From Canon 6D to mirrorless

Started 4 months ago | Discussions
ly2photos
ly2photos Forum Member • Posts: 94
About crop sensors
1

Ok, I will try to explain this more clearly.

Crop lenses, 16 f2.8 for example, will have the same light transmission as a full frame 16 2.8. The LENS itself has the aperture opening of a radius of 16/2.8, which is around 5.7mm.

Now because of physics, the wider the lens, the deeper the depth of field. You should know this. So crop lenses have GREATER depth of field because you are taking a 16mm DOF and putting it into a 24mm focal length, instead of a 24mm DOF in 24mm FL on full frame.

So the greater depth of field is actually BETTER for landscapes.

So please, OP has made up their mind so you don't fanboys and fangirls can stop screaming SONY SONY SONY. We get it. Please.

-- hide signature --
 ly2photos's gear list:ly2photos's gear list
Fujifilm X-T1 Fujifilm XF 35mm F2 R WR
ecka84
ecka84 Contributing Member • Posts: 639
Re: From Canon 6D to mirrorless
1

Rado R wrote:

ChelseaPhotographer wrote:

Rado R wrote:

ChelseaPhotographer wrote:

Rado R wrote:

ChelseaPhotographer wrote:

Rado R wrote:

ChelseaPhotographer wrote:

ecka84 wrote:

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

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

Learn equivalence. Don't believe lies.

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

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

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

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

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

So for *landscape*, the lenses are smaller!

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Ok, I'll bite.

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

... here comes the big BUT...

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

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

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

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

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

1) same field of view

2) same exposure.

Depth of field is irrelevant.

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

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

Now ... how about field of view?

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Lets keep the APS-C settings as a given

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Think about it!

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

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

1) Frame and expose a scene

2) Lock in your exposure

3) Take a photo

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

5) Take another photo

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

Edit: Here, I found a YT video you can also watch: https://youtu.be/hi_CkZ0sGAw

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

 ecka84's gear list:ecka84's gear list
Canon EOS 6D Canon EF 28mm f/1.8 USM Canon EF 100mm f/2.0 USM Sigma 150mm F2.8 EX DG Macro HSM Canon EF 40mm f/2.8 STM +1 more
ecka84
ecka84 Contributing Member • Posts: 639
Re: About crop sensors

nayyyyyyy7 wrote:

Ok, I will try to explain this more clearly.

Crop lenses, 16 f2.8 for example, will have the same light transmission as a full frame 16 2.8. The LENS itself has the aperture opening of a radius of 16/2.8, which is around 5.7mm.

Now because of physics, the wider the lens, the deeper the depth of field. You should know this. So crop lenses have GREATER depth of field because you are taking a 16mm DOF and putting it into a 24mm focal length, instead of a 24mm DOF in 24mm FL on full frame.

So the greater depth of field is actually BETTER for landscapes.

So please, OP has made up their mind so you don't fanboys and fangirls can stop screaming SONY SONY SONY. We get it. Please.

When you are building a house and picking window sizes, you are not thinking like - "oh, the size doesn't matter, because the light transmission will be the same for whatever window size anyways, so let's just drill a hole in the wall ..." - are you? That's a stupid logic. The amount of light is what you should care about, not the "transmission". Cameras work the same way. Sensor size matters.

Equivalence makes all things the same. Stop denying facts. FF is superior, specially for landscape photography.

 ecka84's gear list:ecka84's gear list
Canon EOS 6D Canon EF 28mm f/1.8 USM Canon EF 100mm f/2.0 USM Sigma 150mm F2.8 EX DG Macro HSM Canon EF 40mm f/2.8 STM +1 more
Rado R Forum Member • Posts: 50
Re: From Canon 6D to mirrorless

ecka84 wrote:

Rado R wrote:

ChelseaPhotographer wrote:

Rado R wrote:

ChelseaPhotographer wrote:

Rado R wrote:

ChelseaPhotographer wrote:

Rado R wrote:

ChelseaPhotographer wrote:

ecka84 wrote:

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

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

Learn equivalence. Don't believe lies.

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

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

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

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

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

So for *landscape*, the lenses are smaller!

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Ok, I'll bite.

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

... here comes the big BUT...

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

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

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

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

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

1) same field of view

2) same exposure.

