Ex2F : when F1.8 just wont cut it

Just delivered by Postie

Usual low light test.

Ex2F @ 24mm <> ISO100 1/125th F1.4

Apsc @ 16mm <> ISO1600 1/125th F4

(24mm equivalent typical F value 16mm Apsc lens).

//

I really can't see myself lugging Giant 16mm F1.4

Ex1 F1.8 quite possibly my favourite night camera, replaced by Young Turk Ex2F.

I don't follow your equivalence.

tecnoworld wrote:

I don't follow your equivalence.

That last post is just the max aperture of the EX2F as you zoom out.

oh ok.

But in the first?

tecnoworld wrote:

oh ok.

But in the first?

I'm not sure about the first post. The EX2F is 7.60 x 5.70mm vs APS-C which is 23.60 x 15.60mm. That's closer to 3 stops than 4. So F2.8 rather than F4 is the equivalent?

I'm not sure if equivalency is all about sensor size though? Doesn't sensor efficiency and megapixels also play a part?

I think 5.2mm f1.4 on 1/1.7 sensor should be 16mm f4.5 on nx.

tecnoworld wrote:

I think 5.2mm f1.4 on 1/1.7 sensor should be 16mm f4.5 on nx.

Would it be approximately correct to say that the Ex2f at f1.4 would give a DOF equal to f4.5 when compared to NX? Noise at low light would then be greater as well because of less available light. However, required ISO and shutter speeds would be based on the f1.4 rather than the f4.5 equivalent? So you could use a faster shutter speed in low light as compared to a NX with same ISO setting with aperture set at f4.5 on a 16mm focal length?The advantage of this f1.4 would be less motion blur and the disadvantage would be more noise and a greater DOF?

Now when you compare with, say, a nx200-300 and a 16mm f2.4 pancake

Not in the equivalence calculation, no. That's kind of the point, that for sensors of roughly the same tech level we can make good estimates. They're quite valid things to consider when buying a camera, but they're not a part of equivalence for good reasons.

Kinger wrote:

tecnoworld wrote:

I think 5.2mm f1.4 on 1/1.7 sensor should be 16mm f4.5 on nx.

Would it be approximately correct to say that the Ex2f at f1.4 would give a DOF equal to f4.5 when compared to NX? Noise at low light would then be greater as well because of less available light. However, required ISO and shutter speeds would be based on the f1.4 rather than the f4.5 equivalent? So you could use a faster shutter speed in low light as compared to a NX with same ISO setting with aperture set at f4.5 on a 16mm focal length?The advantage of this f1.4 would be less motion blur and the disadvantage would be more noise and a greater DOF?

If you're using the same iso, then yes, but nothing says you have to use the same iso and they won't be equivalent photos if you are.

jacketpotato wrote:

norman shearer wrote:

tecnoworld wrote:

oh ok.

But in the first?

I'm not sure about the first post. The EX2F is 7.60 x 5.70mm vs APS-C which is 23.60 x 15.60mm. That's closer to 3 stops than 4. So F2.8 rather than F4 is the equivalent?

I'm not sure if equivalency is all about sensor size though? Doesn't sensor efficiency and megapixels also play a part?

Just a basic thing I tested when I had Ex1, I tested with Ex2F and my Apsc.

Semi Darkened room (toilet ):

Ex2F enables 1/125th ISO100 at F1.4 24mm, whereas my Apsc with lens F4 required ISO1600 for 1/125th (typical 16mm or 18mm lens usually starts at F3.5) .

Much more comfortable for me to carry Ex2F than a Giant £700 F1.4 16mm apsc lens

That doesn't follow from that at all. You're getting confused.