this post was submitted on 26 Oct 2023
1 points (100.0% liked)
Photography
24 readers
1 users here now
A place to politely discuss the tools, technique and culture of photography.
This is not a good place to simply share cool photos/videos or promote your own work and projects, but rather a place to discuss photography as an art and post things that would be of interest to other photographers.
founded 1 year ago
MODERATORS
you are viewing a single comment's thread
view the rest of the comments
view the rest of the comments
It's built into the aperture f-number because it does, just like entrance pupil diameter does. Thus, it answers OP's real question about why exposure isn't changing even when the entrance pupil diameter changes: because focal length is also changing and ultimately you're arriving at the same f/1.4 f-number.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/F-number
Yes, you said: "This is not the case in this context"
I'm just talking about how focal length and entrance pupil diameter both go into the aperture f-number for the purposes of exposure. That's literally how the f-number is mathematically defined.
How much light is collected is not the same as exposure, indeed. But it's a component of exposure that affects the exposure.
What I wrote applies in the context of different format sizes. It also applies in the context of the same format size.
Well, I simply wanted to clarify what you presented in a way which seemed to me to be causing more confustion to OP in this context than necessary.
Basically this was the problem for me:
In the context of format comparison, it can get confusing to the OP as in this context the focal lengths collect light from the same area of the scene, not different.
We interpreted OP's question differently. Not saying either interpretion is better or worse.