Discuss

Shit tier chart.

Lumps medium format in one pile instead of letting the best battles duke it out.
Everyone knows people who shoot hasselblads are posers, rollei shooters are hipster, memeya posters are poor, pentax users handicapped and fuji posters are braindead.
Meanwhile makina and bronica users stand atop the golden medium format throne dipping their salty balls into the mouths of large format shooters like "sugar".

Digipleb fags can leave desu, they couldn't even catch the highlights of the day on the TV after the 10 o clock news. Can't even find a clip to watch later and have to resort to pretending they know what's going on.

>>2975410
>implying medium format film is on the chart
it says medium-format digital you fucking retard

This graph would be 100% accurate if the fuji x series was in the middle

>>2975414
>tfw x-series isn't even important enough to get on the chart

>>2975406

nice reddit image.

>>2975432
>>2975414

Fuji is right there in the middle, dinguses.

>>2975461
>fuji
>dslr
wut
>>2975452
nope

>>2975406
It implies the a7 range is less capable, when they have the best ff sensors, every single feature you could want is built in.

Name any dslr with better "camera capabilities", fuji belongs there because it lacks some basics, like a 24-70 equivalent lens, a flash system, any way to control off camera flash, etc.

Oh and mid range dslrs shouldn't be in the size & weight circle.

And bridge cameras? They don't fit in any category.

>>2975569
Hi Moopco

File: 28031739394_3680868097.jpg (78KB, 500x500px) Image search: [Google]

78KB, 500x500px

>>2975569

File: Sony tears.jpg (218KB, 300x450px) Image search: [Google]

218KB, 300x450px

>>2975569

[EXIF data available. Click here to show/hide.]

Camera-Specific Properties:
Camera Software	Adobe Photoshop CS2 Windows
Image-Specific Properties:
Image Orientation	Top, Left-Hand
Horizontal Resolution	72 dpi
Vertical Resolution	72 dpi
Image Created	2012:07:09 11:46:12
Color Space Information	sRGB
Image Width	300
Image Height	450

>implying MFT can't take technically good photos

>>2975657
Yes with good lighting. But it is more about video nowdays.

>>2975569
lmao it's this same fucking shill again

kill yourself, you obnoxious cunt

>>2975649
What's someone dropping their camera in the sea got to do with anything?

>>2975664
Great rebuttal fuji dude.
Can't help you didn't refute any of the points made, just got angry about them, kinda like when your sporting team loses ;^)

>>2975569
>>2975676
>15 shekels has been added to your account

>>2975686
Rebuttals on fleek

>>2975569
>24-70 equivalent lens

But the 16-55 f2.8?

>>2975690
An f4 equivalent? No thanks, i meant proper lenses.

>>2975692
If you really need that extra stops worth of depth of field why are you using a zoom in the first place instead of a fast prime?

File: 1371836622182.jpg (18KB, 231x250px) Image search: [Google]

18KB, 231x250px

>>2975692
>shifting the goalposts this hard

get a load of this guy

[EXIF data available. Click here to show/hide.]

Camera-Specific Properties:
Image-Specific Properties:
Image Orientation	Top, Left-Hand
Color Space Information	sRGB
Image Width	231
Image Height	250

>>2975692
>aperture multiplied by crop factor
Nice meme, friend.
No, wait it is not, it is bloody stupid that's what it is.

>Camera capabilities
Don't all cameras do the same?

>>2975700
He's partially right regarding to depth of field. Because a 58mm lens on crop has an 85mm length you have to stand further back and focus further away using a crop camera

>>2975705
what?
>16-55/2.8
that is 24-85mm equivalent. Where did anyone mention a 58mm lens? and an f/2.8 lens is f/2.8 regardless what size sensor you put behind it.
plus it is a zoom lens, you stand where you want and adjust the zoom, no need to only zoom with your feet you dumbass!
why don't you finish a school first with actual useful courses like physics and engineering?
you are the real life equivalent of the dunning-krueger effect you stupid artfag

File: VS_EP002_02.jpg (363KB, 1920x1080px) Image search: [Google]

363KB, 1920x1080px

>>2975707
Yeah I wasn't speaking specifically about the 16-55

I realize the aperture between them is the same but If you increase the focal length and the focusing distance at the same aperture you'll end up with a wider depth of field

>>2975710
Also I forgot, you'd have a different circle of confusion value going from a larger to a smaller censor

>>2975712
You really think the lens CoC changes when you put a smaller sensor behind it? It is about the CHOICE of CoC for apparent DoF. It is a maximum value where it looks in focus! The real focus plane stays an infinitesimally thin plane regardless!
Why are you so stupid?
F-stop in aperture is meant to measure light! The same amount of light goes through an f/2.8 lens no matter how big the sensor is you stupid dumbass! Your equivalent DoF is stupid and you should feel stupid for bringing that stupid pseudoscience shit up!

