[rburgoss]

This nonsense is going nowhere. Let's wrap it up with what we have proven beyond reasonable doubt:

Fact 1: "Equivalence" (in digital photography) IS NOT a method of comparison but a matter of faith. It's like religion. Anyone is entitled to its own beliefs and no one has the right to force anybody into a different creed (religion). Within your own beliefs, "equivalence" should be accepted and embraced without questioning; doing so entitles the collectivity to charge you with heresy and condemn you to abandon sensor format of choice and live the rest of your miserable life, taking pictures with the format you once considered inferior for whatever reason. There will be a parole committee that will check and analyze specifications, urban legends and techno-gossip with the sole purpose of forcing you back into your previous sensor format choice, in case they find "the inferior format" has surpassed "the good format" in general.

Fact 2 : Stupidity is a complex mental state. It behaves like an addiction like alcoholism and thus, considered a "disease". The first step towards healing starts with the admission of the condition by the affected individual. Fall backs into the disease are normally caused by keeping contact with other "equivalence" dependent individuals, which at this state, can be considered a "socially contagious disease", which makes totally healthy individuals prone to contamination with just a few contacts with a sick person.

---

Last edited by rburgoss; 10-10-2014 at 02:25 PM.

[jsherman999]

This nonsense is going nowhere. Let's wrp it up with what we have proven beyond reasonable doubt:

Fact 1: "Equivalence" (in digital photography) IS NOT a method of comparisson but a matter of faith. It's like religion.

Couldn't be more wrong. Not understanding it, and attributing a larger sensor's better noise performance for the same exposure to "Bigger pixels", "More pixels" or even to "better pixels" alone is closer to a faith-based approach.

.

Anyone is entitled to its own beliefs and no one has the right to force anybody into a different creed (religion). Within your own beliefs, "equivalence" should be accepted and embraced without questioning; doing so entitles the collectivity to charge you with heresy and condemn you to abandon sensor format of choice and live the rest of your miserable life, taking pictures with the format you once considered inferior for whatever reason.

There's absolutely no reason to get so angry about the situation.

You're basically getting angry about the existence of an equation, and the horrible fact that some folks might want to use that equation to help with a purchase or shooting decision.

No-one is saying any format is superior to any other. You can come to your own conclusions about what works better for you based on price, size, lens availability, lens quality and even including some of the things places like DXOmark or methods like equivalence can tell you. You go ahead and set your own criteria, and that can exclude the use of equivalence altogether if you wish.

But I think it gets a little silly to wander into a discussion about equivalence and loudly, rudely wish that people would just stop talking about equivalence

.

---------- Post added 10-10-14 at 03:33 PM ----------

After reading some of the responses here it seems like I'm not the only one who thinks that equivalence is nonsense afterall
The truth prevails

The truth follows you around, sysadmin.

[Dartmoor Dave]

You go ahead and set your own criteria, and that can exclude the use of equivalence altogether if you wish.

Then exclude it I shall. Same way I exclude Santa Claus and leprechauns at the end of the rainbow.

[dtmateojr]

Couldn't be more wrong. Not understanding it, and attributing a larger sensor's better noise performance for the same exposure to "Bigger pixels", "More pixels" or even to "better pixels" alone is closer to a faith-based approach.

.


There's absolutely no reason to get so angry about the situation.

You're basically getting angry about the existence of an equation, and the horrible fact that some folks might want to use that equation to help with a purchase or shooting decision.

No-one is saying any format is superior to any other. You can come to your own conclusions about what works better for you based on price, size, lens availability, lens quality and even including some of the things places like DXOmark or methods like equivalence can tell you. You go ahead and set your own criteria, and that can exclude the use of equivalence altogether if you wish.

But I think it gets a little silly to wander into a discussion about equivalence and loudly, rudely wish that people would just stop talking about equivalence

.

---------- Post added 10-10-14 at 03:33 PM ----------



The truth follows you around, sysadmin.

