From Canon 6D to mirrorless

Started 5 months ago | Discussions
Rado R Forum Member • Posts: 50
Re: From Canon 6D to mirrorless
1

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.

I said they are equivalent when it comes to landscape! For landscape photos, you care only about how wide is the lens and not speed or shallow depth of field. Most landscape photographers actually stop down to get best lens sharpness!

An exposure on crop at f4 is exactly the same as an exposure on FF at f4. You will get more light on FF, but that doesn't change your exposure as the extra light hits *different* pixels. The center pixels (where the crop sensor would be) are hit at exactly the same intensity on FF.

Try it - same ISO, same SS, same sensor, same aperture. Take one photo at 24mm and one at 16mm and then crop to the 24mm equivalence. Except for dof, perspective and IQ due to the resizing, the exposures will be exactly the same assuming that the lighting conditions did not change. Then, come back and tell me how terrible at math I am again.

 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
Cato1040
Cato1040 Veteran Member • Posts: 3,967
Re: From Canon 6D to mirrorless

Rado R 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.

I said they are equivalent when it comes to landscape! For landscape photos, you care only about how wide is the lens and not speed or shallow depth of field. Most landscape photographers actually stop down to get best lens sharpness!

An exposure on crop at f4 is exactly the same as an exposure on FF at f4. You will get more light on FF, but that doesn't change your exposure as the extra light hits *different* pixels. The center pixels (where the crop sensor would be) are hit at exactly the same intensity on FF.

Try it - same ISO, same SS, same sensor, same aperture. Take one photo at 24mm and one at 16mm and then crop to the 24mm equivalence. Except for dof, perspective and IQ due to the resizing, the exposures will be exactly the same assuming that the lighting conditions did not change. Then, come back and tell me how terrible at math I am again.

Equivalence is tricky and depends on what you're looking for.

Yes, the same SS, same aperture, and same ISO (the biggest variable) and the exposure should be the same; but when you use a smaller sensor or crop into a smaller sensor, as you mentioned before, you lose overall light, which can decrease the signal to noise ratio.

Whether that is to the point where the user cares about it or not is another issue.

Also, if one would significantly need to stop down their aperture to increase the depth of field on a larger vs a smaller sensor could be another factor (though focus stacking can also be an option).

 Cato1040's gear list:Cato1040's gear list
Olympus Stylus Tough TG-850 iHS Fujifilm X100T Panasonic LX10 Sony a6000 Sony a7 III +18 more
Rado R Forum Member • Posts: 50
Re: From Canon 6D to mirrorless

Cato1040 wrote:

Rado R 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.

I said they are equivalent when it comes to landscape! For landscape photos, you care only about how wide is the lens and not speed or shallow depth of field. Most landscape photographers actually stop down to get best lens sharpness!

An exposure on crop at f4 is exactly the same as an exposure on FF at f4. You will get more light on FF, but that doesn't change your exposure as the extra light hits *different* pixels. The center pixels (where the crop sensor would be) are hit at exactly the same intensity on FF.

Try it - same ISO, same SS, same sensor, same aperture. Take one photo at 24mm and one at 16mm and then crop to the 24mm equivalence. Except for dof, perspective and IQ due to the resizing, the exposures will be exactly the same assuming that the lighting conditions did not change. Then, come back and tell me how terrible at math I am again.

Equivalence is tricky and depends on what you're looking for.

Yes, the same SS, same aperture, and same ISO (the biggest variable) and the exposure should be the same; but when you use a smaller sensor or crop into a smaller sensor, as you mentioned before, you lose overall light, which can decrease the signal to noise ratio.

Whether that is to the point where the user cares about it or not is another issue.

Also, if one would significantly need to stop down their aperture to increase the depth of field on a larger vs a smaller sensor could be another factor (though focus stacking can also be an option).

I completely agree.

As landscape photographers shoot on tripods, wide and far, the differences you mentioned are of little significance to them. That's why I said they are pretty much equivalent to landscape photography.

The only differences that i think matter would probably be IQ and distortions. But with the sensors and software nowadays, combined with the crop, these are also not very significant.

