What should I do /P/ buy a XT-2 or A7ii I'm not brand loyal

>>3134556
I'll add to this I came from a FF Canon system but sold it 3 years ago for the Fuji system. Don't tell me that theres no difference between FF and crop because there is I shot with a 6D and had some really fast primes. And I do miss the look of the FF sensor when shooting wide open. As of right now the Fuji system is great but it is still lacking in any fast glass that can touch the look of a FF sensor with a 1.4 lens attached

>>3134556
>But at the same time I hear nothing but bad shit about Sony

Most of that bad shit are memes or shit that only plagued a certain camera, not every single Sony product or has been fixed with software update long ago but haters will bring it up anyway

That's the price of being popular, it's threatening other brand fanboys. just leave 4chan

>>3134561
im genuinely asking. I'm not brand loyal like I said. But I do have friends that shoot with sony that hate them, And then I have friends that love them. It's a general concern when making a system switch when you are talking about glass that costs almost 2k and a body that's around 1,600.. Considering I already have a large investment in a different system.

>>3134564
There is absolutely no reason to buy a crop sensor camera that cost 1.6k when you could buy the FF A7ii for cheaper and better in every single way..

Lenses you already bought is worth considering but that's up to you to decide, personally I'd try to resell them, you'd lose a bit of money but better than investing even more on a gimped format and crop lenses that will end up costing you a huge amount of money in the future when you are finally fed up with it.

With how popular E-mount is you can guarantee that there will be adapters to whatever system that will take over its place in the future even if Sony magically go bankrupt.

>>3134573
this is my reasoning exactly. Don't get me wrong that little crop sensor gives my old FF 6D a run for it's money. but the difference when shooting wide open is night and day.. One Big turn off for me though when it come's to sony is the interface. Iv'e messed with them a little it's completely different then the fuji's. I think thats where Fuji get's you hooked is the way you shoot with them.

But assuming Sony might go bankrupt in the future is pretty ridiculous (I know you were just joking) but they have such a large stake in many other areas that could keep them afloat for literally generations. not to mention they are the main supplier for sensors in just about every brand on the market

>>3134575
The interface is just a matter of familiarity, when you're used to another system obviously you will find it awkward. I also didn't like it at first but got used to it after a few days. You can remap most of the buttons to mimic what you're used to on the Fuji anyway.

Also if you've tried the A7 UI then it's pretty bad, but it's much better with the A7ii when zooming/viewing images.

>>3134556
Xt2 isn't enough of an upgrade from xt1.

A7ii isn't going to give you the 1.4 ff look from native lenses without serious investment, and if you're going to buy glass that good why buy Sony's gimped and end of life body to mount them on?

>>3134577
Thanks for the info man. as soon as the A7iii is announced i'm sure the A7ii and possibly A7Rii are going to drop in price drastically

>>3134579
because in the same price range to go back to canon would be the out dated 6D or the new piece of shit 6Dmkii

>>3134579
A7ii with a sigma art 35 1.4 , zeiss 55 1.8, zeiss batis 85 1.8 should get me in the ball park with decent glass

>>3134559
you mean you just cant afford the 1.2 lens
lrn2equivalents

>>3134583
>55 and 85
While both are fantastic lenses, just pick one of them my man, don't waste money, use that to buy an A7rii. I'd choose 85 over 55 since you already have the 35.

>>3134585
I shoot a lot of street and landscape occasionally portraits So I constantly end up using the 23, and 35 on the fuji system (35, and 53 equivelant) I almost never go wider then 35 so even just those two would have me covered for awhile

>>3134584
>he paid 2.6k for a gimped format and shitty lenses

A full frame at f2 will still shit all over your crop sensor with a 1.2 not to mention how soft that 1.2 is at wide open kek

>>3134584
I have never shot at 1.2 I've only ever owned 1.4 primes and honestly I probably would never shoot at 1.2 not to mention the inital investment into a new system is not cheap to begin with. so yeah can't afford the 1.2

>>3134585
wait you are talking about the 56 1.2 ? yes I have shot with that and no it is not the same as shooting 1.4 on a FF sensor. it's more comparable to a F2- 2.8 and the compression is nothing like a 85mm

What crop shooters don't understand if they have no experience with a FF sensor is that a 56 will always compress like a 56 even though it will give you a 85 field of view.

