Depth of Field on the M43 is in fact better not worse.....

Started May 26, 2012 | Discussions thread
bobn2 Forum Pro • Posts: 59,092
Re: "Equivalence" fervour creates serious problems

boggis the cat wrote:

ChrisDM wrote:

Yes, I understand and agree with your proper "equivalat'n". But once again as a full time working photographer I think of these factors in practical field terms. For example, in longer lenses shutter speed really counts, so the 2,8 "equivalent" in light gathering ability is particularly relavent. Conversely, equivalence in terms of dof at longer apertures is less relavent. At the typical working distance of 200mm, your backgrounds are going to be out of focus either way.

I agree completely.

We have a band of "equivalence" proselytizers jumping into threads to "correct" posts such as yours on the basis that DOF / absolute light gathering is the only meaning for "equivalent".

Care to link and quote to where anyone has said that DOF/absolute light gathering is the only meaning for "equivalent"? I mean, thee have been enough discussions about the semantics of the word, that one would think one would remember.

(Thus the at the end of my "thou hast taken the name of equivalence in vain" style reply.)

This is a a nonsense, and also leads to other people picking up on the "equivalent" relative apertures and thinking that these are the real relative apertures for exposure purposes.

While some people might get confused that way, it begs the question of what are 'exposure purposes'.

-- hide signature --


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