3 ms·

f-numbers do not have the same meaning across different sized sensors. For example, f/1.5 on the iPhone is equivalent to f/8.2 on a 35mm camera. This is pretty

f-numbers do not have the same meaning across different sized sensors. For example, f/1.5 on the iPhone is equivalent to f/8.2 on a 35mm camera. This is pretty slow by the standards of full frame lenses, and as you can see in my other post, it is not expensive to acquire much better lenses than this that will achieve much better results with less effort. See the chart on the first page of this article: https://www.dpreview.com/articles/6780391159/all-apple-iphone-13-and-13-pro-camera-upgrades-explained https://www.dpreview.com/articles/6780391159/all-apple-iphon... For a detailed explanation of how to compare f-numbers across cameras have a look at this article: https://photographylife.com/equivalence-also-includes-aperture-and-iso#:~:text=Equivalent%20Aperture%20%3D%20(F%2DNumber,x%20(Crop%20Factor%5E2) https://photographylife.com/equivalence-also-includes-apertu...

foldr 5y ago
F numbers have exactly the same meaning across different sized sensors: the ratio of the focal length to the aperture diameter. The size of the sensor does not even enter into the definition of the f number. >For example, f/1.5 on the iPhone is equivalent to f/8.2 on a 35mm camera This is a meaningless statement unless you specify what sort of equivalence you're talking about. I assume you mean to say that they're equivalent in terms of depth of field and in terms of the total amount of light gathered for a given angle of view. This, however, just goes to show that the 35mm camera doesn't have much of an advantage for macro photography. If the 35mm camera has to stop down at least to f8 (which it probably will, to get sufficient depth of field) then it won't gather any more light than the phone. The basic point here is that for a given angle of view, you can only gather more light than the iPhone if the iPhone has depth of field to spare. Otherwise you can only gather more light than the iPhone by sacrificing depth of field. This is because both the total amount of light gathered (for a given angle of view) and the depth of field (for a given angle of view) are determined by the absolute diameter of the aperture.

foldr 5y ago

F numbers have exactly the same meaning across different sized sensors: the ratio of the focal length to the aperture diameter. The size of the sensor does not even enter into the definition of the f number. >For example, f/1.5 on the iPhone is equivalent to f/8.2 on a 35mm camera This is a meaningless statement unless you specify what sort of equivalence you're talking about. I assume you mean to say that they're equivalent in terms of depth of field and in terms of the total amount of light gathered for a given angle of view. This, however, just goes to show that the 35mm camera doesn't have much of an advantage for macro photography. If the 35mm camera has to stop down at least to f8 (which it probably will, to get sufficient depth of field) then it won't gather any more light than the phone. The basic point here is that for a given angle of view, you can only gather more light than the iPhone if the iPhone has depth of field to spare. Otherwise you can only gather more light than the iPhone by sacrificing depth of field. This is because both the total amount of light gathered (for a given angle of view) and the depth of field (for a given angle of view) are determined by the absolute diameter of the aperture.