“Full Frame Equivalence” and Why It Doesn’t Matter

Started Feb 4, 2013 | Discussions thread
Detail Man
Forum ProPosts: 15,118
Like?
Re: Proper Mental Hygiene for Equivalephobiacs
In reply to Martin.au, Feb 5, 2013

Mjankor wrote:

Detail Man wrote:

Mjankor wrote:

I have no issue with equivalence. It's a basic fact of physics. I just have no time for people who want to use equivalence to troll others and claim small sensor cameras are useless.

So it would not bother you if I got defensive about M43 users criticizing my LX3's image quality, I take it ? But the fact that I am a GH2 user would make me "OK" ? I think that the sensitivities may arise more out of personal format preferences and loyalties than anything technically related.

Do they criticise? If so they should grow up. I've got good photos out of everything from an iPhone, to an old Kodak dx 6490, to a OM-D. Use the tools you've got and the tools you like.

That makes sense to me. Who is "trolling others and claiming small sensor cameras are useless" ?

IMO, equivalence is a useful way to compare across cameras, but at the same time, for an awful lot of users the effects of equivalence don't mean anything.

Then why do they choose to read posts and threads where equivalences are being discussed ?

Well, because learning new stuff is fun, knowledge is valuable and arguing on the internet is fun.

But laboring with reading about subjects that a reader feels "don't mean anything" (to them) implies that they are not learning anything useful from such reading, and perhaps wish to declare persons who choose to write about such subjects as being in some way factually incorrect and/or irrelevant in relation to the subjects that they are writing about.

At least you are doing so in a public discussion format, rather than lobbing thinly veiled condescension from the relative safety of a blog-site fiefdom where it's easy to simply delete comments posted that do not make the author feel like a "wise king in his own little castle".

If you need shallow DoF, or are really pushing the sensor on a camera, then equivalence may be important to you.

The same is true where it comes to people who may desire deep DOF. Basic facts of physics ...

Yep.

However, it's also likely that you know what your doing as a photographer and know the effects of sensor size and have chosen a camera appropriate for your needs.

Why feel insecure in the least then ? And why not read things that are not somehow disturbing ?

Why would I feel insecure?

Beats me. I don't know a whole lot about photography or the technical underpinnings - but it has often astounded me how little some posters seem to know and understand about their equipment. I make no assumptions about the likelihood that any particular readers "know what they are doing as a photographer". Such assumptions seem most common in "mutual back-slapping clubs" only.

For most photographers, and for most photos, the equivalence theory does not matter.

Why make "appeals to an imaged sense of majority" ? Why worry about things that "don't matter" to you ? The internet is chocked full of subject matter that does not interest me in the least. I don't make it a point to join in discussions that do not interest me just to announce that. What interests me about this thread are the perceptions of "victimization" being expressed. Hard to understand.

Not meant to be an appeal to an "imaged sense of majority". It's just a simple fact. Most photos aren't pushing ultra shallow or deep DoF, nor ultra high ISOs and could be taken regardless of sensor size. IIRC the majority of photos these days are taken on phones.

It all depends on one's applications and personal standards, preferences, and tastes where it comes to "quality images". I don't really understand the phenomena of any individual (or any individual and a few who may agree with them) making blanket statements about what others ought to think about and concern themselves with. One person's declared "facts" may quite possibly strike others as merely "opinions" derived from that person's own individual orientations.

Such chauvinisms seems a bit pretentious to me, and a practice that merely makes some particular group of people feel good about themselves. Why would the fact that one does or does not personally take an interest in some subject(s) preclude them from the ability to freely choose what discussions they may or may not participate in ? Where is the harm in intellectual diversity ?

Sure, there are indeed some intense personalities who express themselves on these forums. But why then play the "troll" card - unless one desires to silence (rather than simply ignore) such others ?

When a poster asserts information that relates to the "whats", "whys", and "hows" (as opposed to launching missives specifically targeted against the "whos"), who among us should judge ? Other readers just may find those who you like to read and agree with similarly unimpressive. Such is life ...

Reply   Reply with quote   Complain
Post (hide subjects)Posted by
Keyboard shortcuts:
FForum PPrevious NNext WNext unread UUpvote SSubscribe RReply QQuote BBookmark post MMy threads
Color scheme? Blue / Yellow