Depth of field is irrelevant.

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

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

Now ... how about field of view?

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Lets keep the APS-C settings as a given

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Think about it!

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

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

1) Frame and expose a scene

2) Lock in your exposure

3) Take a photo

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

5) Take another photo

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

Edit: Here, I found a YT video you can also watch: https://youtu.be/hi_CkZ0sGAw

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Lol. Did you even watch the video? He was normalizing the focal length to achieve the same DoF. Nothing more, nothing less. The exposure was exactly the same with the same settings. Only DoF was different.

You would have a point if OP cared about DoF.

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

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

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

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

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

 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
ly2photos
ly2photos Forum Member • Posts: 94
Re: About crop sensors

ecka84 wrote:

nayyyyyyy7 wrote:

Ok, I will try to explain this more clearly.

Crop lenses, 16 f2.8 for example, will have the same light transmission as a full frame 16 2.8. The LENS itself has the aperture opening of a radius of 16/2.8, which is around 5.7mm.

Now because of physics, the wider the lens, the deeper the depth of field. You should know this. So crop lenses have GREATER depth of field because you are taking a 16mm DOF and putting it into a 24mm focal length, instead of a 24mm DOF in 24mm FL on full frame.

So the greater depth of field is actually BETTER for landscapes.

So please, OP has made up their mind so you don't fanboys and fangirls can stop screaming SONY SONY SONY. We get it. Please.

When you are building a house and picking window sizes, you are not thinking like - "oh, the size doesn't matter, because the light transmission will be the same for whatever window size anyways, so let's just drill a hole in the wall ..." - are you? That's a stupid logic. The amount of light is what you should care about, not the "transmission". Cameras work the same way. Sensor size matters.

Equivalence makes all things the same. Stop denying facts. FF is superior, specially for landscape photography.

Well, the light coming through the hole will be the same intensity as the light coming through a window. So you just helped prove that light transmission is still the same after all

Since crop sensors take up less space (for example the size of that hole) they only need the amount of light coming through that hole. So...

Lmao and just saying FF is superior without anything else is just... well... arrogant.

Sometimes, size doesn't matter that much

-- hide signature --
 ly2photos's gear list:ly2photos's gear list
Fujifilm X-T1 Fujifilm XF 35mm F2 R WR
ecka84
ecka84 Contributing Member • Posts: 639
Re: About crop sensors
1

nayyyyyyy7 wrote:

ecka84 wrote:

nayyyyyyy7 wrote:

Ok, I will try to explain this more clearly.

Crop lenses, 16 f2.8 for example, will have the same light transmission as a full frame 16 2.8. The LENS itself has the aperture opening of a radius of 16/2.8, which is around 5.7mm.

Now because of physics, the wider the lens, the deeper the depth of field. You should know this. So crop lenses have GREATER depth of field because you are taking a 16mm DOF and putting it into a 24mm focal length, instead of a 24mm DOF in 24mm FL on full frame.

So the greater depth of field is actually BETTER for landscapes.

So please, OP has made up their mind so you don't fanboys and fangirls can stop screaming SONY SONY SONY. We get it. Please.

When you are building a house and picking window sizes, you are not thinking like - "oh, the size doesn't matter, because the light transmission will be the same for whatever window size anyways, so let's just drill a hole in the wall ..." - are you? That's a stupid logic. The amount of light is what you should care about, not the "transmission". Cameras work the same way. Sensor size matters.

Equivalence makes all things the same. Stop denying facts. FF is superior, specially for landscape photography.

Well, the light coming through the hole will be the same intensity as the light coming through a window. So you just helped prove that light transmission is still the same after all

Since crop sensors take up less space (for example the size of that hole) they only need the amount of light coming through that hole. So...

Lmao and just saying FF is superior without anything else is just... well... arrogant.

Sometimes, size doesn't matter that much

Light "transmission" doesn't matter. Stop making a fool of yourself.

 ecka84's gear list:ecka84's gear list
Canon EOS 6D Canon EF 28mm f/1.8 USM Canon EF 100mm f/2.0 USM Sigma 150mm F2.8 EX DG Macro HSM Canon EF 40mm f/2.8 STM +1 more
Rado R Forum Member • Posts: 50
Re: From Canon 6D to mirrorless

Rado R wrote:

ChelseaPhotographer wrote:

Rado R wrote:

ChelseaPhotographer wrote:

Rado R wrote:

ChelseaPhotographer wrote:

Rado R wrote:

ChelseaPhotographer wrote:

ecka84 wrote:

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

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

Learn equivalence. Don't believe lies.

