Full-framer logic

Porky89 wrote:

Forgottenbutnotgone wrote:

Guy Parsons wrote:

ekaton wrote:

Help, I am confused. I use FF, aps-c, mft. I like all of them, for different reasons. And shamefully I must admit to even use a one incher. And now I read all these thoughtful educated threads about "mine is bigger than yours", "this is why size does not matter", or "smaller, indeed is better", and the best: "Equivalence this, equivalence that......., why F2 is not F2 and 50mm not 50mm", "dof, stops, iso cheaters,". Help, I am confused. Did I loose my identity as a photog, not knowing which size and why?

Who can help me.:-O

Simple answer is that cameras are for people who like to take photos, equivalence is for people who like to argue endlessly on forums.

Correction. Equivalence is not the cause of the endless arguments. People's misunderstanding of and prejudice against it is.

Robert

Equivalence is not a complicated subject. The vast majority of photographers understand it perfectly well. And to have a prejudice against simple optical and photographic facts would be insane.

Not would be....it IS insane. "Would be" implies that such is not the case. Sadly, it is.

It is when self-proclaimed experts twist those facts or add contentious, or sometimes downright farcical, aspects to equivalence that the arguments start.

I'll have to sharply disagree with you there, unless those self-proclaimed experts you speak of are of the anti-equivalence ilk. While I can support my statement without even going outside of this thread, I have yet to see a proponent of equivalence adding anything farcical to what is a plainly understood theory, and I'd love for you to direct me to any posts that support your position, and if not, then at least amend your statements to agree with the facts.

These links are from this very thread and very nicely illustrate what I have stated.

https://www.dpreview.com/forums/post/59471865

https://www.dpreview.com/forums/post/59476560

https://www.dpreview.com/forums/post/59486166

As you can see, TommiK1 made some gravely false and unsubstantiated accusations against a "self-proclaimed" expert. When GB called him on it, and supported his statements with facts, there is no satisfactory rebuttal.

https://www.dpreview.com/forums/post/59349806

This link is from another thread. The common denominator is that the cause of contention is a mft supporter purposely misstating what one very prominent "self-proclaimed" expert supposedly said. When I as above, provided links to the contrary, DonParrot so valiantly claims that he can't be bothered to read the links, even though I took the liberty of actually quoting them. He didn't even have to click on them. Never mind the fact that he certainly found the time to reply 11 times, but apparently it's a lot less time consuming to post unsubstantiated falsehoods than to tell the truth.

As is common, he very bravely sidestepped the facts yet continues to assert his unsubstantiated claims as gospel. Anywhere else, such behavior would be considered cowardly and slanderous, but for some reason is very well tolerated here.

I'm sorry but I can't follow suit.

Robert

"Brave, Brave Sir Robin, so Bravely ran away"  --Monty Python and the Holy Grail