Why do m4/3 shooters feel threated so by "Equivalence" ???

Amin Sabet said:

I made an honest attempt to understand what you are saying here, and I could not.

Click to expand...

Amin Sabet said:

If I had to guess, I would say that the jist of what you are saying is that by arguing with and calling out Joe for trolling, I am equally responsible for the forum getting trolled.

Click to expand...

Amin Sabet said:

If that is what you meant, then I disagree. From time to time recently, I would check in on this forum and think about participating, but the fact that the trolling was lowering the overall quality of discussion was evident, and so I chose to stay mostly uninvolved. I did not engage. After a few weeks, I started to realize that it isn't fair for me and quite a few others like me to give up enjoyment of the forum because of a few trolls. Telling people not to feed the trolls is not a successful approach in a forum like this one, because there will always be at least a couple people who can't resist. So the only ways to counter the trolling are to either convince the trolls to stop trolling, which I have been unsuccessful with in personal communication to Joe in the past, or to shine a light on the bad behavior and hope that the community and it's administration will do something about it.

Click to expand...

Amin Sabet said:

If I completely misunderstood what you meant, then please say it to me again in plainer language, and I'll do my best to respond.

Click to expand...

Amin Sabet said:

Anders W said:

I understand what you are saying. But for reasons that I have already made clear, I do not agree with your classifying him as a troll inasmuch as his behavior, in my view, does not match the definition. In my view, it is an important rule of conduct in any debate not to speculate about people's motivations. I hate it when people do that to me, not only because they are mostly wrong but also because it is irrelevant. Exactly why people say (or not say) this or that has no bearing on the question of whether they are substantively right or wrong. So I prefer to approach things based on what they say rather than why they say it, particularly since the former is evident and the latter usually not. And I think all discussions, whether on Internet fora or elsewhere, benefit from that approach.

Click to expand...

Fine, so we understand one another and disagree about what is evident.

One thing which is evident beyond any debate is that Joe repeats himself over and over again, often copy/pasting the exact same passage from his treatise multiple times within a day, even repeating himself verbatim within a single thread with an argument directed towards a single person. All of us share this space, and this kind of endless repetition is another form of trolling. See for example how trolling as defined at Rangefinderforum to include anyone who "argues their point over and over again": http://rangefinderforum.com/forums/faq.php?faq=vb_faq#faq_terms

Even if you don't agree with RFF that repetitive argument falls under the specific category of "trolling", it is indisputably considered to be bad behavior in online communities. Here are some of the many examples of communities which make it clear that repetitive argument of the type Joe engages in daily is considered to be in the same category as trolling, flaming, and personal attacks, behaviors which drag down the quality of the community for all members:
http://docs.joomla.org/Code_of_conduct
http://wiki.nginx.org/IRC/CoC
https://wiki.mozilla.org/Code_of_Conduct/Draft
http://www.spdx.org/codeOfConduct
http://www.ubuntu.com/project/about-ubuntu/conduct

Repetitive arguments are disruptive, inflammatory, and disrespectful to an online community. It is self evident that a significant proportion of Joe's posts in this forum consist of repetitive arguments.

Click to expand...

Anders W said:

I don't think I want to step in as some kind of defence attorney for Joe in every regard, particularly since I don't follow all his saying and doing with full attention. However, it is my impression that he repeats himself to the extent that the debate calls for it...

Click to expand...

Anders W said:

Anders W said:

Repetitive arguments are disruptive, inflammatory, and disrespectful to an online community. It is self evident that a significant proportion of Joe's posts in this forum consist of repetitive arguments.

Click to expand...

I don't think I want to step in as some kind of defence attorney for Joe in every regard, particularly since I don't follow all his saying and doing with full attention.

Click to expand...

Anders W said:

However, it is my impression that he repeats himself to the extent that the debate calls for it, and I do that myself too to a certain extent. Some people here have heard some of the things he says before and get irritated when he says it again. Others, like me, simply don't pay much attention unless there is a new angle to it. Still others, who haven't heard it before appear to be grateful. Remember that this forum has lots of new people coming in. While I see posts expressing irritation I also see posts saying things like "hey, I finally get this equivalence thing".

Click to expand...