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

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

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

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

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

So for *landscape*, the lenses are smaller!

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Ok, I'll bite.

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

... here comes the big BUT...

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

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

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

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

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

1) same field of view

2) same exposure.

Depth of field is irrelevant.

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

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

Now ... how about field of view?

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Lets keep the APS-C settings as a given

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Think about it!

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

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

1) Frame and expose a scene

2) Lock in your exposure

3) Take a photo

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

5) Take another photo

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

Edit: Here, I found a YT video you can also watch: https://youtu.be/hi_CkZ0sGAw

Here is the test I outlined above (with the same camera - Canon 6D). My APS-C battery is still charging ... may be dead ... haven't used it in many years.

A

B

C

All images are taken with different focal lengths. Exposure settings are all the same. Edit was only for lens profile correction and crop.

Can you tell which one is which?

Here are the answers:

C:

  • Aperture: 4
  • Exposure time: 1
  • ISO: 100
  • Focal length: 24mm

B:

  • Aperture: 4
  • Exposure time: 1
  • ISO: 100
  • Focal length: 50mm

A:

  • Aperture: 4
  • Exposure time: 1
  • ISO: 100
  • Focal length: 105mm

I'll post the APS-C test later if my battery is able to charge.

 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
ecka84
ecka84 Contributing Member • Posts: 639
Re: From Canon 6D to mirrorless

Rado R wrote:

ecka84 wrote:

Rado R wrote:

ChelseaPhotographer wrote:

Rado R wrote:

ChelseaPhotographer wrote:

Rado R wrote:

ChelseaPhotographer wrote:

Rado R wrote:

ChelseaPhotographer wrote:

ecka84 wrote:

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

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

Learn equivalence. Don't believe lies.

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

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

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

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

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

So for *landscape*, the lenses are smaller!

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Ok, I'll bite.

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

... here comes the big BUT...

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

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

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

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

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

1) same field of view

2) same exposure.

Depth of field is irrelevant.

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

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

Now ... how about field of view?

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Lets keep the APS-C settings as a given

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Think about it!

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

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

1) Frame and expose a scene

2) Lock in your exposure

3) Take a photo

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

5) Take another photo

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

Edit: Here, I found a YT video you can also watch: https://youtu.be/hi_CkZ0sGAw

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Lol. Did you even watch the video?

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

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

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

The exposure was exactly the same with the same settings.

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

Only DoF was different.

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

You would have a point if OP cared about DoF.

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

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

You are wrong. Once again.

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

Watch again 5:20 ...

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

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

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

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

Sure. Do that. Maybe you will learn something.

 ecka84's gear list:ecka84's gear list
Canon EOS 6D Canon EF 28mm f/1.8 USM Canon EF 100mm f/2.0 USM Sigma 150mm F2.8 EX DG Macro HSM Canon EF 40mm f/2.8 STM +1 more
ecka84
ecka84 Contributing Member • Posts: 639
Re: From Canon 6D to mirrorless
2

Rado R wrote:

Rado R wrote:

ChelseaPhotographer wrote:

Rado R wrote:

ChelseaPhotographer wrote:

Rado R wrote:

ChelseaPhotographer wrote:

Rado R wrote:

ChelseaPhotographer wrote:

ecka84 wrote:

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

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

Learn equivalence. Don't believe lies.

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

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

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

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

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

So for *landscape*, the lenses are smaller!

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Ok, I'll bite.

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

... here comes the big BUT...

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

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

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

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

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

1) same field of view

2) same exposure.

Depth of field is irrelevant.

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

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

Now ... how about field of view?

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Lets keep the APS-C settings as a given

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Think about it!

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

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

1) Frame and expose a scene

2) Lock in your exposure

3) Take a photo

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

5) Take another photo

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

Edit: Here, I found a YT video you can also watch: https://youtu.be/hi_CkZ0sGAw

Here is the test I outlined above (with the same camera - Canon 6D). My APS-C battery is still charging ... may be dead ... haven't used it in many years.

