APSC has better lowlight than FF/FF is more compact than APSC/APSC math is just a marketing gimmick

I read your whole post
Your a better man than me ...
It's no different that some of the other run-on stuff that has been posted here and gotten 15 thumbs up. At least this one has cute pictures rather 40 pages of small white print on a black background.
and I'm still not sure what point you are trying to make,
I have NO IDEA what his point is ...
or what math you think is incorrect. It seems like you need to go back to basics and start by learning what an f/stop is.
 
I thought there is a max length to posts on dpr. Either there isn't, or the OP found a way around it, or it is much linger than I thought.
 
OP is spot on. Here's a cat pic that proves it.





c3c8acbc5c8847099173baa0406c5830.jpg
 
I read it to the end.

I can't say I agree with everything you said, but I appreciate the effort you took to write all this and to draw the illustrations.

You need to be more precise in your conclusions. For example:
I don't think it's precision he needs to do better; it's accuracy. The things you point to below (like much if not all of what he says) is simply wrong.
"Lets quickly recap.
Smaller sensors require more optics to focus the circle of light (Image) down to correctly cover the sensor."


- What exactly is "more optics"? Does covering APS-C image circle require a larger front elements? - No. More elements / groups? - No. More diopters - a.k.a. shorter equivalent focal length - Yes, but this does not mean "more optics". And what is "circle of light (image)"?

"Sensor size has no effect on crop factor, focal length, compression, depth of field and of course the total amount of light per pixel."

- Sensor size, in relation to other standard sensor sizes, defines crop factor, and dictates the necessary lens focal length and aperture to achieve the desired equivalent DOF and amount of light per pixel.
 
I knew it would be an absolutely brand new forum identity from the title.

No, I'm not reading it.

There is a way of getting people to read things and 10,000 word posts and cartoon pictures are not it, for me.
Astonishingly there are 5,700 words - within the DPR limit. Which makes me wonder if the limit should be reduced, even though very few people bother to waste so much effort using it up.
 
Some hints:
  • Brush up on your algebra and geometry.
  • Don’t round results and then become upset when the math doesn’t give you good results.
  • Learn the terminology before commenting on it.
  • How about just having a short, simple introduction to yourself for you first posting here?
  • Telling everyone that they are wrong is hardly a good way to ingratiate yourself to them, especially if you ever plan on coming back. Also, consider that you may misunderstand what’s happening.
Telling everybody that they are wrong is common practice by the very learned group on this forum. Why pick on the OP?
 
Aperture & f-stop Myths Debunked: The Importance of the Entrance Pupil
Gerald Undone (Published on Sep 24, 2018)
For a start, this guy has no idea of what he's talking about.

For example a zoom lens with a constant f-ratio (commonly referred to as a fixed aperture zoom) will change the physical aperture size as you zoom in and out over the focal length range.
That depends on what you mean by 'the physical aperture size'. In general, in such zooms the size of the opening in the diaphragm does not change as the lens zooms. The optical power of the lens group in front of the aperture stop changes as the lens zooms, so that the apparent size of the opening as seen through the front of the lens (the entrance pupil) changes. The main difference between a fixed f-number zoom and a variable f-number zoom is that the former effects the zoom action using only the elements in front of the aperture stop, whilst the latter uses movable groups either side of the aperture stop, which makes possible more compact designs.
 
... <a mountain of typing and drawings> ...

... We now understand why APSC Glass is more expensive relative to FF Glass ...
It probably is if you expect to always be able to obtain equivalent results on both formats. Good thing those of us who use smaller formats recognize reality and accept some practical limitations regarding what to expect in exchange for lower prices and overall smaller/lighter body/lens combinations. That could have been explained (actually has been explained in the past) in about 1/10 the time and space you used.

BTW, what was your DPR username before today?
 
Last edited:
You post is incorrect.
 
All too often it is the true geniuses that are not recognized during their time.
 

Keyboard shortcuts

Back
Top