>>3134601It's based on area, not diagonal, crop is less than half the area, which means over a stop lost, if we also take into account it's hilariously bad transmission of 1.5 (1.7 for the stf version ) that means your massively overpriced lens is an f2.4 to f2.8 equivalent. And because crop sensors suck, that equivalency is for both bokeh and low light performance. Oh, and don't expect sharpness until past f4.
>>3134584I mean, I have the full frame Canon 1.2, fuji haven't quite managed an f0.7 lens yet ;)
>>3134585They're massively different lenses you pleb.
>>3134603He's correct though, noob.
>>3134607You're a tard
>>3134622Fucking idiot.
Of course a smaller sensor gathers less light.
Think of them as pizza that's collecting cheese raining from the sky, if we assume the rate of cheese fall is equal over an infinitely large area, which pizza gets an even covering of cheese first?
Well done, it is both at the same time.
Now which one has gathered more cheese?
Well done, it is the larger one.
F/t tell us how much light is projected by the lens per unit space, not total. Image quality is all about signal to noise ratio, more cheese = larger signal, twice as much cheese = half as much noise.
>>3134625>light transmission is not affected by sensor sizeYes it is (well, light gathering), crop cameras need to shoot at a stop or more lower iso than ff to get an image with equivalent noise.
Fucking idiots in here today can't into physics.
>>3134631Omg, no, this is not physics, this is the ramblings of a fucking moron. His maths implies that ev is linear and crop camera images should come out ~log 3 stops brighter. Which is obviously demonstratably untrue.
t. An actual STEM degree holder that understands basic maths and physics.
>>3134667You're a fucking dropout, camera lens specs are estimates at best. The optical design will have a bigger effect on dropoff than your autism over numbers.