A

B

C

All images are taken with different focal lengths. Exposure settings are all the same. Edit was only for lens profile correction and crop.

Can you tell which one is which?

Here are the answers:

C:

  • Aperture: 4
  • Exposure time: 1
  • ISO: 100
  • Focal length: 24mm

B:

  • Aperture: 4
  • Exposure time: 1
  • ISO: 100
  • Focal length: 50mm

A:

  • Aperture: 4
  • Exposure time: 1
  • ISO: 100
  • Focal length: 105mm

I'll post the APS-C test later if my battery is able to charge.

You don't need a real camera for brick wall photography. This is not a test. This is a disgraceful attempt to glorify your own ignorance. You have proven nothing.

Watch 6:13

 ecka84's gear list:ecka84's gear list
Canon EOS 6D Canon EF 28mm f/1.8 USM Canon EF 100mm f/2.0 USM Sigma 150mm F2.8 EX DG Macro HSM Canon EF 40mm f/2.8 STM +1 more
Rado R Forum Member • Posts: 50
Re: From Canon 6D to mirrorless

ecka84 wrote:

Rado R wrote:

ecka84 wrote:

Rado R wrote:

ChelseaPhotographer wrote:

Rado R wrote:

ChelseaPhotographer wrote:

Rado R wrote:

ChelseaPhotographer wrote:

Rado R wrote:

ChelseaPhotographer wrote:

ecka84 wrote:

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

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

Learn equivalence. Don't believe lies.

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

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

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

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

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

So for *landscape*, the lenses are smaller!

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Ok, I'll bite.

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

... here comes the big BUT...

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

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

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

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

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

1) same field of view

2) same exposure.

Depth of field is irrelevant.

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

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

Now ... how about field of view?

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Lets keep the APS-C settings as a given

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Think about it!

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

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

1) Frame and expose a scene

2) Lock in your exposure

3) Take a photo

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

5) Take another photo

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

Edit: Here, I found a YT video you can also watch: https://youtu.be/hi_CkZ0sGAw

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Lol. Did you even watch the video?

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

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

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

The exposure was exactly the same with the same settings.

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

Only DoF was different.

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

You would have a point if OP cared about DoF.

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

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

You are wrong. Once again.

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

Watch again 5:20 ...

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

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

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

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

Sure. Do that. Maybe you will learn something.

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

Let's try and pay attention here.

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

Are we on the same page?

Now ...

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

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

 Rado R's gear list:Rado R's gear list
Canon EOS 450D Canon EOS 6D Canon EF 50mm F1.4 USM Canon EF 70-200mm F4L USM Canon EF 100mm f/2.8 Macro USM +5 more
Rado R Forum Member • Posts: 50
Re: From Canon 6D to mirrorless

ecka84 wrote:

Rado R wrote:

Rado R wrote:

ChelseaPhotographer wrote:

Rado R wrote:

ChelseaPhotographer wrote:

Rado R wrote:

ChelseaPhotographer wrote:

Rado R wrote:

ChelseaPhotographer wrote:

ecka84 wrote:

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

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

Learn equivalence. Don't believe lies.

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

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

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

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

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

So for *landscape*, the lenses are smaller!

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Ok, I'll bite.

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

... here comes the big BUT...

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

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

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

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

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

1) same field of view

2) same exposure.

Depth of field is irrelevant.

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

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

Now ... how about field of view?

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Lets keep the APS-C settings as a given

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Think about it!

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

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

1) Frame and expose a scene

2) Lock in your exposure

3) Take a photo

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

5) Take another photo

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

Edit: Here, I found a YT video you can also watch: https://youtu.be/hi_CkZ0sGAw

Here is the test I outlined above (with the same camera - Canon 6D). My APS-C battery is still charging ... may be dead ... haven't used it in many years.

A

B

C

All images are taken with different focal lengths. Exposure settings are all the same. Edit was only for lens profile correction and crop.

Can you tell which one is which?

Here are the answers:

C:

  • Aperture: 4
  • Exposure time: 1
  • ISO: 100
  • Focal length: 24mm

B:

  • Aperture: 4
  • Exposure time: 1
  • ISO: 100
  • Focal length: 50mm

A:

  • Aperture: 4
  • Exposure time: 1
  • ISO: 100
  • Focal length: 105mm

I'll post the APS-C test later if my battery is able to charge.