 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
ChelseaPhotographer
ChelseaPhotographer Contributing Member • Posts: 837
Re: From Canon 6D to mirrorless
2

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

 ChelseaPhotographer's gear list:ChelseaPhotographer's gear list
SeaLife DC2000 Ricoh GR III Pentax 645Z Canon EOS 5DS Nikon D850 +1 more
Cato1040
Cato1040 Veteran Member • Posts: 3,967
Re: From Canon 6D to mirrorless

Rado R wrote:

Cato1040 wrote:

Rado R 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.

I said they are equivalent when it comes to landscape! For landscape photos, you care only about how wide is the lens and not speed or shallow depth of field. Most landscape photographers actually stop down to get best lens sharpness!

An exposure on crop at f4 is exactly the same as an exposure on FF at f4. You will get more light on FF, but that doesn't change your exposure as the extra light hits *different* pixels. The center pixels (where the crop sensor would be) are hit at exactly the same intensity on FF.

Try it - same ISO, same SS, same sensor, same aperture. Take one photo at 24mm and one at 16mm and then crop to the 24mm equivalence. Except for dof, perspective and IQ due to the resizing, the exposures will be exactly the same assuming that the lighting conditions did not change. Then, come back and tell me how terrible at math I am again.

Equivalence is tricky and depends on what you're looking for.

Yes, the same SS, same aperture, and same ISO (the biggest variable) and the exposure should be the same; but when you use a smaller sensor or crop into a smaller sensor, as you mentioned before, you lose overall light, which can decrease the signal to noise ratio.

Whether that is to the point where the user cares about it or not is another issue.

Also, if one would significantly need to stop down their aperture to increase the depth of field on a larger vs a smaller sensor could be another factor (though focus stacking can also be an option).

I completely agree.

As landscape photographers shoot on tripods, wide and far, the differences you mentioned are of little significance to them. That's why I said they are pretty much equivalent to landscape photography.

The only differences that i think matter would probably be IQ and distortions. But with the sensors and software nowadays, combined with the crop, these are also not very significant.

Yea, if you are willing to take the time on the field and in post, sensor quality doesn't matter as much with exposure stacking, focus stacking, pixel-shifting...

But if you want to get the shot hand-held in one shot with more motion involved (living subjects in the frame, windy days, rapidly changing light...) then sensor quality can matter a lot.

 Cato1040's gear list:Cato1040's gear list
Olympus Stylus Tough TG-850 iHS Fujifilm X100T Panasonic LX10 Sony a6000 Sony a7 III +18 more
Flying Fijian Contributing Member • Posts: 768
Re: From Canon 6D to mirrorless

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

What's all this got to do with helping OP find a lightweight solution? He's not going to buy any of these gears....he doesn't need fast glass!

If you want to be helpful then suggest something appropriate & within his budget please.

 Flying Fijian's gear list:Flying Fijian's gear list
Fujifilm X100V Fujifilm X-E3 Fujifilm X-T4 Fujifilm XF 18mm F2 R Fujifilm XF 35mm F1.4 R +6 more
ChelseaPhotographer
ChelseaPhotographer Contributing Member • Posts: 837
Re: From Canon 6D to mirrorless
3

Bolothegreat 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

What's all this got to do with helping OP find a lightweight solution? He's not going to buy any of these gears....he doesn't need fast glass!

If you want to be helpful then suggest something appropriate & within his budget please.

I thought it was very helpful. The OP mentioned that he was considering the A7III. The A7RII is $500 cheaper. The OP is considering a bunch of zooms and a bunch of FAST primes for the Fuji, and you could get better IQ and less weight by picking the Sony with fast zooms.

Maybe you should read the OP comments???

 ChelseaPhotographer's gear list:ChelseaPhotographer's gear list
SeaLife DC2000 Ricoh GR III Pentax 645Z Canon EOS 5DS Nikon D850 +1 more
Rado R Forum Member • Posts: 50
Re: From Canon 6D to mirrorless
1

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!

