What is wrong with this picture - Part II

Started Aug 15, 2013 | Discussions thread
ForumParentFirstPreviousNextNext unread
Flat view
ultimitsu
Veteran MemberPosts: 5,577
Like?
What is wrong with this picture - Part II
Aug 15, 2013

Here are three questions:

1, Without the knowledge that you may or may not have about equivalence, does this table give you the impression that the first lens is comparable to a 39mm F1.9 lens, the second lens is comparable to a 23-69 F2.8-F4.5 lens, and the third lens is comparable to a 69-207mm F2.8 lens?

It certainly gives me that impression. But those of us who understand the basic physics behind it knows that they are in fact comparable to a 39mm F8.7, 23-69mm F12.9-F20.7 and 69-207mm F12.9.

2, Do you think the way that DPR presence the information in the above picture is misleading?

I think it is.

3, Do you think DPR should place the "Max aperture" column next to Focal Length Column and the "Equivalent FL" column should be renamed "Equivalent FOV and DOF", and in that column the equivalent F-ratio should be included?

I think they should.

=========

This is the continuation of Part I of this discussion.

What is interesting about this discussion is that it bring out people are are indeed have been misled by this alleged misrepresentation. They are the very people who defend this misrepresentation.

"24-200 Equv, F2.8" nuff said.

=========

To respond to DetailMan's post at the end of the last thread - you have to give me credit for qualifying my statement with "almost".

ForumParentFirstPreviousNextNext unread
Flat view
Post (hide subjects)Posted by
No?New
NoNew
No?New
ForumParentFirstPreviousNextNext unread
Keyboard shortcuts:
FForum PPrevious NNext WNext unread UUpvote SSubscribe RReply QQuote BBookmark post MMy threads
Color scheme? Blue / Yellow