Anders W said:

Personally, I worked out "this equivalence thing" by myself when I first went digital in 2007. At that point, there wasn't a whole lot of talk about how all the bits and pieces actually fit together (or at least I didn't find or come across it), and I thought it important have an idea about that in order to make reasonably intelligent decisions when suddenly faced with a plethora of sensor formats rather than the same old 24x36 film frame. I can imagine that at least some people feel the same need as I did and don't mind a bit of help in getting there.

Click to expand...

odl said:

Lovely picture GB. Is that your boy?

Click to expand...

odl said:

I will say you use shallow DoF very well, and I enjoy that a lot of your photography is family based, which to me beats every other genre. The fact you do it with a lot of style will be appreciated greatly by your kids.

Click to expand...

Jogger said:

I shoot everything from FF, APSc, compact, cellphone.. will be picking up the RX100.. and have shot the E1 in the past (early adopter).. just use what you have and take photos/videos. Life is short.

millsart said:

I've been trying to read through some of the countless threads on the dreading subject of "Equivalence" and figure out what the big deal is about.

Seems to me the issue lays in some m4/3 shooters taking, shall we say, "offense" anytime someone gives an equivalent measure for a m4/3 lens.

Somehow I guess they take this as an insult to their system as not being "good enough" on its own ???

I see comments about how 135 format is for "dinosaurs" and is a dead format that hardly any current photographers even know of. Seems to me that anyone who wasn't born in the late 1980's should be plenty familiar with 135 format, and given the hundreds of thousands, if not very well millions of fullframe DSLR's on the market such as the Canon 5D and 1Ds series, the Nikon D3, D3s, D3x, D700 and now D800 and 800e, its hardly a dead format.

Someone reviews the EM-5 and says the kit lens is a "24-100"mm equivalent and they are an ignorant fool.

I can't ever remember seeing any NEX shooter, with its 1.5x crop getting all bent out of shape when someone says the 24mm Zeiss 1.8 lens is equivalent to 35mm

I've never seen any Fuji X100 users starting 150 post threads because people are calling it a 35mm equiv camera and not being respectful by calling it a 23mm

Are they starting threads on the Canon forum because the ignorant don't call the s100 a 4.9mm lens and rather use dinosaur terms of 24mm equiv.

I frankly don't see how most people could keep it all straight if we didn't have a comment point of reference.

I'd say it basically comes down to this, how am I supposed to read the specs, for say the latest Sony RX100 and have a clue what a 10.4mm lens would give me in terms of FoV ??

Hmmmm ????

If we are talking about 10.4mm on m4/3, its pretty darn wide, so I guess I should expect it to be a super wide angle compact, awesome.

But wait, what if we are talking about a 1/1.7" sensor, suddenly its close to a normal focal length, not remotely wide. I don't want one now.

But there is more, what if there is the "CX" or 1" format I've never even heard of (as would say most people), then what is it ?

Well it turns out to be that 10.4mm on a 1" sensor turns out to be 28mm in 35mm terms.

Now since I know my s100 is 24mm equiv, I know its not going to be quite as wide.

I know that my 14mm f2.5 on my m4/3 camera, which is 28mm is going to give the same FoV

Likewise, I know that my 28mm 1.8 G lens on my Nikon D3s is going to give the same FoV

I've got a frame of reference so I can work across multiple formats and know what to expect when I'm buying a given new camera or lens.

Who wants to keep track of what 4.9, 10.4, 14, 18 and 28mm all mean on every different camera we own ??

Why is it okay to refer to equivalence when we are talking about 1/1.7", 2/3", 1", APS-C (with distinction for Canon's 1.6x crop and all the 1.5x crop, or even Canon 1.33x crop on the 1D series) but wrong to do so for m4/3 ??

Why when a friend see's my EM-5 around my neck, and the 12mm f2.0 and ask how wide of lens it is would I risk getting stoned if some here heard me tell him its "24mm eqiuv" ??

How does it devalue m4/3 if I don't tell him its 12mm ??

Should I expect him to know that its a 2x crop format.

Suppose he assumed its a 1.5x crop APS-C format and thought I had a 18mm f2.0 equiv prime lens.

That would be exciting for most any format would it not ??

Who wouldn't love a 9mm f2.0 wide prime for m4/3 right ? I'd totally buy one

Only, its not true, it was a mistake due to not knowing the crop factor, same thing that can happen with not knowing a Fuji X10 has a 2/3" sensor etc

Now I like m4/3, I just sold both my NEX7 and my X100 (which I thought I'd never do) in favor of m4/3 again.