Hehehe! Instead of sending us Pentaxians into that misleading site, why not post a link to this thread on dpreview? Show to the world that not everyone have full frame delusions.

[rburgoss]

Couldn't be more wrong. Not understanding it, and attributing a larger sensor's better noise performance for the same exposure to "Bigger pixels", "More pixels" or even to "better pixels" alone is closer to a faith-based approach.

There's absolutely no reason to get so angry about the situation.

You're basically getting angry about the existence of an equation, ........

I am not saying that I do not understand equivalence en thus, consider it a matter of faith. What I am saying is that ever since the beggining of this thread, the OP claimed that the apsc format will cost you more than an f/stop compared to full format, in matters of EXPOSURE.

It was not until things started getting messy, that the OP and some followers, started "bending" the argument towards... "ehhh... we don't mean exposure, we mean SNR ratio, DoF Dynamic Range..."

Here is when the subject becomes "subjective", which is, when someone is ready to change and bend everyone's words just to keep his argument valid. It is his argument that becomes a "religious belief", not my intent to make them understand.

It is also here, when stubbornness meets "blind faith", when no matter how long, how far or who digs in... nobody in the conversation is willing to give up and admit an error.

In my case, I always stated (and still do), that any given f/stop means always a given amount of light transmitted by the lens. It doesn't matter onto what is that lens projecting the image. Can be film, sensor (CCD or CMOS), daguerrotype plate or even photo-glue screens (for silkscreening). It DOESN'T MATTER. The f/stop is related to the LENS, not the media on which is projected to (or its size). And If it comes to, I should face a firing squad and will not change my mind about that.

My position is quite different as the OP's, Northrup or yours, who started the whole thing claiming (light loss), and when things became too bad (just 4 or 5 answers into the thread), then switched into a totally different matter, which is SNR, DoF and DR...

Anyway, its your problem, your money and your decision. It makes no difference to me on what you do or whatever anyone wants to do. For me, it is only because where I live its been raining like crazy for the past three days and haven't been able to go and do what we are all supposed to do with our photo gear: TAKE PICTURES, not spend countless hours discussing who, what or when is the "right thing" going to happen or who to blame for our own mistakes or misunderstanings.

[jsherman999]

Grain actually remains the same. What sherman wants you to say is that if you print at the same size then larger format results in lesser "apparent" grain. Note though that this is print grain NOT film grain. So sherman is still very wrong.

No, that's not even close to what I was driving at - but it's interesting to see that particular misinterpratation/strawman, haven't seen it screwed up quite like that before.

---------- Post added 10-10-14 at 04:26 PM ----------

It is also here, when stubbornness meets "blind faith", when no matter how long, how far or who digs in... nobody in the conversation is willing to give up and admit an error.

I will promise that if someone can point out an error in what I've said I will thank them, and admit it fully and openly. Or of someone can point out an error here, here or here.

Note that just saying you think something is wrong because you think so or because it doesn't matter to your photography or it's "not what you were taught" doesn't count - refute it in a way that stands up to scrutiny. I'd especially like to see external sources that successfully contradict those three links I gave.

---------- Post added 10-10-14 at 04:36 PM ----------

Then exclude it I shall. Same way I exclude Santa Claus and leprechauns at the end of the rainbow.

When did dpreview hire Santa?
And Falk must be a leprechaun!
... which makes Joseph James the Easter Bunny.

[Sandy Hancock]

Could someone pass the cheese knife?

[jsherman999]

Hehehe! Instead of sending us Pentaxians into that misleading site, why not post a link to this thread on dpreview? Show to the world that not everyone have full frame delusions.

Actually.... that's a great idea.

---------- Post added 10-10-14 at 05:28 PM ----------

It's because of many factors including pixel size and density, capacitance, analog-domain amplification, and A/D conversion. .

^^ which affect sensor efficiency and read noise. Those things have no effect on the photon count over the sensor area.

