Sigma working on APS-C 50-140 f/2.8 and an external zoom full frame 70-200 f/2.8
- Thread starter Canon Rumors Guy
- Start date
Leave him be; in Italy we have a say "there's no worse deaf of a person who doesn't want to listen". He's just a troll who's calling for a flame.
I won't feed him anymore, and I've pushed the "ignore" button so I won't see him anymore, I've no other time to lose; as I said I get paid for teaching, and if he's not paying me, he doesn't get any other explanation.
Upvote
0
He means what the numbers he can read in his viewfinder says. But this isn't relevant, since we are discussing equivalency of light between two different sensor formats (and not how bright the picture Sooc is, as this has to do with digital processing). An f2.8 APS-C lens gathers light at f2.8 for that specific sensor size, which is equivalent to what f4 would do on a full frame sensor. I hope I have been able to explain this at least relatively well by now.
Upvote
0
If Tamron were to port over their 70-180 f2.8 to the RF mount it would be a serious worry to Canon and their RF 70-200 f2.8
It’s smaller, lighter, Just as sharp and it’s nearly 1/3 of the cost.
Canon are currently charging a lot for their closed loop RF format.
It’s smaller, lighter, Just as sharp and it’s nearly 1/3 of the cost.
Canon are currently charging a lot for their closed loop RF format.
Last edited:
Upvote
0
Even if you have to go to ISO 800 (not at all uncommon in a wedding chapel), FF will look better than APS-C. Bump that to ISO 1600 and the difference starts to get really noticeable.
You compared medium format vs a 1" sensor saying the photos will look the same, which is hogwash. Honestly you'd have to be an extremely inexperienced or just straight-up bad photographer to not be able to take advantage of the benefits of medium format in that situation. The images are going to look wildly different.
I'm not against APS-C, I bought a Sony APS-C setup for my daughter to use and learn with. Sony A6600, the set of Sigma APS-C f1.4 primes, a nice Laowa 2:1 macro, the Sony 70-350... It's a fantastic kit for her. She loves it. It's very compact and she has learned a lot with it. I might purchase the A6700 for her now too, and the Sony 11mm f1.8.
APS-C has its place and has its benefits. However it is ridiculous to ignore the benefits of larger sensors, be they FF or medium format. Of course they also come with trade-offs including large size and higher costs which shouldn't be ignored either.
Upvote
0
And you mate should have to be an extremely inexperienced English speaker, or just a straight-up bad photographer, because you couldn't read entirely, and understand, what I wrote.
I'll quote myself: regarding comparison between MF, FF and 1" sensor using the same exposure triangle, "our pictures will look (almost) exactly the same in terms of brightness"
IN
TERMS
OF
BRIGHTNESS
Now, if your English is at least decent, and your IQ is not as low as you made me suspect it is, try to read once again the sentence, and reconsider your post.
Of course FF and MF will look WAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAY better then and Aps or a 1" sensor, because we're in a damn church with low light and we're 3200, 6400, 12.800 iso, well yes, the 1" would be totally unusable, and the Aps almost as unusable.
But we were NOT discussing dynamic range or low light performance across sensors; we were discussing that, GIVEN THE EXACTLY SAME EXPOSURE TRIANGLE (LET'S SUPPOSE F2 1/200S 3200ISO), ALL CAMERAS, FROM A PHONE TO A MEDIUM FORMAT CAMERA, WILL PRODUCE A FILE WITH THE SAME EXACT BRIGHTNESS, REGARDLESS OF THEIR SENSOR SIZE, because the guy I end up blocking was arguing that a sensor receives different amount of light (for the same exposure triangle) when considering different sensor size, AND THAT'S NOT IT, the EV (Exposure Value) of a scene is the same regardless of the device used to record it, and every device when you insert a specific EV (which correspond to an exposure triangle that gives the same results of the specific EV) gives you back a file with the same brightness, because EV is a definite standard, a scene with 8EV has a certain std brightness and a 15EV scene also has its own specific std brightness.
If you guys just knew what an incident light exposure meter it is, and how to use it (maybe choosing the EV view, instead of the exposure triangle view), that would be crystal clear; so man, believe me, I'm not the straight-up bad photographer here.
I started in 1999 with 35mm film cameras, then went to 6x6 film cameras, I used in training large format film cameras (but I admit I totally suck with Scheimpflug; but you probably don't even know what I'm talking about), and just then went to digital; did you ever shoot a roll of film? Maybe a roll of 6x6/6x9? Did you ever used large format? Ever shoot not just negative, but also slides?
Bah.
Upvote
0
Man, there was this other guy who was arguing that sensors receive different amount of light (given the same lens with the same aperture) depending on their size, so it was something like "an aps sensor receives half of the light of a ff sensor; so shooting f2.8 with aps is like shooting at f4 with ff", and the answer is no, the two sensors receive exactly the same amount of light, and with the same exposure triangle they would give you a picture with the same exposure, or brightness.
THEN, of course there are difference in DR, noise, etc, between aps and ff, and even more when you consider mf or 1" sensors; the discussion was purely theoretical, he was arguing that, given the same exposure triangle in front of the same scene, sensors would give you a different amount of exposure because they receive less, or more, light depending on their size, and that's not it, would you agree on that?
Ans so YES, if we're talking purely exposure, the DoF is irrelevant, like DR and noise are irrelevant to the discussion; or are you another one who doesn't know what an incident light meter is and how to use it?
It's not about being great or bad photographer or having happy or unsatisfied customers; but given the attitude you generally show in here, like you being an oracle, I expected nothing less.
Upvote
0
Whatever you say, pal. You go and enjoy that 1" sensor, probably on full auto.
Upvote
0
No one is arguing that light per unit area is what determines exposure/brightness, and thus f/2.8 would meter the same on a FF sensor and a 1" sensor. If someone stated that two sensors would give different exposure settings for the same scene, please quote them posting that – I don't see it in this thread.
What was stated (and that you argued with) was that ISO 100 on an APS-C sensor looks like ISO 200 on a FF sensor (approximately, it's actually a 1.3-stop difference so ISO 250). That's true. Total light gathered determines image noise, and a larger sensor gathers more light. In fairness, the difference between ISO 100 and ISO 250 is meaningless with current sensors. But the difference between ISO 1600 and ISO 4000 is meaningful. You seemed to be arguing that f/2.8 on a FF sensor gives equivalent output to f/2.8 on a 1" sensor. That is technically false, though in bright daylight light the difference is probably not significant. In less than bright daylight, the difference become significant, and the greater the difference in sensor size (meaning a greater difference in total light gathered), the more that difference matters.
Upvote
0
I wasn't referring to you, but to another user (jaygould), who I had to block; you definitely have problems pal, go see a doctor.
Upvote
0
The common denominator here seem to be you, so perhaps you should get yourself checked out.
Upvote
0
Similar threads
- Contains 1 staff post(s)
- Contains 1 staff post(s)
- Contains 1 staff post(s)
- Contains 1 staff post(s)