You don't need a real camera for brick wall photography. This is not a test. This is a disgraceful attempt to glorify your own ignorance. You have proven nothing.

Watch 6:13

My friend, bricks are landscapes as well. Don't be mean towards the bricks

Re 6:13, he had to compensate with ISO because he changed the apertures to make the DoF the same. It is not hard. Really.

 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
ecka84
ecka84 Contributing Member • Posts: 639
Re: From Canon 6D to mirrorless

Rado R wrote:

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

Let's try and pay attention here.

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

You have no idea what you are talking about.

Are we on the same page?

I doubt it. You are afraid of the book.

Now ...

A landscape photographer wanting to capture the same photo (or close enough ... see the not(s) above) with the same settings on different sensor cameras only has to change the focal length to compensate for the crop factor. That's it.

No, that's not it.

DoF is irrelevant when you want your entire image to be sharp. Actually less shallow DoF is usually preferable.

You are the one talking about DoF. Just stop. Forget about DoF.

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

Your tests don't prove anything.

I can take a FF camera with F5.6 lens and reproduce any image you take with your F4 lens on crop. That's the whole point. Crop optics are not smaller, period.

 ecka84's gear list:ecka84's gear list
Canon EOS 6D Canon EF 28mm f/1.8 USM Canon EF 100mm f/2.0 USM Sigma 150mm F2.8 EX DG Macro HSM Canon EF 40mm f/2.8 STM +1 more
ecka84
ecka84 Contributing Member • Posts: 639
Re: From Canon 6D to mirrorless
2

Rado R wrote:

My friend, bricks are landscapes as well. Don't be mean towards the bricks

Re 6:13, he had to compensate with ISO because he changed the apertures to make the DoF the same. It is not hard. Really.

Tony used equivalent settings to reproduce the same image. Not just the same DoF. DoF is just a side effect. Learn equivalence. Stop preaching BS nonsense, please.

 ecka84's gear list:ecka84's gear list
Canon EOS 6D Canon EF 28mm f/1.8 USM Canon EF 100mm f/2.0 USM Sigma 150mm F2.8 EX DG Macro HSM Canon EF 40mm f/2.8 STM +1 more
Rado R Forum Member • Posts: 50
Re: From Canon 6D to mirrorless

Rado R wrote:

Rado R wrote:

ChelseaPhotographer wrote:

Rado R wrote:

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

Here is the test I outlined above (with the same camera - Canon 6D). My APS-C battery is still charging ... may be dead ... haven't used it in many years.

A

B

C

All images are taken with different focal lengths. Exposure settings are all the same. Edit was only for lens profile correction and crop.

Can you tell which one is which?

Here are the answers:

C:

  • Aperture: 4
  • Exposure time: 1
  • ISO: 100
  • Focal length: 24mm

B:

  • Aperture: 4
  • Exposure time: 1
  • ISO: 100
  • Focal length: 50mm

A:

  • Aperture: 4
  • Exposure time: 1
  • ISO: 100
  • Focal length: 105mm

I'll post the APS-C test later if my battery is able to charge.

OK. Here is the APS-C and FF test.

Full Frame: Canon 6D with 24-105 F4 @ 50mm

APS-C: Canon 450D with 24-105 F4 @ 30.9mm ...ish... ended up being 32mm

Edits: Lens profile correction and monochrome. Exported at 12MP to match 450D

6D @ 50mm

450D @ 32mm

6D @ 50mm -1/3 exposure in post

As you can see, the first 2 images are almost identical (again, not talking about DoF, IQ, resolution, etc ... just exposure and field of view). There is only a slight difference between the FF and the APS-C exposures which is likely due to either the base sensitivity of the different sensors or maybe my lighting slightly changed. Nevertheless, as you can see in the 3rd image, the difference is only about 1/3 stop and not a full stop as some here are implying.

So this is it ... exposure does not change for different crop factors. So there is no point equating an f/4 FF lens to an f/2.8 APS-C lens if all you care is exposure and not DoF. Therefore, for a landscape photography, where DoF is not important, the equivalent to 24-105 f4 FF lens is the 16-80 f4 APS-C lens, which is much smaller and lighter.