The focal length does not change just the field of view

>>3134584
>>3134591

Why do you think they came out with that APD version of the 56 ? they tried to mimic the bokeh and compression of a true 85 FF lens.they applied a nd coating to the edges of the glass, but at the cost of letting in even less light. so now you would have a 1,500 $ novelty lens that lets in even less light

>>3134582
I was pushing him towards the rii- should have been clearer.
>>3134583
People are raving (hopefully justifiably) about the new Sony 85 1.8, which is cheaper than the Batis (which is too contrasty for a portrait lens imnsho).

>>3134588
>1.2 * 1.5 = 2
Found the math flunkee.

>>3134600
I think all zeiss glass is very contrasty. A7Rii would definitely be the better of the two with the 36 megapixel FF sensor. but I honestly don't need it. i don't plan on shooting video, and i never print larger then 16x20. it gives you more options for cropping but I'm not a big fan of cropping to begin with.

>>3134591
>FF sensor is that a 56 will always compress like a 56 even though it will give you a 85 field of view.
I can't believe there are still retards on the board that believe this.

>>3134601
not taking into account that the 56 will compress like a 56 not a 85

>>3134603
are you retarded the lens is a 56 not a 85. it will never be a 85. it may offer you the field of view of a 85 on a crop body but it won't act like a 85. it's literally always going to be a 56.. do you think math, and laws of physics don't exist ?

>>3134604
I'm not taking that into account because thats not how optics work. That's a long debunked idea that only newfags believe.

https://www.photo.net/discuss/threads/question-on-how-focal-length-affects-compression.386852/

The bokeh and such might look different, but compression is a product of perspective. You should take a class on optics. You could learn a thing or two so you stop perpetuating Tony Northrup tier mistruths.

>>3134605
Quite the contrary. Math and laws of physics are why a 56mm 1.2 on crop behaves identically to an 85mm 1.8 on full frame, except in light gathering capacity.

56 1.2 * 1.5 = 85 1.8 but this equation does not affect light gathering, where 1.2 is 1.2 (though realistically in the case of this specific lens, its actual light transmission value is closer to 1.4 if I correctly recall)

What math and physics can you map out to support your delusion? I'd be curious to hear it and maybe help straighten you out.

File: Fuji5612_2.jpg (149KB, 940x627px) Image search: [Google]

149KB, 940x627px

>>3134606
>>3134607
>>3134603

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

Camera-Specific Properties:
Equipment Make	FUJIFILM
Camera Model	X-T1
Camera Software	Adobe Photoshop CC (Macintosh)
Maximum Lens Aperture	f/1.2
Sensing Method	One-Chip Color Area
Focal Length (35mm Equiv)	84 mm
Image-Specific Properties:
Image Orientation	Top, Left-Hand
Horizontal Resolution	300 dpi
Vertical Resolution	300 dpi
Image Created	2014:04:13 13:21:23
Exposure Time	1/850 sec
F-Number	f/1.2
Exposure Program	Aperture Priority
ISO Speed Rating	200
Lens Aperture	f/1.2
Brightness	4.1 EV
Exposure Bias	-0.3 EV
Metering Mode	Average
Light Source	Unknown
Flash	No Flash, Compulsory
Focal Length	56.00 mm
Color Space Information	sRGB
Image Width	940
Image Height	627
Rendering	Normal
Exposure Mode	Auto
White Balance	Auto
Scene Capture Type	Standard
Sharpness	Normal
Subject Distance Range	Unknown

File: Canon8518_2.jpg (132KB, 940x627px) Image search: [Google]

132KB, 940x627px

>>3134608
>>3134606
>>3134607

Now tell me that the compression is the same?

