>>3566744>Indeed. It's like arguing with imbeciles.>says the imbecile>>3566744>Aperture as defined in astronomy is DIFFERENT than aperture calculated for photography lenses.Not it is not. That paragraph is not telling you that it's measured differently. It's telling you that different equipment attached to the scope can result in a different effective aperture and/or a different focal ration. Kinda like attaching a teleconverter to a lens.
Aperture for a photographic lens is ALSO defined by the edges of the objective lens you imbecile.
>>3566744>By idiots logic aperture crop would need to be noted for each adapter.Exposure per square mm is the same regardless of format. Total mm exposed is quite different.
>>3566753>Modern m43 sensors out resolve and outperform in daylight, low light, and pretty much in any scenario, fifteen year old full frame sensors.Even though read noise was a larger component 15 years ago a FF sensor from that time still has less noise than a modern mft. Pic related.
