Re: F-Stop Number relative to the sensor coverage of a lens.

And it doesn't matter how many times you write something if we don't agree with it. We saw it. We think it is wrong. Does repeating something with information we don't agree with help?

You are correct, I repeated myself too many times. I'll try not to repeat myself anymore on this thread.



Media size, I agree with. But as I undertand it, the intensity of light exposed to a particular pixel is a determined by the amount of photons hitting that photosite. That means that a wider aperture, or F number, would allow MORE photons to hit each photosite than a stopped-down one.

I don't know what you mean by intensity of light.
It is correct that for a given subject, under given lighting condition, the wider the aperture is, the more light will hit the media. This is true for both film and digital, both for the entire sensor and for each single photosite.


Noise levels are determined by ISO, which as we all know is raised or lowered on account of proper exposure!
If the intensity of light (as determined by how many photons hit each photosite) is not high enough, you may need to bump up the gain by dialing in a higher ISO value. THAT, and THAT ALONE will increase noise in the image, because the exposure is lower. If the photosites are seeing enough photons/light intensity without it, you can turn the gain down and avoid the excess noise.

All the above is correct.
In order to attain less noise (in digital cameras), or less grain (in film cameras), we want to use lower ISO values. This is true for both film and digital cameras.
In order to use lower ISO values, we want enough amount of light to hit the sensor - this is true both for the entire sensor and for each and every photosite in the sensor.

Therefore, photosites, photons, intensity, and exposure are all 100% related! (how did noise get into this?)

Not exactly, not the way you put it.
The amount of light hitting the sensor and exposure are directly related, however it has nothing to do with the size of the photosites.
The formula for correct exposure includes neither media size nor grain size (in film) or photosites size (in digital cameras). The photosites size affects noise, but it isn't related to exposure.
The exposure formula relates to the entire size of the media (film or sensor).
Again, the size of the photosites is very important for noise considerations, but it's irrelevant to the exposure.

In order to get it, look at the following example:
We are shooting a movie scene in with certain film stock of, say, 180 ISO. The shutter speed is set to 1/48. The DP measures the light on the subject and the light meter says that f/5.6 (or T5.6) is needed.
This is the aperture (f/5.6) that will give the correct exposure (for the given film stock sensitivity and for the given lighting conditions) on all movie cameras, be it 70mm, or 35mm, or 16mm, or 8mm. Thus, the media size (film or sensor) and the grain size (in film), or pohotosites size (in digital cameras), are irrelevant to the exposure.
Also, the focal length of the lens used and the coverage area of the lens are irrelevant to the exposure.
For a given film stock sensitivity (or sensitivity set in digital camera) - and for a given shutter speed - and for given lighting conditions, the one and only one thing that matters for getting correct exposure is the aperture (f stop or T number) used. The media size, film grain size and photosites size aren't considered at all in determining the correct exposure.


We can look at it it this way:
The more light hitting the sensor (both the entire sensor and each and every photosite), the less ISO sensitivity is needed - and hence the less noise will be there.

There are few points to consider here:
(a) In order to attain correct exposure, for a given sensitivity of the media (film or digital sensor), we need that specific amount of light will hit the sensor - no more, no less.
(b) The amount of light hitting the sensor is being determined by: (1) the amount of light being reflected by the subject (which is being determined by the amount of light falling on the subject and the subject's brightness); (2) the shutter speed; (3) the aperture of the lens (f stop or T number).
(c) Since we are dealing with movies here, changing the shutter speed isn't advised, since it will affect adversely the 'filmic' quality of the image.
(d) For outdoors daylight shots, there is too much light as it is. Since we cannot reduce the ISO sensitivity below certain limit - and since we want to maintain wide-enough aperture (for both shallow enough Depth of Field and to avoid sharpness loss caused by diffraction, which is caused by too small apertures [see here: http://www.luminous-landscape.com/tutorials/understanding-series/u-diffraction.shtml ]) - we want to decrease the amount of light entering the lens by using ND filters.
(e) We get into needing more light to hit the media in night shots - and sometimes also in daytime indoors shots. In such cases - when increasing ISO sensitivity isn't desired due to noise - the two options are: (1) use more artificial lights, when possible; (2) use wider aperture. (However, for a given media size, using wider aperture will decrease the DoF [Depth of Field], which at times may be undesirable).

All the above boils down to this:
There are times (but not always, like not in daytime outdoors shoots) when we want more light to hit the sensor. When wanting to keep the ISO sensitivity low enough, our two main means to get more light hitting the media (film or sensor) are adding artificial lights and/or using wider aperture.

By focally reducing the image circle, you are condensing the photons into a smaller area which has the side effect of intensifying the light (hence the magnifying glass, flashlight, etc, analogy). That's why makes the F-stop change actually possible, and it ABSOLUTELY effects exposure!

You combined and mixed few things, thus you created confusion.
Aperture size (f stop) does affect exposure. The other points you added only add confusion in attempting to get the issue.

The proof can be seen for yourself if you have a camera capable of FF / APSC and a speedbooster, like an A7. In FF and APS-C modes, the lens will have the same exposure at the same settings on the lens, shutter and ISO. But with a speedbooster in APS-C mode, the image is suddenly a stop overexposed! The FF version will be a stop of light behind the APS-C boosted one, which means you can turn down the ISO and reduce noise if you wished.

I related to SpeedBooster in previous posts, so I'll not repeat myself.
(A hint, it's due to the formula that calculates the f stops and the fact that SpeedBooster changes one of the two parameters in that formula, without changing the second parameter).

