Equivalent focal length for MFT lenses

Started Apr 12, 2013 | Discussions thread
GeorgianBay1939
Senior MemberPosts: 2,276Gear list
Like?
Re: Vocabulary
In reply to richarddd, Apr 15, 2013

richarddd wrote:

GeorgianBay1939 wrote:

richarddd wrote:

GeorgianBay1939 wrote:

Detail Man wrote:

It is quite another thing to not understand, deny to one's own consciousness an appreciation of the extent to which they do not understand, and further denounce the the substance and the purpose of the deeper understanding of others as being in some way either impractical or irrelevant to the subject(s) at hand. Such constitutes navel-gazing of the highest order, as well as a consummate lack of interest in learning through listening, consumed by speaking only ...

It took me several attempts to understand the topic sentence of the above paragraph.  You might find the FOG INDEX interesting and this SELF EVALUATIONmight be instructive. 

You might think that someone who puts a lot of energy into insisting, under the banner of clear communication, on the use of preferred definitions of some words would put more energy into communicating clearly.

I know that he has written about it many times here.  Please send a link to his "article".  Many thanks.

http://www.josephjamesphotography.com/equivalence/

If one is using terms that are ambiguous or frequently misunderstood, I believe the better course is to define those terms.

LOL!   I was trying to be a bit subtle.

AHA!  The nickel drops ...  JJ = GB ??  Good write-up.

Exactly

I agree that defining is safer.  But commonly accepted terms like f/??!!!.  or even Exposure??!!

Their definitions have been inscribed in both the photographic and general optics literature for a century.  For authors to re-define (to sell books) or to prove a fanboy point is plainly opportunistic or sloppy.

If you've been reading the forums, you will have seen a lot of, shall we say, enthusiastic debate over the meaning of exposure.  The standard definition is density of light on the sensor.  OTOH, ISO is widely included under the rubric of exposure, including in many published books, online tutorials, etc.

The question is WHICH ONE IS THIS ?  Charles Lutwidge Dodgson ??

Note the spelling of the adjective Mr Dodgson associates with that creature.

T

Note the spelling of the adjective Mr Dodgson associates with that creature.

You must mean the adjectives "fuming and furious" written by that curious mathematician.

Yes, I have recently learned, (the hard way) about "The Exposure Triangle" and all of the false concepts that it engenders.  Just because a bunch of people include ISO "under the rubric of exposure" doesn't mean that it should be continued.  Surely there are enough false conceptual structures around so we don't have to propagate more of them.  Especially on the science and technology side of an Art, where the definition has been used for a long long time.

When I  used to teach undergraduate engineers I had to disabuse them of some of the falsehoods that they "learned" in high school.  Stuff like the "V" in V=IR was not Velocity, nor Volume but something else!   Sorta like f/ is not aperture.

After cluing in on GB I spent an entertaining hour or so reading a few pages of THIS THREAD .

Jeez, some of those folks are quite extreme and insistent on demonstrating their lack of knowledge.  Too bad for the folks who are trying to help with some rational contributions to a very interesting/important thread.   Somehow I feel that I am reading rehashes of old battles.  So it would be wise for a photo newbie like myself, to watch for and avoid, the landmines!

t

 GeorgianBay1939's gear list:GeorgianBay1939's gear list
Panasonic Lumix DMC-FZ1000 Panasonic Lumix DMC-GH2 Panasonic Lumix DMC-GX7 Panasonic Lumix DMC-GH4 Panasonic Lumix G Vario 7-14mm F4 ASPH +7 more
Reply   Reply with quote   Complain
Post (hide subjects)Posted by
U2New
Keyboard shortcuts:
FForum PPrevious NNext WNext unread UUpvote SSubscribe RReply QQuote BBookmark post MMy threads
Color scheme? Blue / Yellow