[wombat2go]

^^ which affect sensor efficiency and read noise.

How do the factors mentioned by DD affect those?

[24X36NOW]

Internet misinformation like that just makes things harder to understand for beginners.

Crop factor is an irrelevance. People who regularly switch between different formats will be aware of differences in angle of view and depth of field from personal experience. People who only ever use one format don't need to worry about it.

It's relevant to those comparing equipment in different formats.

The assertion that, say, a 50mm f/2.0 lens on "full frame" would become a 75mm f/3.5 lens on APS-C is just plain wrong. It would still be a 50mm/2.0 no matter what camera it was mounted on. The f-stop is the ratio between the lens's focal length and physical aperture size, and using the lens with a different sensor size doesn't change that.

Yup, but just remember that when people start telling you that it "becomes a 75mm f2.0 lens on APS-C," because THAT is the misinformation that the video addresses. The equivalent focal length (angle of view) brings with it an equivalent f-stop (DOF/bokeh). You can't get one without the other.

The notion that manufacturers should advertise their lenses with maximum f-stop values based on depth of field rather than exposure is simply moronic.

The notion that they should tell you one half of the equation while concealing the other is intelligent? I think not - it is deceptive, which again is exactly the misinformation the video addresses.

---------- Post added 10-10-2014 at 08:09 PM ----------

The focal length of the lens does not change and nor does the aperture. If I put my FA 135/f2.8 on my K-01 it tells me that it is a 135mm lens and - wide open - it gives the appropriate exposure for f2.8. The "crop factor" crops the area that the light falls on. It does not reduce the intensity of light coming through the lens (as it would if it reduced the aperture). To put it another way, every lens produces an image circle and the brightness of the image is determined by the size of the aperture. A larger aperture gives a brighter image. But the brightness of the image is usually the same across the entire image circle (the exception is where there is vignetting if the image circle is too small for the format). You can crop that image circle to any size you want. If the lens if f2.8, any section of it will still be f2.8. That is the physics of it. No smoke and mirrors.

The light intensity would be that of f2.8, but the DOF/bokeh would vary with the sensor format, so you're talking about a different issue. You have "proved" nothing.

Equivalence isn't about "converting" a focal length or an aperture, it is about settings that provide similar images on different formats, period.

---------- Post added 10-10-2014 at 08:11 PM ----------

Oh no, the crap factor again ! All that you do by using a FF lens on APS-C is to crop to the middle of the frame. Focal length and aperture do not change, no matter what the sensor or film size. It is only if you try to be clever and swap for a lens which gives the same field of view - necessarily one of a longer focal length - that things differ.

Nope, focal length and aperture do not change. AOV and DOF/bokeh do change, however, and that is what equivalence is about - settings that provide similar images on different formats.

---------- Post added 10-10-2014 at 08:22 PM ----------

The whole equivalence thing doesn't make much sense to me. It is useful if someone happens to shoot both on full frame and another format and can't remember how his lenses function on one format versus the other. What it doesn't seem to mean much is with regard to actual photography, particularly landscape photography. Assuming you want everything in focus, you have to be stopped down quite a bit -- more on full frame than on crop camera. In that sort of situation, "wide open equivalence," which seems to be what everyone refers to is meaningless. If I am shooting at f8 or f10 on a K3 because I need the depth of field, equivalence just tells me that I need to be stopped down even more on full frame to get the same depth of field. But doesn't everyone already know that?

What they don't seem to know is that shooting at 100 f2.8 on FF is like shooting at 150 f4.5 on APS-C, NOT 150 f2.8 on APS-C, in terms of the similarity of the images.

---------- Post added 10-10-2014 at 08:24 PM ----------

The real fact is that most people don't care much about stupidly shallow depth of field. Most people who take photos in the real world want their shots to be in focus, so *more* depth of field is actually better.

Most people? Surveyed the world, have you?

