All this talk about "equivalence" is silly

Started Jun 10, 2011 | Discussions thread
Marc de Vries Contributing Member • Posts: 856
Re: Amazing.

Howard wrote:

Again, I agree with you.

To strictly talk about "equivalence", you should state which two cameras you are comparing with, and take into account their noise/ISO characteristics. After all, the premise of the "equivalence" concept is to get two identical images from two different cameras. You almost always have to treat this kind of comparison on a case-by-case basis.

But this underscores the absurdness of this "theory": why is it so important to get two identical images from two different cameras?

The absurdness is all in your head.
Nobody wants to take two identical images with two difference cameras.
But they want to UNDERSTAND, HOW to get identical images.
It's never absurd to try to understand how something works!

When you are considering to change from a small sensor to a larger sensor (or vice versa) it is very usefull to UNDERSTAND the implications of that change.

Of course you are free to ignore it and just use the trial-and-error method.
Some other people might call that absurd....

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