The picture may get clearer if we leave SpeedBooster aside for a minute.
I have few Canon cameras, some are film ones, some are digital FF and some are digital APS-C. All my lenses are EF ones, that is, they can be mounted on all cameras, film ones and digital ones of both sensor sizes.
When I'm about to shoot an indoor scene with unchanging lighting, with 2 cameras: 1 digital FF camera and 1 digital APS-C camera. Setting a given ISO on both cameras, say ISO 180, the very same f number will be used on both cameras in order to attain correct exposure.
Therefore the sensor size is irrelevant to the correct exposure.
The only 3 things relevant to the correct exposure are: (1) the amount of light on the subject; (2) the sensitivity (ISO number) used; (3) the aperture (f number or f stop) used.

You yourself wrote in a previous post in this thread:
…
So, in a nutshell, an f/2 at a shutter speed of 50 and ISO of 400 should have the same exposure across any camera, regardless of sensor size and regardless of what size frame the lens was made for.
…
The only thing that got you into confusion is SpeedBooster.
There is a possibility that this confusion of yours will get cleared should you consider the formula that calculates f stops.
 
Yes you just need to consider the amount of light per square linear unit, for instance the number of photons per square millimeter.
 
Yes you just need to consider the amount of light per square linear unit, for instance the number of photons per square millimeter.

Consider it in order to attain what, or get what?
Do I need to count, or calculate, the number of photons per area unit in order to know the correct exposure? Or do I need it order to know the noise level?
 
Consider it in order to attain what, or get what?
Do I need to count, or calculate, the number of photons per area unit in order to know the correct exposure? Or do I need it order to know the noise level?

Noise level has nothing to do with the OP's question, so why bring that into the discussion? Two lenses at the same T-stop are going focus the same amount of light ("number of photons") per square mm. You don't need to know or care about the sensor size, lens focal length, or pixel density in determination of exposure.

Why does your light meter have no setting for focal length or sensor size?
 
…
Two lenses at the same T-stop are going focus the same amount of light ("number of photons") per square mm. You don't need to know or care about the sensor size, lens focal length, or pixel density in determination of exposure.

Why does your light meter have no setting for focal length or sensor size?


You and me are in full agreement here.

Noise level has nothing to do with the OP's question, so why bring that into the discussion?
…


Indeed, noise level has nothing to do with the OP's question.
I mentioned noise level because of others here claimed that the photosites size is related to exposure. I related to that saying that photosites size has nothing to do with exposure, it affects only the noise level.

In same token of your above phrase, light meters also don't have photosites size.
 
Joshua- I agree with what you said, so I'm not sure what we are arguing about. I think the terminology and perspective on what does what is throwing us for a loop. Especially on the subject of what a Speedbooster does (I'm looking at it from the perspective of the camera and lens settings, you're saying the F-stop of the camera lens has been changed therefore exposure forumula follows suit, I'm saying the relative f-stop needs to be adjusted because the exposure changed- its like saying that from the perspective of the earth, the sun rotates around us whereas in the bigger picture it makes more sense to look at it from the perspective of the sun as the center of our solar system- both are true and provable with experiment and observation, just different perspectives on that same truth).

Anyway, as far as the OP, we all agree that media size, lens size, etc, make no difference in the calculations. An F-stop is an F-stop, and a focal distance is a focal distance. So let's all agree to stop talking about equivalencies.
 
Joshua- I agree with what you said, so I'm not sure what we are arguing about. I think the terminology and perspective on what does what is throwing us for a loop. Especially on the subject of what a Speedbooster does (I'm looking at it from the perspective of the camera and lens settings, you're saying the F-stop of the camera lens has been changed therefore exposure forumula follows suit, I'm saying the relative f-stop needs to be adjusted because the exposure changed- its like saying that from the perspective of the earth, the sun rotates around us whereas in the bigger picture it makes more sense to look at it from the perspective of the sun as the center of our solar system- both are true and provable with experiment and observation, just different perspectives on that same truth).

Anyway, as far as the OP, we all agree that media size, lens size, etc, make no difference in the calculations. An F-stop is an F-stop, and a focal distance is a focal distance. So let's all agree to stop talking about equivalencies.

Indeed SpeedBooster may cause confusion.
I plan to post detailed explanation about it in a new thread. It will probably take few days, since tomorrow will be hectic here.
 
Indeed SpeedBooster may cause confusion.
I plan to post detailed explanation about it in a new thread. It will probably take few days, since tomorrow will be hectic here.

If you want to, sure. Although I think most of the members here have a decent grasp on what it is/does.
 
I bought an "f2 lens" which is designed only for an APS-C lens.

Most manufactures don't state if the aperture is in Full Frame currency or in the Crop currency.

Assuming "f2" is describing the APS-C lens itself. And assuming the crop factor is 1.5x. Then is it true that the AMOUNT of light being let in at f2 would be equivalent to 1.5 x f2 = f3 in Full Frame currency?

I did a test with a Full Frame lens at f2 (on the same camera) and the Full Frame lens appeared brighter than the APS-C lens at f2 (on the same camera).

This difference could be due to the fact that the lenses have different transmission characteristics, and the APS-C lens has less transmisivity than the FF lens.

Not to mention that the f-stop markings on a lens may not be all that accurate in the first place.

There may also be differences in contrast which may affect how an image is perceived as 'brighter' than another.
 
haha, I think you missed the party, man. We wound this down already. I'll send for you next time. :)
 
Back
Top