More DOF is NOT better when you want to isolate your subject from a busy or ugly or distracting background. More choices beat less choices.

---------- Post added 10-10-2014 at 08:39 PM ----------

Several flaws in the argumentation:
1) Insisting that different formats should have the same output and/or collect the same amount of light. This is wrong according to the theory of exposure. If it was correct a Pentax 645 should be compared to a cell phone. The theory of exposure is based on exposure (surprise). DOF doesn't enter into it.

Only nobody insisted any such thing. Only that when comparing different formats, you do so in a way that makes the images similar, as opposed to comparing apples vs. oranges.

2) Using one format as benchmark; usually FF, and directly or indirectly indicating at whatever DOF you get on that format at whatever aperture is the correct one or desired one which any other format must comply with. This is cheating. By this method only the properties of the reference format is used as benchmark. Whatever properties the smaller format has is ignored.This is only a one-sided biased opinion. Obviously, in order for two lenses to be DOF equivalent they both have to do the same. Ie an equivalent FF lens must be able to do what the smaller format lens does as well DOF-wise to be "equal". Such lenses do not exist. DOF equivalency between formats is a pipe-dream. And why only wide open at a certain focus distance? Why not compare DOF range and maximum DOF as well?

The properties of the smaller formats are not ignored, rather compared in a meaningful way as opposed to a meaningless way.

3) Pretending that DOF is only depending on aperture and equivalent focal lenghts. It isn't. It is dependent on aperture, focal lenght, focusing distances, and subject magnification. Ie lenses claimed to be DOF equivalent are patently not. Not even wide open.

Only nobody said any such thing. All the video discussed was the need to apply "equivalent" settings in each format to make as similar as possible images, when comparing formats. The "lenses claimed to be equivalent" in terms of settings for the three formats were, and it was demonstrated to be so.

Some may be surprised if they put "equivalent" lenses into a DOF calculator. For comperable lenses (eg prime vs prime, zoom vs zoom) you'll find that the smaller format lens usually has thinner minimum DOF than the larger. This is because it has larger maximum magnification.

Wow, so I guess all that talk you do about how more DOF is better means the larger format is better, eh?! LOL

In reality you loose one stop with FF compared to APS cause you have to shoot at one stop longer shutterspeed with FF at the same ISO for the same DOF.

In reality you lose *nothing* with FF compared to APS-C, since the increase in ISO (assuming same shutter speed) merely makes the noise about the same, it doesn't make it worse. And overall IQ will still be better, because you'll need 150% of the linear resolution from the lens in order to keep pace with FF (and you're not getting it).

Defining aperture form DOF is equally sensible as defining shutterspeed from motion blur.

Nobody is "defining" aperture, just calculating the settings for different formats that create similar looking images.

The claim that thin DOF is the holy goal of photography is nonsense. In fact, 99,999% of all photograph ever taken, and I'm not even exaggregating, has DOF achievable with APS.
Insising that thin DOF is sole purpose of high speed in a lens is equally misguided.

Nobody claimed thin DOF to be the "Holy Grail." Nobody insists that thin DOF is the sole purpose of high speed in a lens either. You make one "Strawman" argument after another. The video counters the prevailing misinformation that AOV "equivalence" should be applied but DOF/bookeh "equivalence" should be disregarded, when comparing different formats.

[dtmateojr]

It's relevant to those comparing equipment in different formats.







Yup, but just remember that when people start telling you that it "becomes a 75mm f2.0 lens on APS-C," because THAT is the misinformation that the video addresses. The equivalent focal length (angle of view) brings with it an equivalent f-stop (DOF/bokeh). You can't get one without the other.







The notion that they should tell you one half of the equation while concealing the other is intelligent? I think not - it is deceptive, which again is exactly the misinformation the video addresses.

---------- Post added 10-10-2014 at 08:09 PM ----------





The light intensity would be that of f2.8, but the DOF/bokeh would vary with the sensor format, so you're talking about a different issue. You have "proved" nothing.



