>>4064294>Blur\light gatheringf is the aperture, it's a ratio of the focal length to the lens diameter.
t is the transmission, it's a measure of how much light the lens cap transmit.
This is an f0.4 equivalent lens. We do not have enough information to ascertain the transmission.
When I said "we're measuring f not t, know the difference" what did you think I meant? Or did you just not have the ability to read that far without getting super mad?
>>4064310The dof isn't caused by the focal length, if you were to get a 500mm lens (or whatever this is) and recompose so the subject is the same height in the frame, the dof would be completely different and probably much less as you're going to have to be so much further back.
It's a 35mm f0.4 equivalent, that's it. Any other figure no one has a common frame of reference for, except maybe a 17mm f0.2 mft lens equivalent
>>4064394>Going from plain white to displaying an image isn't the paper respondingI guess film isn't a "sensor" either then by your definition. (Notice how the definition for sensor makes NO mention of the longevity of the response).
What mental gymnastics do you have in store to explain this now?
>>4064395Jewish people are a race anon.
You stupid racist twat.
