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

First, I'm not defensive about the format I chose.  Largely because I also chose an APS-C body, a 1/1.7" compact, and a 1/2" compact.  The *concept* of equivalence is a good one, and I picked your answer to respond to because it was well thought out, and not snarkily or douchily presented.  Hell, I use equivalence when I shoot m4/3 vs. APS-C and want to think about what will be in and out of focus.  It's a useful concept.

However, far too many of the, as you put it, "full frame snobs" come off as complete jackasses in these kinds of threads.  They may be right, but they act like douches, and turn off far more people than they would ever enlighten.  They also refuse to accept that, for most people, a quick and dirty "equivalence" is good enough for most people.  Instead of stating "yes, that part is true, but you're missing out on some important concepts which can have you wind up with a picture that doesn't meet your expectations", they drone on and on about...well, I usually skip their posts before I read very far.

Presentation is as important as having facts and figures on your side.