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

Camera-Specific Properties:
Equipment Make	Canon
Camera Model	Canon EOS 5D Mark III
Camera Software	Adobe Photoshop CC (Macintosh)
Photographer	Andrew Van Beek
Maximum Lens Aperture	f/1.2
Image-Specific Properties:
Image Orientation	Top, Left-Hand
Horizontal Resolution	300 dpi
Vertical Resolution	300 dpi
Image Created	2014:04:12 17:11:16
Exposure Time	1/400 sec
F-Number	f/1.8
Exposure Program	Aperture Priority
ISO Speed Rating	200
Lens Aperture	f/1.8
Exposure Bias	0.7 EV
Metering Mode	Pattern
Flash	No Flash, Compulsory
Focal Length	85.00 mm
Color Space Information	sRGB
Image Width	940
Image Height	627
Rendering	Normal
Exposure Mode	Auto
White Balance	Auto
Scene Capture Type	Standard

>>3134607
>56 1.2 * 1.5 = 85 1.8 but this equation does not affect light gathering

You're telling me a x1.53 crop factor APS-C sensor receive the same amount of light as a full frame sensor? okay.

>>3134606
>>3134607
>>3134608
>>3134609

As you can clearly see the canon blows the fuji to piss even at 1.8 so don't tell me that the 56 reacts the same as a 85. compression is very different

>>3134610
people will believe whatever they want to justify not spending money on a FF system

>>3134610
Yes, that's exactly what I'm telling you. Crop factor applies to focal length and depth of field, not to light gathering.

Google it. Try to prove me wrong.

>>3134608
f/1.2 at f/1.2

>>3134609
f/1.2 @ f/1.8

Of course these two aren't going to be equal, because the 1.5x number is rounded down from 1.54x

the 56mm 1.2 is *technically* equivalent to 85mm 1.84800

that's why you have slightly less dof in the full frame shot there. The optical qualities of the two lenses are also playing a large effect, where the full frame lens simply happens to have smoother bokeh quality.

The depth of the focal plane doesn't vary by much at all, just by roughly 2.68mm.

>>3134615
https://petapixel.com/2017/03/29/dispelling-myths-around-depth-field-crop-factor/

Other way around. You'll avoid doing math to convince yourself full frame was a necessary purchase.

>>3134601
That's only true if their sensor capabilities are on pair, apart from the difference in size.

A7ii iso range is 100-25.6k while XT-2 native iso is 200-12.8k, so no. Your shitty glass 1.2 glass on a XTurd-2 will never come close to 1.8 glass on the A7ii.

>>3134616
>Yes, that's exactly what I'm telling you. Crop factor applies to focal length and depth of field, not to light gathering.

I don't need to google to know that you're fucking retarded. Smaller sensor = smaller light gathering capabilities. It's a physical limit you can't change.

File: cropfactor1-1.jpg (101KB, 1600x641px) Image search: [Google]

101KB, 1600x641px

>>3134617
>APERTURE = APPLY CROP FACTOR
>>3134607

>HURR 1.2 IS STILL 1.2 XDDDDDD
thanks for proving you're retarded

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

Camera-Specific Properties:
Camera Software	Adobe Photoshop CC 2017 (Macintosh)
Image-Specific Properties:
Image Width	1600
Image Height	641
Number of Bits Per Component	8, 8, 8
Pixel Composition	RGB
Image Orientation	Top, Left-Hand
Horizontal Resolution	72 dpi
Vertical Resolution	72 dpi
Image Created	2017:03:29 10:39:21
Color Space Information	sRGB
Image Width	1600
Image Height	641

>>3134620
>Smaller sensor = smaller light gathering capabilities.
Correlation is not causation.
https://photo.stackexchange.com/questions/15684/why-are-larger-sensors-better-at-low-light

How much light the sensor absorbs is not the same as how much light the lens projects onto the sensor.

APS-C cameras do typically have a stop poorer low light performance against full frame models from the same product year, but it's not due to the lens' physics.

You clearly have a lot you do need to Google.

>>3134620
what all of these people in support of crop cameras don't seem to realize is if you take a FF lens let's just say a 85 and hold it up next to a fuji 56 side by side you will notice a huge difference right away. hold them both up to a light source and look through them. now you tell me what one is gathering more light. the FF 85. Why is that?

