Cheers mate - honestly I tried explaining that out in the field….when I watched it back it just didn’t work….exactly as you say, sometimes you just can’t beat pen and paper

Thanks Rob. Yep there's a definite obsession with Full Frame on YT. But APS-C cameras are lighter, lenses shorter and are far more accesible and affordable for many a photographer. I definintely intend to spend a bit more time covering the format and doing a bit of shooting on video with my 760d too

Thank you Lee, appreciate it mate. You been up to the Lake District again recently? Seen a few of your shots over on the socials. Hope you are having a good summer mate.

@@LetsClickPhotography I have mate got back Friday , no vlogs this trip as was a family break with my dad , still nice to be there 👍

I've been on to Bill's Photons to Photos page for a while now. I think the work he does over there is fantastic and much more in line with real world than the DxO scoring system

Cheers Tony. Away from this channel I use APS-C cameras a fair bit. I shoot a decent amount of photography for other businesses social media, the vast majority of which is done on my 760d

Agree completely. The source point does (I hope) comes from a good place, trying to teach newcomers as quickly as possible. Unfortunately too much information is misunderstood, misinterpreted and misrepresented as a consequence. This has certainly led to the current mass of disinformation and bad practice which is copied and repackaged by numerous outlyers to an unquestioning audience who then follow suit. Great talking point.

Thanks Martin. Yes, I've done the same thing when playing about with a bit of astro. I have a mount for ef-s which I very occassionaly use on a refractor with my 760d. Working out the f/stop in reverse from the aperture diameter and focal length was quite eye opening for me the first time I did it - that was the first time I considered f/stops as a calculation rather than a 'description' of depth of field.

I have troubles with my 750mm F4 newton since i "downgraded" from 26MP Full Frame (EOS RP) to the APS-C 32MP EOS R7. I was fine with 750mm, pretty good for most deep sky stuff only too tight for very big subjects. Since i have the 1,6x APS-C crop... it just hurts, 1200mm are too tight for most stuff and if i found an interesting object the issue was poor guiding and old, lowest end equatorial mount (motorized GoTo EQ3-2 Skywatcher) which made sharp images nearly impossible. On 750mm and 26MP - it was fine for 60-180 seconds exposure times at ISO 6400. The APS-C EOS R7 i can push as well to ISO 6400, but i cant maintain fast enough exposure times for sharp stars at this focal length. Also the telescope is getting very close to the sharpness limits.

@@harrison00xXx your focal length is still 750mm, it’s only your field of view that has changed by going from full frame to aps-c, you’re getting confused by ‘apparent full frame equivalent’ which is, in reality, a nonsense in this case. The EQ3 is a very low end mount for astrophotography, the only way you’ll improve is to start using a guide scope and a better mount unfortunately.

​@@martingoff-jones2184 Sure its still 750mm, but the crop of the camera makes it 1200mm and its too much. Tried smaller objects but as said... unprecise guiding, after a specific movement of the DEC axis it makes once every 1-8 minutes (depending on polar alignment) a huge jump. Yeah, i have guiding via off axis guider but the mount is just very bad (and problematic DEC wormgear) so the guiding is not very effective (if at all helpful)

Also, you're depth of field will still be shallower because of the FF sensor than it would if you were using a APS-C camera

I’ll be blunt here, just to save us time. You’re wrong on both statements. The ef-s lens only projects a circle of light the size of an aps-c sensor, so there’s no ‘extra light gathering’. And dof is only affected by sensor size in relation to the focal length used and distance to subject. Once you equalise those factors, as fully explained in the second part of the video, it has no further part to play.

@LetsClickPhotography that's false. If you're using a DSLR, there there is no need for me to ask if you can switch it to FF or not, because you can't. The 2nd problem with your assessment is, there is space between the lens and the sensor, and within that space, light scatters, and even more so on a DSLR since the sensor is farther away, so yes light does hit the rest of the sensor. Maybe not enough to make an image, but it does make a difference. You can't accurately make the comparison unless you have both an APS-C AND FF cameras. If you had both, you can see the difference. I know because I have both and made the comparisons myself.

@@neogod29 Ok so I blame myself for this really as I shouldn't have replied in the first place. So in order to clarify. This video has nothing to do with what you are talking about. Whatsoever. But I will play along and explain why you are wrong in your assesment. First up, I do own a Canon 760d APS-C and several full frame cameras. I can confirm that if I dial the same settings into both APS-C and FF cameras, I will get exactly the same exposure. And I can absolutely confirm that as I have just done it (because, much like I do with every single video I ever put out, I like to scrutinise my own theories and ensure accuracy before putting it out to the world). The reason I didn't really need to check though was f/stops. f/stops equalise light values across optics. So f/8 stops the same level of light before the light ever gets near the sensor, rendering the sensor insignificant in the amount of light hitting it. If you got a different result, I guess you were not equalising focal lengths, the mistake which this video is actually all about. Now, I am open to learning new things, damn I've actually been studying photography for over a decade, never mind the five years I studied physics....which has a little bit of stuff about light in it. That was a few years back though, these days I've been working full time as a commercial photographer since 2019, not that that makes a difference other than the fact that I use my camera daily, have thousands of hours of shoot experience under my belt and others in the industry trust me enough to pay me thousands upon thousands to create for them (which is why I like to make sure I know what I'm talking about). So, I suppose those are my credentials behind my theories. But, as I say, I'm open to learning new things, so if you let me know your credentials, where I can see your methodology and results and perhaps comment back with some peer reviewed source material proving your concept then I'd be really interested to learn.