 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
Flying Fijian Contributing Member • Posts: 768
Re: From Canon 6D to mirrorless

ChelseaPhotographer wrote:

Bolothegreat 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

What's all this got to do with helping OP find a lightweight solution? He's not going to buy any of these gears....he doesn't need fast glass!

If you want to be helpful then suggest something appropriate & within his budget please.

I thought it was very helpful. The OP mentioned that he was considering the A7III. The A7RII is $500 cheaper. The OP is considering a bunch of zooms and a bunch of FAST primes for the Fuji, and you could get better IQ and less weight by picking the Sony with fast zooms.

Maybe you should read the OP comments???

Lol I read it clearly, he's not after any of the heavy lenses you are suggesting. He's even looking at small primes because they are lighter. His main interest seems to be wider or ultra wide.

 Flying Fijian's gear list:Flying Fijian's gear list
Fujifilm X100V Fujifilm X-E3 Fujifilm X-T4 Fujifilm XF 18mm F2 R Fujifilm XF 35mm F1.4 R +6 more
ChelseaPhotographer
ChelseaPhotographer Contributing Member • Posts: 837
Re: From Canon 6D to mirrorless
5

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. So the FF 17-40 is more than 1 f-stop brighter than the Fuji. You are not really comparing apples to apples. And since the fuji lenses are a slower, you need longer shutter speeds...

 ChelseaPhotographer's gear list:ChelseaPhotographer's gear list
SeaLife DC2000 Ricoh GR III Pentax 645Z Canon EOS 5DS Nikon D850 +1 more
ChelseaPhotographer
ChelseaPhotographer Contributing Member • Posts: 837
Re: From Canon 6D to mirrorless
4

Bolothegreat wrote:

ChelseaPhotographer wrote:

Bolothegreat 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

What's all this got to do with helping OP find a lightweight solution? He's not going to buy any of these gears....he doesn't need fast glass!

If you want to be helpful then suggest something appropriate & within his budget please.

I thought it was very helpful. The OP mentioned that he was considering the A7III. The A7RII is $500 cheaper. The OP is considering a bunch of zooms and a bunch of FAST primes for the Fuji, and you could get better IQ and less weight by picking the Sony with fast zooms.

Maybe you should read the OP comments???

Lol I read it clearly, he's not after any of the heavy lenses you are suggesting. He's even looking at small primes because they are lighter. His main interest seems to be wider or ultra wide.

How is a lTamron 28-75 heavy? And after the OP picks 3 zooms and 2 "fast" APS-C primes they will be carrying a lot more gear and probably paid more than if they had picked the full frame with 2 zooms that will be faster than the APS-C lenses...

 ChelseaPhotographer's gear list:ChelseaPhotographer's gear list
SeaLife DC2000 Ricoh GR III Pentax 645Z Canon EOS 5DS Nikon D850 +1 more
Flying Fijian Contributing Member • Posts: 768
Re: From Canon 6D to mirrorless

ChelseaPhotographer wrote:

Bolothegreat wrote:

ChelseaPhotographer wrote:

Bolothegreat 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

What's all this got to do with helping OP find a lightweight solution? He's not going to buy any of these gears....he doesn't need fast glass!

If you want to be helpful then suggest something appropriate & within his budget please.

I thought it was very helpful. The OP mentioned that he was considering the A7III. The A7RII is $500 cheaper. The OP is considering a bunch of zooms and a bunch of FAST primes for the Fuji, and you could get better IQ and less weight by picking the Sony with fast zooms.

Maybe you should read the OP comments???

Lol I read it clearly, he's not after any of the heavy lenses you are suggesting. He's even looking at small primes because they are lighter. His main interest seems to be wider or ultra wide.

How is a lTamron 28-75 heavy? And after the OP picks 3 zooms and 2 "fast" APS-C primes they will be carrying a lot more gear and probably paid more than if they had picked the full frame with 2 zooms that will be faster than the APS-C lenses...