So please don't try to tell me that a 56 on a crop body is the same thing as a 85 on a FF body. it's physically not possible.

>>3134621
Aperture controls two components of the image:
light transmission and depth of field
depth of field is affected by crop factor
light transmission is not.

You're the idiot if you can't wrap your head around why that is. How do you think speedboosters work? They shrink the image circle to fit onto the sensor so that portions of the light transmitted by the lens aren't discarded.

>>3134623
There are 5 posters in this thread, could you please stop pretending to be multiple people? Most of the board has understood how crop factor and light transmission works since 2014 or 2015 when Tony Northrup caused such a ruckus about it.

Samefagging as a newfag is shamefully obvious.

bottom line a 56 on a crop body will always be a 56 on a crop body with a 85 field of view. absolutely nothing has changed abut the lens. it's not the len's fault it's the sensor. it will NOT compress like a FF 85, it will NOT be a true 1.2.. it will behave like a 56 1.8 - F2 with a 85mm field of view. thats just the fact of it

>>3134623
>Why is that?
I'm telling you the fucking bigger sensor size the more light it can RECEIVE, not gathering and I didn't say a fucking word about 58 or 85 lens. Fuck off.

>>3134626
not the same poster. I'm the original poster of this thread.

Lots of people say that full frame sensors receive more light than cropped sensors. I have never found a proof of this claim so I tried to do the computation by myself, and proved the contrary! Could you tell me if I am wrong ?

We want to compare the same frame with the same depth of field. I'm not concerned by the quantity of photons by photosite, which is unrelated to sensor size but to the density of pixels. I have neglected effects like vignetting or angle effect on the edge of the micro-lens array. Here is my simple reasoning :

If you want the same angle of view α~2arctan(size/2f) with a full-frame sensor and a crop sensor with crop ratio c, you have to multiply the focal length by approximately c. Now, in order to maintain the same depth of field, the f-number N have to be divided by c. If we measure the "amount of light" with the well defined Illuminance Ev provided by the same frame of the same scene (so the luminance is fixed), we have Ev ~ f/N.

Putting all together, Ev_crop = Ev_ff x c2, so the cropped sensor receive more light than the full frame sensor

t. an actual physicist

>>3134629
>>3134630
>>3134627
>>3134626

There is so much confusion in this thread. Speaking for myself not bringing math into this I can tell you without a doubt I've owned my Fuji XT-1 for a few years now, before that I was shooting with a 6D. and I regret ever going to crop.. anyone who tells me that the crop sensor and lenses are better then or equal to a FF system shot wide open is a complete retard. a 56mm lens on a fuji is not a 85 mm FF lens. they are nothing alike other then field of view.

Now if I wasn't shooting wide open maybe that difference would be minimal. but thats not the argument here

>ITT: full frame babies dont understand elementary math problems

>>3134634
>not bringing math into this
Why? Because it explains perfectly well why youre seeing a difference? f/1.2 isn't equal to f/1.8 but closer to f/1.9, of course there's going to be a difference. It's due to lens availability, not the sensor size.

You need a 56mm f/1.16883116883 lens to match an 85mm f/1.8. A 56mm f/1.2 will never equal to 85mm f/1.8.

Why are you all so scared of math?

>>3134631


You literally copied and pasted from this:

https://photo.stackexchange.com/questions/32381/do-full-frame-sensors-gather-more-light-than-crop-sensors

You lazy cunt

>>3134608
I prefer the transition to oof in this.
>>3134609
This actually looks fake, and what's the point of incorporating the lines of the wall into the shot as a perspective aid if you then blur it all out.

>>3134645
It's not for anything serious it's just a test directly comparing the two and as you can see the 85 canon at 1.8 (the supposed F stop that the Fuji 1.2 translates to) does have very different compression despite what people in this thread will lead you to believe

>>3134645
Not fake you have the exit data right there to prove it. You obviously have no idea what FF looks like>>3134645

>>3134636

Refer to this

>>3134608
>>3134609

Canon shot at 1.8 fuji at 1.2

>>3134650
"Looks" fake, my comprehension challenged friend.
Fucking autistes, all the same.

