Originally posted by ElJamoquio It's harsh, but less harsh than just ignoring you IMO. I just don't have the time to read your dissertations and correct you.
Nothing there to correct, maybe the logic is finally starting to sink in.
Quote: The AF module's light sensitivity and aperture are independent from the sensor size.
Then why does my AF stop working on my A-400 when I use it with the 2x converter in low light? Why doesn't that separate AF unit continue to function, when shooting with my 18-135 I can shoot into almost total blackness. This is not a theoretical argument for me. I base what I am saying on practical observation.
Quote: An FF lens at f/4 collects as much light as an APS-C lens at f/2.8 so an appropriately designed AF module for the FF camera will not be disadvantaged.
Talk about factually wrong, ƒ 2.8 collects the same amount of light, in terms of density of distribution along the film plane. If the AF sensor are the same size then they receive the same amount of light, and even if they aren't. You have to ask yourself if this is true, how does the K-5 and K-3 achieve such amazing low light focus. You guys spin this stuff and throw it out there, but it makes me wonder if you actually use real cameras, or if you just read about them.
A 2.8 lens collects exactly the same amount of light be it on an FF or APS-c. But on APS-c when using an FF lens, half the light doesn't reach the sensor, because the sensor is smaller. That has nothing to do with what the lens does. And the number of photons hitting any part of the sensor in a 1mm x 1mm area is the same on any system.
From the old days when we used light meters, everyone of us knows. You use the same light meter for 35mm or 8x10 film and every camera in between.. For exposure, if your light meter says ƒ8 at 100th of second, it's the same for every camera of every size. There is absolutely no way, ƒ2.8 on one system is equivalent to ƒ4 on another. That is a misuse of equivalency, it comes from not understanding what an ƒ-stop really is, and until you figure it out, it's going to jump up and bite you every time you post on the topic.
Quote: Do you think Ansel Adams dragged up big and heavy equipment up mountains because he was after a "shallow DOF" aesthetic? He certainly wasn't. He used large format cameras because large formats produce better image quality.
Ansel Adams was part of the ƒ64 club, so, his preferred shooting aperture was ƒ64, hardly the guy to bring up if arguing for the narrow DoF argument. so if you're going to talk about equivalency and the need for less DoF, I can hear the man laughing. You're talking about the wrong guy. And he shot 8x10 film. The crop factor of MF film to 8x10 film is approximately 1:12 approx. FF 1:24, APS-c 1:36.
I'm an 8 x 10 film guy at heart. Trained on the system, loved the images. And I'm telling you, as a guy who worked with those really high quality images, I don't see much difference between APS-c and FF. They're both tiny. And on an 8x10 film camera,shooting with fast film (at high ISO) you could still get visible grain.
I have never said that larger sensors don't produce better images. What I say over and over again, is that a 1:1.5 crop is pretty insignificant. Look at the numbers above, and you'll maybe understand the point. Numbers like 1:12 are significant. Especially since with a 8X10 film camera, you had to reduce the size of the image to produce a 4x5 print. Lenses could be pretty bad because the image wasn't magnified much and you tried to shoot at ƒ64, because with that size negative, diffraction isn't really an issue very often. Comparing FF to Ansel Adams camera is probably the misrepresentation of the century. A 1:1.5 crop, compared to a 1:24 crop.
Last edited by normhead; 01-10-2014 at 07:17 AM.