 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
Rado R Forum Member • Posts: 50
Re: From Canon 6D to mirrorless

ecka84 wrote:

Rado R wrote:

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

Let's try and pay attention here.

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

You have no idea what you are talking about.

Sure, buddy.

Are we on the same page?

I doubt it. You are afraid of the book.

What book? The one that you haven't read?

Now ...

A landscape photographer wanting to capture the same photo (or close enough ... see the not(s) above) with the same settings on different sensor cameras only has to change the focal length to compensate for the crop factor. That's it.

No, that's not it.

DoF is irrelevant when you want your entire image to be sharp. Actually less shallow DoF is usually preferable.

You are the one talking about DoF. Just stop. Forget about DoF.

Great! Let's forget about DoF, then.

Now, can you explain to me why you would need an APS-C f2.8 lens to take the same image as the FF f4 lens in the same conditions and disregarding any DoF differences (since, we are not talking about it). Please, enlighten me.

Go ahead. Prove me wrong. It seems only one of us is backing up claims with experiments. Where are yours? I won't hold my breath.

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

Your tests don't prove anything.

I can take a FF camera with F5.6 lens and reproduce any image you take with your F4 lens on crop. That's the whole point. Crop optics are not smaller, period.

Sure you can. But with a different exposure settings, which is what the whole discussion is about. Try to keep up.

 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
Rado R Forum Member • Posts: 50
Re: From Canon 6D to mirrorless

ecka84 wrote:

Rado R wrote:

My friend, bricks are landscapes as well. Don't be mean towards the bricks

Re 6:13, he had to compensate with ISO because he changed the apertures to make the DoF the same. It is not hard. Really.

Tony used equivalent settings to reproduce the same image. Not just the same DoF. DoF is just a side effect. Learn equivalence. Stop preaching BS nonsense, please.

Are you serious? You must be trolling!

Maybe rewatch the first 6 minutes. And then repeat. Maybe even take notes ... it may help you to keep up.

But ... I'll do you one better ... since I'm on my computer now and I'm nice like that...

Here are the relevant parts from the transcript of the video:

02:11

you can see the three cameras produced

02:13

very different images with the same lens

02:16

all the images have the same brightness

02:18

because sensor size does not affect the

02:21

brightness or the exposure of your image

02:23

however it changes just about every

02:25

other property of it but the smaller

02:27

sensors it was like I zoomed in like I

02:29

actually got closer...
...

02:58

... use the right lens and

03:01

the right focal length to accomplish

03:02

that vision if you have a smaller sensor

03:04

you would use a lens that has a shorter

03:08

focal length to get the same angle of

03:10

view ...

04:04

... my

04:11

assistant here is the same size in

04:12

each of the pictures but there's still

04:14

something different if you look at the

04:16

backgrounds they're very different the

04:18

picture from the aps-c camera has less

04:20

background blur than the picture from

04:22

the full-frame camera the picture from

04:24

the Micro Four Thirds camera with its

04:26

smaller sensor has even less background

04:28

blur I used the same settings on all

04:31

three but adjusted the focal length to

04:33

match the composition

04:34

it was f4 f4 on this camera produces

04:37

less background blur do that it does on

04:39

this camera which is less background

04:41

blur than it does on this camera what if

04:44

you want to add more background blur

04:47

that's a common compositional technique

04:49

for photographers background blur is

04:51

used to separate the foreground subject

04:53

from the background subject and it can

04:55

help tell a story

04:56

good news you can get all the background

04:58

blur you want out of small sensor

05:00

cameras just use the crop factor and

05:02

apply it to the f-stop while this camera

05:05

was 50 millimetres and f/4 I would

05:08

divide 4 by 1.6 ...

And there you have it ... he continues to do the shots with different apertures in order to match the blur and therefore changes the exposure settings later as I previously stated.

You're welcome!

 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
OP N_M New Member • Posts: 4
Re: From Canon 6D to mirrorless
2

Hello,

Wow, did not expect this to happen

This FF/APSC things are interesting up to certain level. But here, this is going too far and not helping me at all.

For deep comparisons and demonstrations, may I ask you please to do it somewhere else or via private message ?

Meanwhile, I tested a friend X-T3 today and this small grip is just a no go. Not for me. It was like I could let the thing falling down anytime.