It's not wide lol...who knows maybe he'll change his mind if you keep suggesting it

 Flying Fijian's gear list:Flying Fijian's gear list
Fujifilm X100V Fujifilm X-E3 Fujifilm X-T4 Fujifilm XF 18mm F2 R Fujifilm XF 35mm F1.4 R +6 more
Rado R Forum Member • Posts: 50
Re: From Canon 6D to mirrorless
1

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.

 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
ChelseaPhotographer
ChelseaPhotographer Contributing Member • Posts: 837
Re: From Canon 6D to mirrorless
2

Bolothegreat wrote:

ChelseaPhotographer wrote:

Bolothegreat wrote:

ChelseaPhotographer wrote:

Bolothegreat 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

What's all this got to do with helping OP find a lightweight solution? He's not going to buy any of these gears....he doesn't need fast glass!

If you want to be helpful then suggest something appropriate & within his budget please.

I thought it was very helpful. The OP mentioned that he was considering the A7III. The A7RII is $500 cheaper. The OP is considering a bunch of zooms and a bunch of FAST primes for the Fuji, and you could get better IQ and less weight by picking the Sony with fast zooms.

Maybe you should read the OP comments???

Lol I read it clearly, he's not after any of the heavy lenses you are suggesting. He's even looking at small primes because they are lighter. His main interest seems to be wider or ultra wide.

How is a lTamron 28-75 heavy? And after the OP picks 3 zooms and 2 "fast" APS-C primes they will be carrying a lot more gear and probably paid more than if they had picked the full frame with 2 zooms that will be faster than the APS-C lenses...

It's not wide lol...who knows maybe he'll change his mind if you keep suggesting it

The Tamron 17-28 f/2.8 is wider, smaller and lighter than the 28-75. Like I said, if you pair the Sony FF with Tamron zooms, the OP will have spent less money, and will be carrying less gear and less weight and will end up with faster lenses that give them higher IQ.

I don't care what the OP picks, but if money is a factor, and weight is a factor going with the Fuji and 4 or 5 lenses is probably a mistake. And if the OP thinks that an f/4 APS-C is the same as an f/4 lens in full frame, then they are basing their decisions on a mistaken understanding. And that is why I appreciate the comments of ecka84, because they are correct.

 ChelseaPhotographer's gear list:ChelseaPhotographer's gear list
SeaLife DC2000 Ricoh GR III Pentax 645Z Canon EOS 5DS Nikon D850 +1 more
Flying Fijian Contributing Member • Posts: 768
Re: From Canon 6D to mirrorless

ChelseaPhotographer wrote:

Bolothegreat wrote:

ChelseaPhotographer wrote:

Bolothegreat wrote:

ChelseaPhotographer wrote:

Bolothegreat 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

What's all this got to do with helping OP find a lightweight solution? He's not going to buy any of these gears....he doesn't need fast glass!

If you want to be helpful then suggest something appropriate & within his budget please.

I thought it was very helpful. The OP mentioned that he was considering the A7III. The A7RII is $500 cheaper. The OP is considering a bunch of zooms and a bunch of FAST primes for the Fuji, and you could get better IQ and less weight by picking the Sony with fast zooms.

Maybe you should read the OP comments???

Lol I read it clearly, he's not after any of the heavy lenses you are suggesting. He's even looking at small primes because they are lighter. His main interest seems to be wider or ultra wide.

How is a lTamron 28-75 heavy? And after the OP picks 3 zooms and 2 "fast" APS-C primes they will be carrying a lot more gear and probably paid more than if they had picked the full frame with 2 zooms that will be faster than the APS-C lenses...

It's not wide lol...who knows maybe he'll change his mind if you keep suggesting it

The Tamron 17-28 f/2.8 is wider, smaller and lighter than the 28-75. Like I said, if you pair the Sony FF with Tamron zooms, the OP will have spent less money, and will be carrying less gear and less weight and will end up with faster lenses that give them higher IQ.

I don't care what the OP picks, but if money is a factor, and weight is a factor going with the Fuji and 4 or 5 lenses is probably a mistake. And if the OP thinks that an f/4 APS-C is the same as an f/4 lens in full frame, then they are basing their decisions on a mistaken understanding. And that is why I appreciate the comments of ecka84, because they are correct.

