4 ms·
>That’s wrong. The size of the sensor, the aperture size (and of course the distance between the two) are all factors that together on this. For a given angle
by foldr 4y ago
>That’s wrong. The size of the sensor, the aperture size (and of course the distance between the two) are all factors that together on this.
For a given angle of view, the amount of light incident on the sensor depends solely on the diameter of the aperture (the absolute diameter, not the f number). You can see this visually in the comment I made here: https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=33426540 https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=33426540
If you really want to think of it in terms of a combination of sensor size and f number, you can do so. But it's easier just to look at the size of the hole the light is going through – which not surprisingly, determines how much light ends up being collected, once you fix the angle of view.
>If I was shooting at night, why would I use 400 iso?
Because films with higher ISOs are unacceptably grainy for most uses.
- appletrotter 4y agoI agree on your first point, it is the amount of light coming in through the aperture. A wide open aperture lets more light in. The point is just that they have to balance DOF and brightness in their designs. It’s a multi-variable equation, and sensor size is one of the factors that constrains the options you have available all things considered. Like you said > once you fix the angle of view. And of course they’re limited to relatively small apertures anyway. > Because films with higher ISOs are unacceptably grainy for most uses. Not in my experience! This is just nitpicking now. We can keep getting more and more technical, but I think you understand how it works. You’ve made your point. You don’t like gatekeeping. I’m not gatekeeping.
- foldr 4y agoSorry, there’s something about discussions of the relative merits of camera systems that seems to get everyone very hot under the collar. Indeed, I think we have both made our points based on our own experience.