I'm on board with m4/3 but I simply fail to see why I have to take the attitude that m4/3 is the only and only true format and should be the standard and any talk of equivalence is in fact an insult to the system.

Again, just don't get it. Why do no compact users of any sensor format, nor any APS-C shooters of any given brand seem to have an issue but its only a problem here, and seemingly in this forum ??

Why do some m4/3 shooters have such a "us against the world attitude" when its merely a camera ??

Click to expand...

Click to expand...

Great Bustard said:

... everyone wants family pics, but they'd be just as happy if they were all taken with a cellphone.

Click to expand...

Anders W said:

Great Bustard said:

Didn't see that as a discussion about the merits of shooting fast primes wide open on FF.

Click to expand...

No, but about the quality of different lenses when shot wide open.

Click to expand...

Anders W said:

Anders W said:

"Essential" is a strong word -- how about "desirable"? And, yes, tons. Here's one example -- see if it doesn't have some sort of appeal for you (don't be shy to say you think it sucks -- I'm sure many feel that way):

Click to expand...

It sucks! No more seriously, I can see what you are after. It vaguely reminds me a little of a classic photo by W. Eugene Smith. But I am not sure the effect works so well in this particular case, in part because of the environment which doesn't naturally support the subject isolation by other means, in part because the blur is not sufficiently pronounced.

Click to expand...

Anders W said:

Anders W said:

Not all are the "shallow DOF whore" that I am.

Click to expand...

True! I can't help but think again of the example I used against Bob in our discussion towards the end of the thread to which I linked above, and which illustrates how the photographic mood has changed over time with respect to things like these. Not that the idea of subject isolation by means of background blur is new or that it wasn't desirable in earlier times. But the idea that this is a key advantage of really fast glass, including WAs, is certainly not representative of earlier periods. Consider this ad for the Vivitar 35/1.9 announced in 1974 (a lens I bought soon thereafter and used for more than 30 years).

http://www.djibnet.com/photo/braless/vivitar-35-1-9-advertisment-1974-475124045.html

Here is the text of the ad (since it's a bit tricky to read it in the picture):

"Here is one of the fastest wide angle lenses available.

Why are so many photographers leaving their 50-55 mm lenses at home and using 35 mm as a normal lens? Because of the incredible depth of field possible with a medium wide angle lens. Look at the example on the next page taken with the new Vivitar 35 mm f1.9 lens. In sunlight, stopped down to f11, everything is in focus from 4 feet 8 inches to 14 ft 9 inches. (With a 55 mm lens, the depth of field would only extend from 5 feet 9 inches to 9 feet). You simply prefocus at 7 feet and practically anything interesting that happens on the street can be shot, in focus, without wasting valuable seconds refocusing. When you get the picture, you can then crop to suit. Or shooting indoors with tungsten light and color, the extra depth of field can make the difference between a partially or totally sharp picture. Of course the depth of field is reduced when you shoot wide open with a wide angle lens but it is still greater than that of a normal 50-55 mm lens.

Why is the f1.9 speed so important. Because it is practically as fast as the standard 50-55 lens and opens up that whole wonderful area of "available light" photography. Until recently, there were very few wide angle lenses this fast and they were usually very expensive. Computer design efficiencies have made it possible for Vivitar to offer this lens with top resolution, high contrast and a rational price."

Click to expand...

Anders W said:

It is quite interesting to compare this ad to the way Panasonic presents its 20/1.7 (actually more like 18.5/1.7 and thus equivalent to 37/3.4), more than 30 years later:

http://www.four-thirds.org/en/microft/single.html#i_020mm_f017_panasonic

Click to expand...

Detail Man said:

Great Bustard said:

... everyone wants family pics, but they'd be just as happy if they were all taken with a cellphone.

Click to expand...

Am still anxiously awaiting the FF cam-phone, as well as the miniaturization of big-screen televisions.

Click to expand...

Amin Sabet said:

Anders W said:

I don't think I want to step in as some kind of defence attorney for Joe in every regard, particularly since I don't follow all his saying and doing with full attention. However, it is my impression that he repeats himself to the extent that the debate calls for it...

Click to expand...

Here again we disagree, and I do think our disagreement is contributed to by your admitted relative lack of awareness of Joe's forum activity. I think he repeats his arguments to an extent that is beyond what any debate could possibly call for, and I would say exactly the same thing for some of the people who have been repeatedly on the opposite side arguing against Joe for all these months and years.