>>2975714
>You really think the lens CoC changes when you put a smaller sensor behind it?

Not sure if you're being obtuse on purpose but I never said anything about lens CoC. The CoC value will be different between sensor sizes, which is important when calculating depth of field

>F-stop in aperture is meant to measure light!

And used to calculate depth of field

>The same amount of light goes through an f/2.8 lens no matter how big the sensor is you stupid dumbass!

Never said it didn't

>Your equivalent DoF is stupid and you should feel stupid for bringing that stupid pseudoscience shit up!

So are you just being a retard on purpose to spread misinformation or something. How is this pseudoscience this is just how depth of field is calculated

>>2975716
DoF stays the same no matter what size sensor you use. You have to stand further away due to the change in view angle that is why your apparent DoF changes. No equivalent DoF here you dumb fuck, it is how far you are standing you dipshit!
An f/2.8 lens stays an f/2.8 lens regardless of sensor format

File: cropped_sensor_view.jpg (36KB, 496x433px) Image search: [Google]

36KB, 496x433px

>>2975719
>DoF stays the same no matter what size sensor you use. You have to stand further away due to the change in view angle that is why your apparent DoF changes. No equivalent DoF here you dumb fuck, it is how far you are standing you dipshit!

Oh so you mean literally what I said right here
>>2975705

another day, another thread. Same fucking gearfags ruining /p/.

>>2975719
>DoF stays the same no matter what size sensor you use

So why do I not have any bokeh on my smartphone, it's a 28mm f1.8 lens and I need to be within 6 inches to get bokeh. But I can stand 15 feet away with my 28mm f1.8 on full frame and still get separation.

dumb faggit for brains.

>>2975725
Think about it you stupid shit!

>>2975729
You said DOF isn't effected by sensor size and only by positioning, which is quite evidently not true.

You dumb shit.

>>2975406
No one wants to discuss how big of a faggot you are. Delete this

>>2975725
Because it's not a 28mm lens on your smartphone, you doof. It is what, about ~4mm or somesuch?


100mm on large format has the same out-of-focus rendering as 100mm on medium format, as it does on 135, etc.

Yes - the field of view changes between formats - but that is not your "bokeh".

>>2975733
Just finish a damn basic maths and physics course, then you are allowed to speak again.

>>2975486

I was talking more about the

>mid-tier

part of that diagram. A mirror or a lack of one is irrelevant in the grand scheme of things.

>>2975710
For any lens k=f/D.
k:=f-number
f:=focal length
D:=diameter of aperture opening

A 50mm f/1.4 is f/1.4 at maximum aperture opening, whether you put it on a FF or some m43 camera. The film/sensor size does not affect aperture as aperture is the relationship between the opening and the focal length.
Put above formula in your posted formulas and see where it leads you.
Also: In which part of the 2 formulas you posted does the sensor/film-size come into play? As far as I can see it's not considered at all. So, what relevance do these formulas have for that discussion anyway?

>>2975754

Just wanted to point out that D in your equation should be "apparent diameter of aperture opening", as the physical diameter can appear much smaller than it actually is.

>>2975758
Diameter is diameter, it is something you measure. there is no "apparent diameter" that can be different than it is measured.
Fuck all you know-nothing imbeciles really make me mad!
Is this how the general education degraded? No wonder how things like the brexit and Donald Trumpf and all the far right populism got so much grip in the world!

File: 084.png (102KB, 300x256px) Image search: [Google]

102KB, 300x256px

>>2975766

lol wut

>>2975758
Yup. I have 250mm Mamiya f5 lens for 6x7/9. The actual physical aperture is a regular size 0 shutter, which is about ~24mm. As the front of the lens is ~105mm in diameter, this would actually mean an aperture of about ~f10.

But, if you view the the iris/shutter from the front of the lens, it is clear that it appears huge - much larger than just 24mm. This is because the iris/shutter assembly is enlarged by the massive frontal elements of the lens - giving it a much bigger *apparent* size.

>>2975657
>tfw Nikonniggers and Canoncucks have to pay 500 buckaroos extra for side-features almost all Panasonic and Olympus cameras have

>>2975758
Your nitpicking doesn't change anything at all.

