undefined | Better HN

0 pointspb73y ago0 comments

I didn't downvote but I imagine at least someone did because the laws of physics dictate that smaller lenses/sensors can't capture as much light as bigger ones of similar quality. This is why cameras have started trending to be larger rather than smaller. Only so much you can do software-wise before you hit physical limitations.

0 comments

foldr3y ago

>the laws of physics dictate that smaller lenses/sensors can't capture as much light as bigger ones of similar quality.

This is not really true to a very great extent once you take depth of field into account. At least, it would be helpful if you could indicate what it is exactly that you take the laws of physics to imply in this context. I made a comment here that's relevant: https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=33426540

I took 'superior optics' to be a claim of greater sophistication or higher quality, but perhaps that is not what was meant, and the poster was merely referring to the difference in size.

dylan6043y ago

If the size of the lens wasn't important, we wouldn't have built a 100" mirror on Mt. Wilson followed by a 200" mirror at Palomar Observatory.

A 14mm wide-angle lens with a primary opening of 2mm is never going to let in the same amount of light as a 14mm wide-angle with a 114mm primary opening will. Ratio of the sensor size has nothing to do with the ability of the light entering the front lens. There are some adapters that are known as speed boosters that reduce the exit pupil for full frame lenses that will actually add a stop to the lens.

foldr3y ago

>Ratio of the sensor size has nothing to do with the ability of the light entering the front lens.

I'm aware of that – that's the point I made in my post that I linked. But DoF considerations entail that you can't just keep arbitrarily increasing the size of the opening.

1 more reply

j / k navigate · click thread line to collapse

0 comments

foldr3y ago

>the laws of physics dictate that smaller lenses/sensors can't capture as much light as bigger ones of similar quality.

I took 'superior optics' to be a claim of greater sophistication or higher quality, but perhaps that is not what was meant, and the poster was merely referring to the difference in size.

dylan6043y ago

If the size of the lens wasn't important, we wouldn't have built a 100" mirror on Mt. Wilson followed by a 200" mirror at Palomar Observatory.

foldr3y ago

>Ratio of the sensor size has nothing to do with the ability of the light entering the front lens.

I'm aware of that – that's the point I made in my post that I linked. But DoF considerations entail that you can't just keep arbitrarily increasing the size of the opening.

1 more reply

j / k navigate · click thread line to collapse