>>3134649
I know, just bitching really. Those shots have been around a while and are a real staple in threads like this...on multiple fora.

>>3134653
Looks so good it could be fake. Nothing wrong with the Fuji just not the same. I have never argued that the Fuji is bad I just get pissed when people tell you it's the same thing and that crop factor doesn't apply to the compression

>>3134651
you didnt even read that post, did you? is that a fuji 1.1135135153515151613616 lens? No.

>someone posts math explaining why the fuji is slightly deeper dof
>"No, I still don't get it, I've never heard of rounding up. Why are you using all those decimal points??" -Anon

>>3134660
Canon shot at 1.8 compared to Fuji shot at 1.2 1.8 takes into consideration the crop factor.

>>3134662
How dense are you? It's not actually equal to 1.8, that's rounded down. The 1.8 number is derived from using 1.5x instead of 1.54x. It's poor math. That's all. The two images aren't equal because you're using colloquial averages and not real math.

Is everyone on this board a dropout?

>Fuji vs Sony thread posted 4 hours ago
>already 58 posts
classic /p/. never change.

>>3134667
Plus the canon shot was taken at a much more acute angle to the wall, so it's effectively 20% closer, and the first 3-4 feet of wall behind her is completely obscured, so we can't see the falloff, and when the wall does reappear it's probably something in the design of the lens is shading the mortar the same colour as the bricks.
There are other, better framed shots in that article that are more representative of the actual differences.

>>3134672
Nothing to see here, just a love of healthy debate and hair splitting.

>>3134609
...that is a gaussian blur on the right side. Someone is pulling a quick one on you visually illiterates.

Sony is for virgins

>>3134667
what system to you shoot with?

>>3134682
bullshit

>>3134609
This is fucking fake. No DoF abruptly ends, it gradually transitions out. I can't believe you knuckleheads got conned into thinking thats natural DoF.

>>3134691
Dude the guy who did the review and took that shot is a Fuji shooter why would he like in favor of a different system? Dumb ass you really have never shot with a FF system before have you?

This thread alone proves that this board needs to fucking die already..

>>3134701
http://www.fujixseries.com/forums/topic/7357-56mm-12-compared-to-full-frame/?tab=comments#comment-82078

Yeah, nah, they're suspect. These are both heavily processed images. Pointless for making comparisons.

Andrew VanBeek is not a Fuji user. He is a Canon user that owns a Fuji.
Moopco owns a Fuji, do you think he's an authority on them?

Andrew is clearly trying to posture himself with these "tests" on his website in a bid to claim "I shoot full frame, I get pictures that crop shooters cant get"
A pretty common tactic for wedding photographers

File: DSC01081.jpg (446KB, 1616x1080px) Image search: [Google]

446KB, 1616x1080px

>>3134556
Seling my a7rII... Sensor Dust evry 50picture... Sony fuckt me up...

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

Camera-Specific Properties:
Equipment Make	SONY
Camera Model	ILCE-7RM2
Camera Software	ILCE-7RM2 v4.00
Photographer	kasperek
Maximum Lens Aperture	f/2.8
Focal Length (35mm Equiv)	62 mm
Image-Specific Properties:
Image Orientation	Left-Hand, Bottom
Horizontal Resolution	350 dpi
Vertical Resolution	350 dpi
Image Created	2015:02:20 13:24:39
Exposure Time	1/80 sec
F-Number	f/4.0
Exposure Program	Normal Program
ISO Speed Rating	160
Brightness	5.4 EV
Exposure Bias	0 EV
Metering Mode	Pattern
Light Source	Unknown
Flash	No Flash, Compulsory
Focal Length	62.00 mm
Color Space Information	sRGB
Image Width	1616
Image Height	1080
Rendering	Custom
Exposure Mode	Auto
White Balance	Auto
Scene Capture Type	Standard
Contrast	Normal
Saturation	Normal
Sharpness	Normal

>>3134715
What are you replacing it with?

File: Sony-FE-85mm-f1.8.jpg (34KB, 604x368px) Image search: [Google]

34KB, 604x368px

>>3134556
I have the A7ii, and all I can say is this lens is fucking fantastic.
It's by far the best portrait lens in the entire system when you consider image quality / size/weight / price as factors.