Equivalence isn't about "converting" a focal length or an aperture, it is about settings that provide similar images on different formats, period.

---------- Post added 10-10-2014 at 08:11 PM ----------





Nope, focal length and aperture do not change. AOV and DOF/bokeh do change, however, and that is what equivalence is about - settings that provide similar images on different formats.

AoV and DoF equivalence make sense to a certain extent. How about the rest of photography like exposure?

[24X36NOW]

While the math is correct, this only matters if you care about shooting wide apertures, in that case yes FF is cheaper. For light gathering purposes, a 70-200/2.8 in APSC really does act like 105-300/f2.8. There are alot of photographers that shoot mostly stopped down, they dont care if the DOF of 70-200/2.8 on APSC is like 105-300/4 on FF, since they dont shoot it wide open anyway.

Actually no, for light gathering purposes, a 70-200 f2.8 acts like a 105-300 f4.5. For exposure purposes, it acts like a 105-300 f2.8, but then there is the additional noise due to less area of the sensor. It would take a 70-200 f1.8 to "act like" a 105-300 f2.8 on APS-C for "light gathering" purposes.

If you shoot stopped down, APSC still has its advantages, it's smaller, gives you more DOF, and cheaper in the longer tele and extreme wide. Both format has its advantages so it's not as clear cut as you think it is. I love FF for the DOF control but it's not something all photographers appreciate.

APS-C has essentially one advantage - it's cheaper and lighter when you are prepared to accept the compromises.

+1, I shoot wide open alot but that's just because I prefer it, it doesnt mean it's necessary to make good photos.

It may be important, it may not be - it depends on the photo. Having the flexibility is better than not.

For the purposes of DOF control, this is actually true. Only that it's more like 2.8 rather than 3.5. Mounting a 28-75/2.8 on FF is like shooting an (nonexistent) 18-50/2 on APSC for DOF purposes only.. This is why lots of FF people aren't so hot on the Sigma 18-35, we already have lots of 28-70/2.8 for the longest time at the same price or cheaper.

Yup, and they have much more range.

---------- Post added 10-10-2014 at 09:01 PM ----------

I've been thinking about this video. he does a little add for the manufacturers who support this nonsense Guess who i pushing this agenda? Nikon an Canon, probably the two biggest companies pushing full frame camera. Of course they want Full Frame to be the centre of the universe. Of course they don't want MF mentioned in the video. OF course they want to subvert the definitions of Aerture or ISO to fit their sales strategy. This man is a shameless shill and nothing more. Ever piece of good information he presents is polluted by his relentless Full Frame ideology.

After the trashing this video has received in other threads, the OP should be embarrassed he even posted it.

But since he didn't

Aperture is not defined by DoF. Read the wiki definition, I posted it in the last thread where this was posted. DoF is about DoF, and it's not measured in stops, it's measured in measures of linear units, anyone who wants to measure DoF in stops is trying to do a con job on you.

ISO is not about total light collected. The man in the video is simply lying. There was more difference in the amount of light collected by the "sensor" in film days when there were 8x10 film cameras and milota minoxs that were completely tiny, yet the ISO standard was adopted.. ISO hasn't been made obsolete by digital. The total amount of light captured by the film was never part of ISO. Again read the wiki entry. SO once again the author claims a term is irrelevant, that is still completely irrelevant. The brainwashing continues with his diagram where FF is the biggest sensor. What happened to MF? Oh, well that doesn't fit with the Full Frame superiority mindset so, it's conveniently left off.

This man is lying through his teeth. I just hope no one gets sucked in by this nonsense.

If you believe this stuff, I have to ask, how many of those Dr. Ho home therapy units do you own?

