Results 1 to 10 of 16

Thread: Is f2.8 the same as f2.8?

Hybrid View

Previous Post Previous Post   Next Post Next Post
  1. #1
    Junior Member
    Join Date
    Dec 2008
    Posts
    14

    Re: Is f2.8 the same as f2.8?



    Quote Originally Posted by LJ2b2c


    I keep think there should be something like a "35mm equivalent" for this information as well?


    There would be, but it's not as meaningful to most of the people point and shoots are primarily targeted toward, so it's not explicitly stated. To find the "35mm equivalent" aperture, you simply multiply by the same crop factor used to get the focal lengthequivalency, in this case: 5.62


    So the SX1 would have a "35mm equivalent" aperture of f/15.7-32.0

  2. #2
    Junior Member
    Join Date
    Dec 2008
    Posts
    14

    Re: Is f2.8 the same as f2.8?



    So would an f2.8 lens on a 1.6 crop really be like a f4.4 on a full frame? I knew I could see a big difference in pics when taken bya full frame, but thought it was just a better/bigger sensor.

  3. #3
    Junior Member
    Join Date
    Dec 2008
    Posts
    14

    Re: Is f2.8 the same as f2.8?



    Quote Originally Posted by LJ2b2c


    So would an f2.8 lens on a 1.6 crop really be like a f4.4 on a full frame? I knew I could see a big difference in pics when taken bya full frame, but thought it was just a better/bigger sensor.



    Correct. Sucks doesn't it?


    Makes one think twice before paying for fast glass.

  4. #4
    Junior Member
    Join Date
    Dec 2008
    Posts
    10

    Re: Is f2.8 the same as f2.8?



    My understanding is that f-stop and aperture aren't the same thing, but the are related. The f-stop being a ratio between the focal length and the actual size of the aperture. The actual physical size of the aperture on a F2.8 24mm lens is actually smaller than a F2.8 200mm lens, even though the F-stop value is the same, and the way I understand it, more or less the same amount of actual light reaches the sensor in both lenses at the same F-stop even though the physical aperture on the 200mm is much larger. So with a small point and shoot camera, the same amount of light hits the sensor per square inch of sensor, but the point and shoot sensor has a much smaller size, and therefor a much less light per pixel.... I think...



Posting Permissions

  • You may not post new threads
  • You may not post replies
  • You may not post attachments
  • You may not edit your posts
  •