Equivalence denialists shoot themselves in the foot

Started Jul 24, 2014 | Discussions thread
gollywop
gollywop Veteran Member • Posts: 8,299
Re: Equivalence denialists shoot themselves in the foot
5

dtmateojr wrote:

gollywop wrote:

dtmateojr wrote:

dtmateojr wrote:

Nothing wrong with CORRECT equivalence. CORRECT equivalence goes like this:

FF: 50mm. f/8, 1/250s, ISO 100,

APS-C: 35mm. f/5.6, 1/500, IS0 100

Both settings will produce the same DoF, AoV and exposure.

That's not "correct equivalence", since the shutter speeds are different and would result in different motion blur. Of course, for a static scene, that's a non-issue, but, then again, a competent photographer would not use Equivalent settings if other settings resulted in a better photo.

The problem will "pro-equivalence togs" is that they now equate equivalence with light gathering superiority of the larger sensor which is totally wrong. Same exposure means same light hitting the SENSELS therefore same noise profile for the SAME SENSOR (e.g. D7000 vs D800).

Equivalent photos are photos of a given scene that have the:

As a corollary, Equivalent lenses are lenses that produce Equivalent photos on the format they are used on which means they will have the same AOV and the same aperture diameter

Equivalence is merely the baseline for a meaningful comparison between systems based on the visual properties of the final photo. Often, it makes much more sense to compare systems on the bases of images that are not fully equivalent, in order to maximize the IQ of the systems being compared for specific shooting situations.

In short, if one system can take a photo that another system cannot, and that results in a "better" photo, then, of course, we would do so.

ROFL!

You might do yourself a favor and get off the floor. You will likely then be in a better position to receive the fact that it is you who are the source of laughter.

Before you shoot off on what is "correct equivalence," you might want to look at the prime font:

http://www.josephjamesphotography.com

You can talk to Great Bustard after you digest that.

I have already read that very lengthy but conceptually wrong essay. He wasted his time on that. He does not understand and totally ignores the effect of focal length on light intensity. It's called f-stop. Everybody should understand that concept. He missed it by a mile LOL!

You have a rather fundamental problem that you simply don't know what you're talking about.

You have a secondary problem that you appear unable to recognize your fundamental problem.

You have a tertiary problem that you are making (indeed, have made) a laughing stock of yourself. But don't worry; you'll never know it.

You have a fourth problem that you appear unable to read -- or at least understand what you've read.

-- hide signature --

gollywop

Post (hide subjects) Posted by
(unknown member)
(unknown member)
(unknown member)
(unknown member)
(unknown member)
(unknown member)
(unknown member)
(unknown member)
(unknown member)
(unknown member)
(unknown member)
(unknown member)
(unknown member)
(unknown member)
(unknown member)
(unknown member)
(unknown member)
(unknown member)
(unknown member)
T3
(unknown member)
(unknown member)
(unknown member)
(unknown member)
(unknown member)
(unknown member)
Keyboard shortcuts:
FForum PPrevious NNext WNext unread UUpvote SSubscribe RReply QQuote BBookmark MMy threads
Color scheme? Blue / Yellow