I understand the DoF equivalence, but does that also apply to ISO? Assuming both are using the same lens and were side by side with the same settings, if an APS-C metered at ISO 400, would a FF meter the same scene at ISO 160? I'm thinking they would be the same ISO but I actually don't know.
The iso would be the same for both. The iso component of exposure is determined by the shutter speed and the f-number of the lens, and equivalence doesn't come into it. If you have for example on a sunny day a 600mm f/16 on the FF and and a 22mm f/16 on the APS-C and both at 1/100s, the iso would be the same for both, at about 100.
As @AlanF stated, the metered ISO would be the same. Exposure is determined by light per unit area on the sensor. However, the image noise would be lower on FF, because image noise is determined by total light gathered and a larger sensor gathers more light. So if your scene meters at ISO 400, you could set the FF camera to ISO 1000 and get the same image noise as ISO 400 on APS-C.
I won’t use Nikon as an example to push bigger companies that have greater market share. Nikon will do anything now to grow their market share. Sony went with working with 3rd party because they were growing their business and required 3rd parties to fill their gaps. Now they’re established but they do have some control over the 3rd parties.Tamron just announced a 70-300 f/4.5-6.3 for the Nikon Z mount, surely a Canon RF version can't be too far behind.
Detail
www.tamron.eu
I’m unaware of any other news coming out regarding this industry that has caused such a negative response. Whether this causes any actual noticeable harm to Canon remains to be seen. What I can say with almost certainty is that if Canon had made an announcement that they are opening up the RF mount to all 3rd parties and that the agreement includes the authority for 3rd parties to build their own teleconverters and no limits on frames per second (which is what Sony do) but in addition lenses will be fully compatible with no affects to AF performance like is the case on emount they would be receiving plenty of praise. Also I plenty of people would be claiming that Canon is about to dominate the mirrorless market and make even Sony a distant 2nd and make Nikon irrelevant.
I mean, a good proportion of that negative response - in this thread at least - is you yourself. I have no idea the scale of it more generally, especially as it's mostly conjecture.
Clearly.
Canon was d00med because Nikon had better low ISO DR. Canon was d00med because they were the last to enter the MILC market. Canon was d00med because when they did enter the MILC market, it was with a camera as terrible as the EOS M. Canon was d00med because Sony had a much better lens selection.
Noticeable harm as a result of this issue is about as likely as noticeable harm resulting from a butterfly flapping its wings.
It would’ve received plenty of praise from you at least, but also would not have made any difference to Canon‘s bottom line.
And you think this is Canon‘s fatal mistake? LOL. Feel free to keep riding this personal hobby horse of yours, it’s not taking you anywhere.
I haven’t said that my beliefs and opinions represent the majority. What I have said that the visible response to this news has been negative. You might disagree with that and that’s fine.
I own seven of the "cheap" Canon RF lenses. Their AF, IS, and IQ suit me just fine in most instances and do so at reasonable prices. Third-party lenses occasionally fill niches left by the OEM offerings but aren't free of their own positives and negatives. Just like OEM lenses they too have their pluses and minuses. More options are fine, but they are no guarantee of getting something better suited to a particular purpose or user.