Present me physical proof that aperture or focal length of a lens are affected by the sensor/film behind it.

>>2975806

lmao

i wasn't even trying to disprove that. it's my one post in my thread besides the subsequent reaction image and this one. i was merely trying to clarify your equation just a little, as so many people often get confused by aperture. where did you even think that I was trying to disprove you? why are people so fucking defensive in 2016? what happened to dialogue?

>>2975810
Anonymous posts.. you never know. In a normal conversation it would have been clear who said what.

>>2975649
i kek every time now

>>2975754
>Also: In which part of the 2 formulas you posted does the sensor/film-size come into play? As far as I can see it's not considered at all. So, what relevance do these formulas have for that discussion anyway?

The circle of confusion value will be different going from FF to crop

>>2975984
Do you realize you gave the answer yourself?
Have some CoC values:
FF: 0.03mm
APS-C: 0.018mm
m43: 0.015

FF:APS-C=0.03/0.018=1.6 (=crop factor of APS-C for Canon)
FF:m43=0.03/0.0.15=2 (=crop factor of m43).

In the formulas posted above, at same relative aperture (e.g. f/4) and the same focal length (e.g. 50mm), is the change in DOF caused by an "equivalent aperture"?
Remember, focal length is determined by the optics, whereas aperture is determined by the opening diameter in relation to focal length. Both are not affected by the CoC. The difference in DOF is caused by the CoC, which then results in the equivalent FOV of focal length X crop factor.
So, technically speaking there is neither equivalent focal length, nor equivalent aperture. However, as the difference in FOV is equal to the crop factor you can speak of an equivalent focal length as a 75mm on FF would give a similar FOV as a 50mm on APS-C.
Still, aperture remains unchanged by that as the effective focal length is still 50mm and only the FOV is changed.

>>2976037
Yeh, so you need 1.6 stops greater aperture to get a similar dof on your equivalent lens.

Which is why crops such a false economy, the difference in price from a 50 1.8 and a 35 1.2 is enough to get a ff body instead of a crop body.

>>2975406
>no hasslelblad mirrorless
>no fuji gfx

>>2976291
If you want the same FOV, you need a lens that is crop factor X focal length. So, you'd need a 50mm on FF and 25mm on m43.

At the same aperture opening diameter, the relative aperture is already smaller at the 50mm by the crop factor, which again equals the difference in CoC. As it's implied by the longer focal length:
k=f/D
We consider the opening to be the same diameter (e.g. 20mm) for both lenses:
k=50mm/20mm=2.5
k=25mm/20mm=1.25
In this case, there would be a relative aperture (k X crop factor)

However, it would be wrong to consider the aperture opening to have the same diameter (D) at 50mm and 25mm at the same relative aperture (k): A 50mm needs a larger opening diameter to have the same relative aperture as a 25mm.
D=f/k
As above we consider k to be the same at both focal length (e.g. f/4):
D=50mm/4=12.5mm
D=25mm/4=6.25mm

This is why it's called "relative aperture".

>>2976309
To make that clear:
The difference in DOF (caused by the opening diameter of aperture) is already implied by the difference in focal length you choose to compensate the difference in FOV caused by the crop factor (=CoC).
Consequently, there is no equivalent relative aperture.

>>2976312
Incorrect, that would imply my f1.8 28mm equivalent lens on my phone would have more bokeh than my 28mm f2, which just isn't the case.

>>2976316
Stop being stupid. Your crappy phone doesn't have the actual focal length written on it, but the equivalent already. Also, DOF =/= bokeh.
Here's the math again:
D=f/k=28mm/1.8=15.56mm

Is the maximum aperture opening of your phone camera 15.56mm in diameter? I guess not.

>>2976321
>equivalent focal length
>non equivalent aperture
marketing people.

>>2976323
see >>2976312

>>2976321
using your maths.

my 300mm f2.8 lens
D = 300/2.8 = 107mm aperture.
or significantly wider than the diameter of the widest part of the lens.

You fucking clown shoes.

>>2976326
>using your maths.
Not my math, it's the physical formula to calculate it.
Why do you think your 200mm f/2.8 has a larger front element than a 200mm f/4?
Hint: Both have the same aperture mechanism (=same opening diameter).

>>2976326
Apparent entrance pupil aperture and physical aperture opening size are not the same.

The f-number is calculated from the apparent aperture size.

Ever wonder why all fast long zooms have huge front elements? Because the tele group in the front in practice acts as a giant magnifier for the much smaller physical aperture. The more massive the front element, the bigger the apparent magnification (and faster lens).