Clapperboard

kymarto " it is about sensor size and exposure equivalence"
Please can you tell me just what you mean by "exposure equivalence"?

wdross Loc: Castle Rock, Colorado

Your pointis well taken although I still believe Brian Peterson is referring to DOF.

GoofyNewfie Loc: Kansas City

Which Yashica is that.
Looks like my first serious camera

rehess Loc: South Bend, Indiana, USA

It is a Minister III.

Cost me $35. Local drug store closeout - apparently they decided people didn’t go to a place like them to purchase anything more complex than an instamatic.

I used it for four years - including “off duty” time for CLA twice. Most of what I learned about exposure came about as I fiddled with its controls.

BebuLamar

Well Rehess the book, Understanding Exposure, doesn't address exposure problem. It concentrates on depth of field and motion blur or freeze motion and high ISO noise.

BebuLamar

And also the same amount of DOF because the smaller sensor has more DOF if used at the same f/stop.

GoofyNewfie Loc: Kansas City

Cool!
Mine was a Minister D.
Would love to have a collection of cameras I used now.
Sold most of them to move up.

amfoto1 Loc: San Jose, Calif. USA

As far as EXPOSURE is concerned... f/2.8 is f/2.8 and f/11 is f/11, regardless of sensor format.

But as far as DEPTH-OF-FIELD is concerned.... smaller sensors give the effect of greater DoF.... indirectly.

In truth, DoF doesn't change with sensor size alone. DoF is directly effected by the aperture size, distance to the subject and lens focal length.

However, when you change sensor size, in order to frame a subject the same way in an image, you'll need to change either focal length or distance... or both.

For example, if you are using a 200mm lens on an APS-C camera (sensor approx. 15x23mm), in order to get the same composition with a full frame camera (sensor approx. 24x36mm) you will either need to move a lot closer with the same 200mm lens or use a longer 300mm focal length lens. In that case the same "f/2.8" with both cameras will gather the same light and make for the same exposure... but it will render much shallower depth of field on the full frame camera.

Even more extreme, cameras such as the Canon SX60mm use a tiny "1/2.3 inch" sensor (approx. 6.2 x 4.6mm) to make an approx. 53mm focal length "act like" 300mm on full frame. This much shorter focal length would render a great deal more depth of field at the same f/2.8.

I'm sure this is what Peterson was referring to... That DoF "changes" (albeit indirectly) with smaller or larger sensors. Shallow DoF effects are difficult or near impossible to achieve with really small sensor cameras... While large sensor cameras can achieve very shallow DoF effects relatively easily.

wdross Loc: Castle Rock, Colorado

I know the OP's question dealt with a small sensor / large DOF, but I can remember the first time opening up my Hasselblad 80mm to wide open f2.8 and wondering where my DOF had gone. Even though it was film back then, it still is larger sensor /smaller DOF.

I still think the main reason that swings, tilts, and lifts were developed for large format was so the large format photographers could find a way of getting more of the image into the film plane's narrow DOF.

Clapperboard

amfoto1 Thank God, at last someone who also understands the physics of the system! There is so much 'pseudo science' discussed regarding crop sensors it really annoys. I have started to wish manufacturers had never spoken of crop factors. Some of the confusion has been created by self appointed 'experts' making videos for Youtube discussing things they don't understand at all. They are accepted by some as the experts they claim to be and the truth disappears. Thank You, Thank You, Thank YOU for an accurate and knowledgeable appraisal of the setup.