4 ms·
This is actually an interesting product, but is there a reason they wouldn't make the aperture f/1.8 like the iPhone? I'm not aware if there may be downsides o
by kup0 10y ago
This is actually an interesting product, but is there a reason they wouldn't make the aperture f/1.8 like the iPhone?
I'm not aware if there may be downsides or hardware limitations to that. If cost is the only issue, it would seem worth it if you're making a photography-focused camera just to get as much light as possible into that sensor.
Edit: Thanks for the information, fellow HNers :)
- dom0 10y agoA 1/3 stop is ... not much. With different cameras with different lens designs and most importantly different sensors it's unlikely to be a significant contributor to a difference between two products. The difference in transmission between two lenses with one having few (eg 50/1.x) and the other having a lot (eg superzoom) elements can get that large.
- ryandamm 10y agoThis is why cinema lenses report t-stops ('transmission') in addition to f-stops. The t-stops tell you about exposure, and account for losses between surfaces and absorption within the media. The f-stop tells you about depth of field, etc. With modern lenses, they're usually within a small fraction of a stop, but older lenses could vary by a stop or more. That said, the difference between this camera and an iPhone camera, in terms of relative transmission, is probably negligible.
- deleted 10y ago[deleted]