>>3531271Sorry dumbass, that's not how f-stops work. F-stop is merely the ratio of the diameter of the aperture diagonal to the size of the media frame, and is typically equivalent to light transmission per mm^2 (t-stop) within .1 stop for modern lenses.
The issue here is that you're too fucking stupid to understand crop factor. It is literally equivalent to cropping the frame of a scene at the same focal distance. Meaning if you shoot 50mm on a 35mm frame, you crop out size of the smaller sensor from that frame at the same focal length, meaning if you put a 50mm lens on a smaller sensor body, it would literally be equivalent to cropping the frame of the smaller sensor from the larger frame, assuming equivalent f-stop.
What you're trying to do, because you're fucking retarded, is compare exposure using equivalent fields of view. Meaning, you're comparing total light gathered from a scene at 54.4 degrees field of view on both sensors. Fucking OBVIOUSLY a smaller sensor gathers less total light for a given field of view, idiot. It's literally less surface area, so no shit. But that has nothing to do with exposure whatsoever, and absolutely nothing to do with how f-stops are calculated. No matter what your fstop is for a given field of view, virtually the same amount of light per mm^2 is still falling on the media, assuming there isn't some major variance in t-stops from some lens construction issue.
As for noise levels, you'd expect mathematically that it would be the case that you get twice as much noise when raising ISO to get equivalent shutter speeds for a given f-stop per EV of a scene. However, this is not reflected in reality, especially when you factor in the fact that noise processing algorithms have gotten advanced enough to remove noise without sacrificing detail, which renders the discrepancy from a straight RAW file completely moot.
See pic related.
FF fags just can't cope with the fact their whole system has a terrible price/performance ratio