Tamron 17-28 f/2.8 is a better suggestion for OP...the rest of your post is pointless responding to.

 Flying Fijian's gear list:Flying Fijian's gear list
Fujifilm X100V Fujifilm X-E3 Fujifilm X-T4 Fujifilm XF 18mm F2 R Fujifilm XF 35mm F1.4 R +6 more
ChelseaPhotographer
ChelseaPhotographer Contributing Member • Posts: 837
Re: From Canon 6D to mirrorless
4

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...

 ChelseaPhotographer's gear list:ChelseaPhotographer's gear list
SeaLife DC2000 Ricoh GR III Pentax 645Z Canon EOS 5DS Nikon D850 +1 more
ChelseaPhotographer
ChelseaPhotographer Contributing Member • Posts: 837
Re: From Canon 6D to mirrorless
2

Bolothegreat wrote:

ChelseaPhotographer wrote:

Bolothegreat wrote:

ChelseaPhotographer wrote:

Bolothegreat wrote:

ChelseaPhotographer wrote:

Bolothegreat 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

What's all this got to do with helping OP find a lightweight solution? He's not going to buy any of these gears....he doesn't need fast glass!

If you want to be helpful then suggest something appropriate & within his budget please.

I thought it was very helpful. The OP mentioned that he was considering the A7III. The A7RII is $500 cheaper. The OP is considering a bunch of zooms and a bunch of FAST primes for the Fuji, and you could get better IQ and less weight by picking the Sony with fast zooms.

Maybe you should read the OP comments???

Lol I read it clearly, he's not after any of the heavy lenses you are suggesting. He's even looking at small primes because they are lighter. His main interest seems to be wider or ultra wide.

How is a lTamron 28-75 heavy? And after the OP picks 3 zooms and 2 "fast" APS-C primes they will be carrying a lot more gear and probably paid more than if they had picked the full frame with 2 zooms that will be faster than the APS-C lenses...

It's not wide lol...who knows maybe he'll change his mind if you keep suggesting it

The Tamron 17-28 f/2.8 is wider, smaller and lighter than the 28-75. Like I said, if you pair the Sony FF with Tamron zooms, the OP will have spent less money, and will be carrying less gear and less weight and will end up with faster lenses that give them higher IQ.

I don't care what the OP picks, but if money is a factor, and weight is a factor going with the Fuji and 4 or 5 lenses is probably a mistake. And if the OP thinks that an f/4 APS-C is the same as an f/4 lens in full frame, then they are basing their decisions on a mistaken understanding. And that is why I appreciate the comments of ecka84, because they are correct.

Tamron 17-28 f/2.8 is a better suggestion for OP...the rest of your post is pointless responding to.

It might come as a bit of a surprise to you but I don't care what you think

 ChelseaPhotographer's gear list:ChelseaPhotographer's gear list
SeaLife DC2000 Ricoh GR III Pentax 645Z Canon EOS 5DS Nikon D850 +1 more
Rado R Forum Member • Posts: 50
Re: From Canon 6D to mirrorless
1

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 you will have to shoot with 1 stop slower shutter speed!

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

Yes, 1 stop faster than the above, where you had to stop it down to shoot with f4. So, you're back to par with the aps-c exposure settings.

, otherwise the image will be 1 f-stop lighter than that of the APS-C camera... <sigh>

Lol...Wrong ... <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.

 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
ChelseaPhotographer
ChelseaPhotographer Contributing Member • Posts: 837
Re: From Canon 6D to mirrorless
2

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.

 ChelseaPhotographer's gear list:ChelseaPhotographer's gear list
SeaLife DC2000 Ricoh GR III Pentax 645Z Canon EOS 5DS Nikon D850 +1 more
Rado R Forum Member • Posts: 50
Re: From Canon 6D to mirrorless
1

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: https://youtu.be/hi_CkZ0sGAw

 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
Keyboard shortcuts:
FForum MMy threads