So, I guess I should try the X-S10 and the A7.

Thanks.

 N_M's gear list:N_M's gear list
Ricoh GR II Canon EOS 6D Fujifilm X-S10 Canon EF 17-40mm f/4.0L USM Canon EF 70-200mm F4L USM +3 more
Rado R Forum Member • Posts: 50
Re: From Canon 6D to mirrorless
1

N_M wrote:

Hello,

Wow, did not expect this to happen

This FF/APSC things are interesting up to certain level. But here, this is going too far and not helping me at all.

For deep comparisons and demonstrations, may I ask you please to do it somewhere else or via private message ?

Meanwhile, I tested a friend X-T3 today and this small grip is just a no go. Not for me. It was like I could let the thing falling down anytime.

So, I guess I should try the X-S10 and the A7.

Thanks.

Yeah, sorry ... that escalated quickly hehe

I'm pretty much in the same boat as you, but I haven't even held the X-T3 in my hands so you're one step ahead I guess.

You should try shooting with the Sony as well and see how that feels. Also, if size and weight is important to you, maybe total up the volume and weight of both kits. The Fuji will come out smaller and lighter, but you should check out by how much. It may not be of any significance to you after all.

The Sony will have better IQ and ISO performance for sure. The Fuji will have better SOOC jpegs (if this matters to you).

Check out this guy on YT. In this video, he talked about why he switched from Sony to Fuji and he is a landscape photographer. It may be relevant to you: https://youtu.be/Z6vgwmbWvlg

It will be interesting to see what you end up settling on.

Cheers!

 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
Bolothegreat Contributing Member • Posts: 723
Re: From Canon 6D to mirrorless

N_M wrote:

Hello,

Wow, did not expect this to happen

This FF/APSC things are interesting up to certain level. But here, this is going too far and not helping me at all.

Agreed...however this is very common around here when apsc vs full frame comes up lol. There's a lot more to photography than this debate.

For deep comparisons and demonstrations, may I ask you please to do it somewhere else or via private message ?

Meanwhile, I tested a friend X-T3 today and this small grip is just a no go. Not for me. It was like I could let the thing falling down anytime.

So, I guess I should try the X-S10 and the A7.

Thanks.

That's good you got to try the XT3...not sure if a grip would help? Otherwise the X-S10 does have a deep grip & very comfortable from initial reports. Ibis would be a nice bonus & it's lighter & more compact than xt3. You do miss out on some features but that may not be as important for everyone.

Do try the Sony to see if it's ergonomics suits you better.

Good luck Nicolas

 Bolothegreat's gear list:Bolothegreat's gear list
Fujifilm X100V Fujifilm X-E3 Fujifilm X-T4 Fujifilm XF 18mm F2 R Fujifilm XF 35mm F1.4 R +6 more
Cato1040
Cato1040 Veteran Member • Posts: 3,948
Re: From Canon 6D to mirrorless
2

N_M wrote:

Hello,

Wow, did not expect this to happen

This FF/APSC things are interesting up to certain level. But here, this is going too far and not helping me at all.

For deep comparisons and demonstrations, may I ask you please to do it somewhere else or via private message ?

Meanwhile, I tested a friend X-T3 today and this small grip is just a no go. Not for me. It was like I could let the thing falling down anytime.

So, I guess I should try the X-S10 and the A7.

Thanks.

Yea, equivalence is a tricky thing and there's a lot of misinformation out there that people end up believing that leads to off-topic debates like this.

I do agree that Fujifilm's X-T... series have some of the worse grips.

Both the X-S10 and A7 series will be good options. I'd still lean Sony for the IQ and lens selection but your preferences may differ, though coming from a full-frame camera, it may be nice to stay with that format.

To clarify with equivalence since there was some misinformation on both sides:

Full Frame: ISO: 100, SS: 1/100, Aperture: 4, Focal-length: 24mm

APS-C: ISO: 100, SS: 1/100, Aperture: 2.8, Focal-length: 16mm

With everything else being the same, the exposure will be the same, but that's because ISO is a made-up thing that makes it so that the exposure will be the same. Technically, the FF sensor will still have better IQ when it comes to light because it's still letting in more light. Whether that's significant will be up to the user.

 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
Keyboard shortcuts:
FForum MMy threads