for the FF?

Depends who is shooting. You would not know what to do, I can tell that much.

Let us assume you know how to shoot... would you know? And if you would... what would you expect?

As I said, depends what you want. SS is up to the photographer and it is not determined by the FL and the aperture. If I do choose a faster speed with FF, I will get the same noise. If I choose the same speed, I will get a cleaner image. But once you chose the same vs. equivalent apertures, the two images are not going to look alike, whatever SS you choose.

I am again pretending that I believe you that you want to learn.

 Just another Canon shooter's gear list:Just another Canon shooter's gear list
Canon EOS 5D Mark II Canon EF 15mm f/2.8 Fisheye Canon EF 35mm F1.4L USM Canon EF 50mm f/1.2L USM Canon EF 135mm F2L USM +4 more
ultimitsu
ultimitsu Veteran Member • Posts: 6,650
Re: Still "No comprendo", eh?
1

EinsteinsGhost wrote:

35mm f/4 on APS-C for a scene versus 50mm f/4 lens on FF for the scene, do you expect shutter speed to be about twice as fast for the FF?

The very construct of the question itself shows your ignorance of the basics of photography. The FF camera can use any shutter speed the photographer wants, the shutter speed the photographer "expects" is one that is decided by the photographer, while different shutter speed generates different result.

Using the same shutter speed, the FF collects twice as much light, depending on the level of saturation of photon sites, it could mean FF image is significantly better, for example if both were at ISO1600.

Using half the shutter time, the FF collects the same amount of light as the APS-C, provided the two sensors are of the same technology, they will produce images of the same quality.

Keyboard shortcuts:
FForum MMy threads