Since this is the third time this infomercial has been posted, it makes you wonder, are these guys stupid or is this some kind of willful campaign? Northrup is no better than Dr. Ho. He uses sensational statements that are clever manipulations of various bits of information to make a case. ISO is about film sensitivity. The intensity of light it takes to expose an image on a light sensitive material. The amount of light captured has nothing to do with it, nor should it. ISO is not a standard of noise, noise has it's own formula.

The only thing relevant about noise is, you need to determine what the highest amount of noise your work flow will tolerate is, and shoot at less than that. For APS-c for me I top out at 400 for comfort, 800 in a stretch, 1600 under duress. The differences are so small between 100 and 400, it doesn't matter that FF is better. The one stop difference between 100 and 350 is minuscule and you can see that in the IR swatches. Mr. Serous with his dead pan tone would have you believe what he's talking about is a big deal. It's not. You get useful images on MF at higher ISOs than you do on 4/3. APS-c and FF are just stops along the way, and if ISO 100-400 works for you, going to an FF for noise reduction is a waste of money.

If you want to talk about brainwashing, talk about the "70-200 f2.8 = 105-300 f2.8" crowd that "convert" one aspect of a lens' application while conveniently ignoring the other. If the video is not valid, then why does the 200 f5.6 FF shot look like the 100 f2.8 MFT shot?! Even when plainly demonstrated, you argue that the result is "lies." LOL

---------- Post added 10-10-2014 at 09:04 PM ----------

If 70-200/2.8, ISO 100 on FF and 50-135/2.8 ISO 100 on APSC = same shutter speed, then I'd say they have equal light gathering capability for practical purposes

Nope, they have equal exposure, not equal light gathering capability (reflected as more noise on the smaller format at the same f-stop).

---------- Post added 10-10-2014 at 09:07 PM ----------

I don't say that full frame doesn't have an advantage -- it generally does. You can stop down on full frame and get the same depth of field and just push the iso one stop up and get the same noise/dynamic range (assuming similar sensor tech). But the only "benefit" to full frame is if you are willing to accept less depth of field than you can get with APS-C if you want/need an APS-C equivalent photo, then by definition, you will get the same noise/SNR/dynamic range as on your crop camera.

You get better image quality, unless you can get 150% of the linear resolution out of the lens used on the APS-C camera, as compared with the lens used on the FF camera.

---------- Post added 10-10-2014 at 09:17 PM ----------

....no.... that's not how physics or the sensor works...

Right so far...

A cropped sensor will receive the same quantity of light per area as a larger sensor. The larger sensor will always have more photosites/pixels than the smaller one - so when you look at an equivalent FOV image between a larger and a smaller sensor, the larger sensor has better noise signal when SCALED to an equal pixel count.

D'oh! This is where people always fall on their faces - when they start making it about the stupid pixels. The larger sensor doesn't always have more photosites, and it does not matter if it has more, the same number, or less. It has more than twice the surface area, and therefore captures more than twice the light at the same aperture. It therefore has more than twice as much "signal" to offset against its "noise."

I.e. 36MP D800 vs 16MP cropped mode - at 100% crop the noise is the same. You can literally see this in person if you have a D800. You can also see this is true by comparing 100% crops of a D800 to a D7000. The noise at the pixel level is the same in quantity and size. However, upon scaling to equal (whether you scale the 36MP down to 16MP or scale the 16MP up to 36MP), the signal to noise ratio favors the larger sensor.

100% crop means nothing. It is the size of the image area, not the stupid pixels, that account for the difference!

A larger sensor does not absorb more light than a smaller sensor of the same technology. It just has more pixels/photosites. That's all.

D'oh! Once again, wrong. It does absorb more light, over twice as much, because it's more than twice as large.

---------- Post added 10-10-2014 at 09:24 PM ----------

Then make your statement clearer. You are saying, when normalized to the same MP count (whether by having larger photosites or having more pixels overall), a full frame sensor will outperform a cropped sensor in noise performance by more than one stop. That statement is generally true and can be seen in DXO ratings of sensors. But if I take a picture with a D800 at a given shutter speed/aperture/ISO and then I physically crop it afterwards - the exposure has not changed. So saying that the cropped sensor captures less light defies the definition of shutter speed/aperture/ISO.