Click to expand...

Len_Gee said:

Amin Sabet said:

Anders W said:

I don't think I want to step in as some kind of defence attorney for Joe in every regard, particularly since I don't follow all his saying and doing with full attention. However, it is my impression that he repeats himself to the extent that the debate calls for it...

Click to expand...

Here again we disagree, and I do think our disagreement is contributed to by your admitted relative lack of awareness of Joe's forum activity. I think he repeats his arguments to an extent that is beyond what any debate could possibly call for, and I would say exactly the same thing for some of the people who have been repeatedly on the opposite side arguing against Joe for all these months and years.

Click to expand...

--
Like others here, I suffer from chronic GAS.
Gear Acquisition Syndrome.
a few hundred nautical miles SW : 17º 52S, 149º 56W

Click to expand...

Great Bustard said:

Detail Man said:

Am still anxiously awaiting the FF cam-phone, as well as the miniaturization of big-screen televisions.

Click to expand...

Click to expand...

Great Bustard said:

...nay, scratch that, what I need is a holodeck. Oh man, it don't take a lot of imagination to figure out what programs I'd be running in there.

Click to expand...

Portola said:

I don't post much, but I've been reading Great Bustard (once JoeMama) for years on dpreview. I don't know why he does what he does on-line, since he has better things to do. He is a top-notch photographer and could just stick to his business. He annoys the hell out of people on this forum and other forums by thanklessly explaining the truth about different film/sensor formats. Everything I've ever read from him is indisputably the truth, though, and I thank him for stating that truth in beautifully written English so many different ways. It has certainly been helpful to me and I'm sure many others--I always read his posts.

I think the exploration of different formats is part of the fun and the fascination of photography. The format makes a marked difference in the kind of pictures you make. When I was coming up it was Leica vs. Rolleiflex vs. Speed Graphic (or equivalent brands). Today the formats are smaller, but the differences are similar. In the old days, though, the smaller formats had faster lenses. I wish that were still true!

I doubt that Joe's Equivalence gospel is so important as to justify the energy he has put behind it, but it is nevertheless worth communicating. Knowledge is power. I use a variety of formats and enjoy the advantages and limitations of each. I imagine that he does, as well.

Thank you, Joe, for those many posts I have read and enjoyed over the years.

Click to expand...

Detail Man said:

Great Bustard said:

Detail Man said:

Am still anxiously awaiting the FF cam-phone, as well as the miniaturization of big-screen televisions.

Click to expand...

Click to expand...

Detail Man said:

...nay, scratch that, what I need is a holodeck. Oh man, it don't take a lot of imagination to figure out what programs I'd be running in there.

Click to expand...

A holodeck, in the fictional Star Trek universe ,
is a simulated reality facility located on starships and starbases .

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Holodeck

Something tells me that it might involve a certain Jessica Alba and Megan Fox, and they would both be in total agreement with you where it comes to articles of faith surrounding creamy bokeh rendering your legions of shrill detractors into a Gaussian blur, forever encircled by their confusions?

Oh, I almost forget the Sainthood bit, as well as the Honorary Doctorate from the Univ. of Oxford.

Click to expand...

Great Bustard said:

Detail Man said:

Great Bustard said:

Detail Man said:

Am still anxiously awaiting the FF cam-phone, as well as the miniaturization of big-screen televisions.

Click to expand...

Click to expand...

Great Bustard said:

...nay, scratch that, what I need is a holodeck. Oh man, it don't take a lot of imagination to figure out what programs I'd be running in there.

Click to expand...

A holodeck, in the fictional Star Trek universe ,
is a simulated reality facility located on starships and starbases .

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Holodeck

Something tells me that it might involve a certain Jessica Alba and Megan Fox, and they would both be in total agreement with you where it comes to articles of faith surrounding creamy bokeh rendering your legions of shrill detractors into a Gaussian blur, forever encircled by their confusions?

Oh, I almost forget the Sainthood bit, as well as the Honorary Doctorate from the Univ. of Oxford.

Click to expand...

Let's just say that the bokeh would be "creamy". I'm sorry -- did I go too far?

Click to expand...

bobn2 said:

DickyUK said:

Apertures allow the same amount of light through no matter what format you use

Click to expand...

but the amount of light the film or sensor collects depends on how big it is.

Click to expand...