I mean, fuck. Sony literally ripped off a Zeiss lens and copied it nearly 1:1 and priced it 600 bucks.

If you were completely new and started from scratch, I would definitely recommend the Sony system.
But in your case you should just stick to Fuji system.

>>3134556
Sony for pure specs. Fuji for much more engaging fun. Plus you already have the glass. Sony is boring as fuck, hence why they spend their time trolling. They actually hat taking pictures with their Sony.

>>3134833
Say the loser spending his time trolling a low traffic imageboard.

>>3134556

I'd keep the Fuji, you have the glass.

There is so much samefagging in this thread, however, samefag is correct in that you'll technically get a better picture with a FF. If you have the cash, go for it.

But that's all missing the point. I know this is an unpopular opinion, particularly in these parts, but all the FF gear in the world won't make you a good photographer. A slight edge in bokeh, dynamic range, etc. won't make a shit tier snapshit a National Geographic cover piece. Spend less time gearfagging and more time shooting.

/thread

>>3134868
Nowadays national geographic only wants Trannies and homosexuals on their cover anyway.

>>3134868
There is nothing fucking wrong with fuji they are spectacular cameras the jump to FF is negligible as fuck and the camera is not fun to work with unlike the X-T1/2 cameras.

>>3134874
The Fuji isn't fun to work with when you are in freezing weather and have gloves on.

>>3134879
My professional advice is to stop being a bitch

File: overcompensation.jpg (383KB, 1520x2032px) Image search: [Google]

383KB, 1520x2032px

>>3134556

This is not the place to ask that question.

Honestly, the a7ii is a better camera in pretty much every way. The glass is sharper, it has much better lowlight performance, the sensor and images you get from it are better, and the interface is completely customizable.

There are two things to keep in mind about the a7ii though.

First, the a7iii is heavily rumored to drop in November, and will be a significant upgrade with a BSI sensor. Probably gonna be a good bit more expensive though.

And secondly, in the U.S. there are quite a few mixed reports on Sony customer support. Japan and Europe are supposed to be great though.

>>3134601
It'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.

>>3134584
I mean, I have the full frame Canon 1.2, fuji haven't quite managed an f0.7 lens yet ;)

>>3134585
They're massively different lenses you pleb.

>>3134603
He's correct though, noob.

>>3134607
You're a tard

>>3134622
Fucking 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 size
Yes 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.

>>3134631
Omg, 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.

>>3134667
You'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.

>>3134833
>the brand etched into my camera limits the enjoyment I get from it.

1. You're an idiot
2. Is it not more "fun" to have ibis, 3rd party support, amazing electronic and tilt shift adapters, affordable flashes, not having to run your photos through shitty one man band software and having full remote viewing and usage through your smartphone straight out of the box. Are you really going to try and say a kooky retro aesthetic is a better choice? Lol.

>>3134874
>over doubling your snr
>insignificant

Keep living in dream world pal, try turning iso down to 100 on your base iso 100 sensor, oh no, you can't, because fuji are deceitful scum.

>>3134894
>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.

Uh no retard, the smaller area will collect more cheese first, because there is less area to cover.

Man you Americans and dumb-fuck analogies revolving around food are astounding.

>>3134942
>being this dumb

Just think about the problem for 30 seconds homie, it's not that difficult.

Or, let's put it another way, put a skinny glass and wide glass of constant diameters and equal heights out in the rain. Which fills first?

>>3134945
How can the diameters be constant if one is skinny and one is wide you fucking cretin? Holy fuck shit give up.

>>3134950
No, constant diameter is in reference to the cross section of each being equal from top to bottom.

It's just clarifying that you're not using a martini glass.

Sorry you never went to highschool, what country are you from? Do you have running water there?

File: 5823267+_5002446f3ee9e49eea49e587e1f65af3.jpg (10KB, 267x200px) Image search: [Google]

10KB, 267x200px

>>3134950
You rn senpai

>>3134950
Napkin ring effect