What is equivalence good for?

Started Jul 25, 2014 | Discussions thread
mostlyboringphotog Senior Member • Posts: 8,468
Re: What is equivalence good for?

JBurnett wrote:

mostlyboringphotog wrote:

JBurnett wrote:

mostlyboringphotog wrote:

JBurnett wrote:

jackdan wrote:

1. It can be a useful tool if you can benefit from it.

Well, there you go. I might say "It can be a useful tool if you want to compare different formats, and choose to benefit from it".

Outside of DPR, it plays a useful but very minor role for most photographers.

Most likely. However, as one who helps with education at our local camera club, I do deal with equivalencies when presenting on such topics as ISO/noise or depth of field. When a new user of a compact camera approaches me and wants to know why he/she can't get as shallow a depth of field for a portrait as the guy shooting full-frame and a 135mm prime at f/2, then a discussion about DOF related to aperture AND sensor size ensues. Of course, I have to gauge how much detail I explore with the individual. With most, it's very basic.

How about the facts - DoF as function of FL, aperture dimension (hence f-stop) and the focus (subject) distance. Then you can bring up 8x10 with 20/20 vision

Does it really help to tell this person that your compact camera, even though it has f/2 lens, it's equivalent to f/8 on FF so you do not get the shallow DoF?

Regarding sensor size and equivalence, I would probably start by saying "In general, a larger-sensored camera such as a DSLR has an advantage when it comes to producing a shallow depth of field. If you'd like, we can discuss how your camera compares in more detail. Or we can discuss ways in which you might optimize subject isolation in your pictures." A small number might actually choose to discuss comparisons (particularly if they were thinking about an upgrade anyway). Most would choose to talk about optimizing subject isolation. And I know a few who would say "Oh. Well, that's OK. I was just wondering".

Thanks again for your insight - geeks like myself tends to think in terms of what I would think (because, after all, why not?) And geeks like myself do not go out a lot to mingle...

I spent a lot of my career translating between users and programmers/IT tech staff. I had to deal with both the obtuse and the techno-geniuses. There were days...

If I really let my inner geek show, our camera club membership would drop dramatically (or they'd drum me out).

I realize this is off topic but one of my favorite IT story is of a young brilliant analyst asking the users if they use special characters and the burly guy assuring him that they do not use special characters of any kind. Anyways, after the system was delivered and chocked on $ and % signs the young brilliant analyst asked the burly guy "hey I thought you said you did not use any special characters?" The burly guy looked painfully perplexed and said we use "$" and "%" all the time; what's so special about them?"

How can I make this on topic? So what's the equivalence of ASCII "$" and "%"

 mostlyboringphotog's gear list:mostlyboringphotog's gear list
Panasonic Lumix DMC-GM1 Pentax 645Z Nikon 1 J5
Post (hide subjects) Posted by
Keyboard shortcuts:
FForum PPrevious NNext WNext unread UUpvote SSubscribe RReply QQuote BBookmark MMy threads
Color scheme? Blue / Yellow