The exposure isn't what we're talking about - we're talking about the total light captured. Are you seriously going to argue that if you take that D800 shot and trim it down to less than half its size that you haven't got less total light in the remainder than you had in the whole?!

---------- Post added 10-10-2014 at 09:28 PM ----------

But that is exactly what a cropped sensor does. It physically cropped the image you received. Pacer above me makes good sensor with mentioning film.

I'm pretty sure that a D800 and a D7000 does not do anything fancy with their ISO calculations just because they have different sensor sizes. If they did, you would immediately notice a difference in the D800 crop mode vs the D7000 normal output.

Of course they don't. We're NOT talking about exposure - we're talking about total light captured, which is going to be more than twice as much on a sensor more than twice as big. I knew this discussion was going off the deep end as soon as the "pixels on the brain" arguments started.

---------- Post added 10-10-2014 at 09:35 PM ----------

So if I grab a Nikon D800 and mount a full frame lens, then take two photos with the same settings, but one with whole sensor, and one with "crop mode" enabled, the second photo will suddenly be darker? No, it will be equally bright. Light per area will be the same, total area will be smaller (so total light recorded will be smaller), but the photo frame will be equally bright (same exposure) and the DoF will be the same. Only the crop will have a smaller field of view, due to cut off corners. There is a reason why Sunny 16 rule doesn't care about the size of your film

Yes, total light will be less, noise will be higher, and DOF will NOT be the same, if you take that cropped image and enlarge it to the same size as the FF image, it will appear to have less DOF, just as a "native" APS-C sensor shot would at the same focal length as that taken on a FF camera (which means narrower AOV than the FF shot if taken from the same distance). The reason Sunny 16 doesn't care about the size of your film or sensor is that Sunny 16 is an exposure (light intensity) measure, NOT a "total light collected" measure. So you aren't making any point.

[wombat2go]

It has more than twice the surface area, and therefore captures more than twice the light at the same aperture. It therefore has more than twice as much "signal" to offset against its "noise."

As I mentioned and questioned before in previous posts, in my opinion this assertion about signal to noise is a fallacy, oft repeated, and central to this thread.
Can somebody explain it to me? I am electrical engineer, I can take explanation simple or detailed.

[24X36NOW]

Because, as I already said, the camera compensates internally for the fewer (total) photons that are being collected, in order to conform with the set ASA.

No, no, no, Markus, you've let the idiots drag you down to their level. The simple answer is the right one. There is no "compensation" in camera regarding ISO values. And there doesn't need to be. They are arguing about "exposure," which is NOT the same thing as total light gathered. The total light gathered is simply varying with the size of the sensor, that's it. It takes nothing more to explain it.

---------- Post added 10-10-2014 at 09:42 PM ----------

Take his film analogy, take the film and cut the edges off to fit a APS film size. The brightness will not change, and neither did the exposure and all relevant settings.

With regards to the Sunny 16 rule - take a fully manual 35mm camera and a fully manual 110 camera and take the same ISO100 film and cut it to fit the 110 camera. Shoot F16 and 1/125s and you will see that both cameras have the same image brightness when process. They just have different FOV/how large you can print them - but the exposure stays the same. Now, if you take a lens that is somehow F16 (a pinhole lens) and you mount it on the 35mm camera and you also mount it on the 110 camera, by posts in this thread, the 110 camera should see F16 x (110 film's crop factor) for the exposure - which is not a correct statement.

Still arguing exposure, NOT the same thing as total light gathered.

[wombat2go]

The total light gathered is simply varying with the size of the sensor, that's it. It takes nothing more to explain it.

But there is a lot more you have to explain about how this relates to signal to noise ratio. You are just repeating, that is rhetoric without explanation of your point.