"Equivalence" demonstrated: Canon 5D and Panasonic GX1

Started Apr 27, 2013 | Discussions thread
pavinder
Regular MemberPosts: 213
Like?
Re: "Equivalence" is not "Equivalence" - try a new terminology.
In reply to Great Bustard, Apr 29, 2013

Great Bustard wrote:

Similarly to say "these 2 photos are visually equivalent but not technically equivalent" is far more helpful than to just argue about whether they are "equivalent" under some all-encompassing definition.

So, what are your parameters for "visually equivalent" and what are your parameters for "technically equivalent"?  I mean, next thing we know we're going to be talking all sorts of "equivalences" for size, weight, price, AF speed/accuracy, build, etc., etc., etc.

Visually equivalent - very simple.  And exactly what it says. They look the same.

Framing, perspective, what's in focus and what's not, what's light, what's dark, etc.

In other words if you showed someone the 2 photos, they would look and think "yes, it's the same photo".

I would think that this is, for most photographers, what's important.  It will answer the question "Can X camera take a shot that looks the same as Y camera?"

Technically equivalent - very simple.  They have the same quantitative technical details.

And this could of course be seperated into IQ-related details (noise levels, size, etc) and settings-related details (aperture, ISO, shutter speed, etc).

Clearly these settings-related details have more direct effect on the visual properties of the photo that the IQ-related details.  But (because they're quantitative, not qualitative) they're still distinct from the aesthetic details which determine visual equivalence.

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