M
mycroft
Guest
A case of Gigantism!
Enjoy ...
Enjoy ...
Great to see you here. Join our insightful photographic forum today and start tapping into a huge wealth of photographic knowledge. Completing our simple registration process will allow you to gain access to exclusive content, add your own topics and posts, share your work and connect with other members through your own private inbox! And don’t forget to say hi!
I know, but the difference is still a bit striking when you're holding the actual hunks of glass and metal in your hand. Even though you intellectually understand the principles, you can't help thinking (or at least I can't) "Geez, one lousy f/number costs that much more in physical volume?"Ranger, 1 F stop (more or less) is double the light exposure, hence 2x the light falling on the senor. The math can be derived from there.
Is it not more of a case of : if you are already underexposing parts of a contrasty image by a stop at f/1, then by f/1.1 you will be underexposed by 1,1/3 stops and f/1.2 by 1,2/3 stops etc. So the image quality will be very quickly degrading at each point due to the higher noise floor.In a scenario where I shoot at f/1.1 with the nokton at lets say 1/30, how much faster can I shoot at f/1 to get the same exposure?
That's an exceptionally valid point : smaller (or faster )Coverage is a factor as well as aperture, of course. ... I'm sure Voigtlander could have made all these lenses a lot smaller if they had been trying to cover only the extant digital imager sizes.
Could have been worse; see pics at top of this thread...I was somewhat shocked by the size of the Nokton 1.1 when it arrived from Robert White this morning.