Thomas902 Loc: Washington DC

Once again the reality of this statement rears it's head...
"In theory there is no difference between theory and practice...
However in practice there often is a marked difference between the two"

Why do so many feel compelled to enforce their righteous "realities" on others?
Gene I would suggest you read Robert Ardrey seminal work "The Territorial Imperative"
A must read for bird photographers.... Enough said...

Folks you all need to get over this...

Essentially, an F-Stop is a mathematical equation. It’s based on the focal length of the lens relative to size of the opening through which light is allowed.

However a T-Stop is the actual measurement of light transmitted through the lens.

Once again practice trumps theory...
Why are you people not out (or in your studios) practicing your craft?
Do you really think pontificating on UHH will increase your perceived worth?

Best advice is to open an IG account and showcase your vision to the real world...
There you will find virtually all notable photographers of eminence.

Wishing each and everyone here much success in their photographic journey...

TerryVS

Im not sure about the question and it doesn't really matter. I do know one thing, now I'm hungry for pizza!

reguli Loc: Uruguay

I don't know why this topic comes up over and over from time to time. If we stick a black tape on a full-frame sensor to leave only the surface of a crop sensor and take a photo, what is going to change? NOTHING. We only lose part of the photo, but no more magnification, no different depth of field, no more noise. But if we want to compare identical photos taken with full-frame and crop sensor cameras, that's the situation. If we take a photo with a crop sensor and 50mm lens at f5.6, to get exactly the same framing with a full frame, we need to shoot with an 80mm lens. If we set our f stop to 5.6 as in the crop sensor, then the depth of field changes getting smaller due to increasing magnification and to obtain the same depth we need to increase the f stop by approx. 1.5 to about 8. The photo taken at 50mm crop and f5.6 will be roughly the same photo taken at 80mm and f8 in a full frame. That is why if you want to take a photo at f2.8 with the Tamron lens on the crop sensor camera, it is the same to take the photo with a full frame getting closer to the subject to get the same frame but going to f4.2 = 2.8x1.5

Wallen Loc: Middle Earth

So please tell what is only the facts. And which parts are fiction.

StanMac Loc: Tennessee

I’m sorry, but that just doesn’t make sense to me. Using your logic, at the same exposure sensors with higher pixel density will produce a dimmer image.

Stan

Jack 13088 Loc: Central NY

Look at it this way. The lens doesn’t know or change because it is mounted on a crop sensor camera. The light going through the had no clue if it is going to land on an active sensor or not. If you crop a full frame shot: With a black cloth as a mask in front of the scene; With a mask over the sensor; With a crop in post; By cutting a print to size; or with a crop sensor you get exactly the same result on the print.

Never mind that nowhere in the definition of f/ stop is the size or the image is mentioned.

selmslie Loc: Fernandina Beach, FL, USA

It's hard to find any "facts" in your post so I guess it's mostly fiction.

Wallen Loc: Middle Earth

Two ways about it. It may produce a dimmer image or it will produce the same exposure but less IQ (noise).
Anyways, no need to take my word for it. It would be better if you test it yourself and draw your own conclusions.

fetzler Loc: North West PA

The focal length and the maximum aperture are physical characteristics of a lens. These characteristics do not depend on the size of the sensor. Another characteristic of the lens is the diameter image circle projected by the lens. This diameter is independent of the sensor sizes. Lenses requiring smaller image circles can be made smaller and cheaper.

The depth of field in an image depends on the magnification of image on the sensor and the selected f number. depth of field does not depend on focal length.

If a 50mm lens is selected and the camera sensor is in a fixed position as is the subject, the magnification will be the same no matter what size the sensor is. What will differ is the field of view. The smaller sensor will have a smaller field of view.

If one wants to have the same field of view(FOV) then the focal length of the lens must be changed. A 25mm lens for micro 4/3 has the about same field of view as a 50mm lens on a 35mm camera (FF). With the same FOV the magnification of the image will be less than that for the FF camera and hence the depth of field will be greater. This assumes fixed camera position.

In macro photography, If I choose 1:1 magnification then the DOF does not depend on sensor size but the FOV does for a given focal length. Longer focal lengths can be an advantage for macrophotography as they give a longer working distance.


Smaller sensors have an advantage in macrophotography as at a given magnification the FOV will be less thus a small object will fill the frame. For an 8 x10in camera a head shot is a 1:1 macro shot. Using a 8 x10in camera to photograph small objects is somewhere between a nightmare and impossible for a host of optical reasons.
I prefer micro 4/3 cameras for macrophotography as the optical issues are minimized while keeping image quality. Your APS-C camera will also be quite good and you will be able to fill the frame using less magnification than a larger format camera.

Incidentally, an 8x10in camera can produce excellent landscape photos full of fine detail. Choose tools appropriately.

Wallen Loc: Middle Earth

LOL.
I'm speaking from my own experience, on my own tools. So I know from my perspective, what I say is true.
You have you own and if your getting a better image in low light with a smaller sensor with the same lens and setting, then well and good. You are more blessed than I am.

StanMac Loc: Tennessee

Naaah. I don’t have the time in my busy schedule. But since you’re the one making the assertion in an attempt to convince others to endorse your statements, why don’t YOU show the method and results of the testing you surely have done to arrive at your conclusions.

Stan

Retina Loc: Near Charleston,SC

It sounds like another implied equivalent specification when comparing lenses for different formats. It is well known that when it comes to Field of View, an APS-C 90mm lens is roughly equivalent FF 135mm. It is less often discussed (at least in some circles) that for Depth of Field, f2.8 in APS-C is roughly equivalent to f4 in FF. At least one respected professional here states the DOF doesn't change, if I understand the post correctly. I don't understand that so I am open to a teaching point. Perhaps in a technical sense the DOF doesn't change, so maybe I am thinking of the perceived DOF or something like that.

Wallen Loc: Middle Earth

Nope. Not trying to assert, convince or make others endorse what I learned.
I'm just sharing my own experience with the tools I have. That is why I'm saying that you need not believe me. Do your own and see for yourself.

TriX Loc: Raleigh, NC

It doesn’t surprise me that you get higher IQ images from your particular FF than your particular crop body, but it’s NOT a universal truth. There could be a number of reasons, one of which may be that the pixel density is different. More pixels for a given image mean higher resolution, but larger pixels typically mean less noise, sensor technology being equal (which they are likely not for your specific cameras, and that’s yet another variable).

moonhawk Loc: Land of Enchantment

This discussion brings to mind Abraham Lincoln's well known advice: "Don't believe everything you read on the internet."