"Equivalence" demonstrated: Canon 5D and Panasonic GX1

Started Apr 27, 2013 | Discussions thread
pavinder Regular Member • Posts: 277
Re: "Equivalence" is not "Equivalence" - try a new terminology.

Great Bustard wrote:

pavinder wrote:

Great Bustard wrote:

Similarly to say "these 2 photos are visually equivalent but not technically equivalent" is far more helpful than to just argue about whether they are "equivalent" under some all-encompassing definition.

So, what are your parameters for "visually equivalent" and what are your parameters for "technically equivalent"?  I mean, next thing we know we're going to be talking all sorts of "equivalences" for size, weight, price, AF speed/accuracy, build, etc., etc., etc.

Visually equivalent - very simple.  And exactly what it says. They look the same.

Framing, perspective, what's in focus and what's not, what's light, what's dark, etc.

In other words if you showed someone the 2 photos, they would look and think "yes, it's the same photo".

Well, that's basically Equivalence as I've defined it, then:  same perspective, framing, DOF, shutter speed (motion blur), and display size.

Well 3 out of 5 is not quite the same.

Shutter speed and display size are quantitative, not qualitative.

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