Or as you say, one can't be even a photographer unless one knows all about scientific part of the equivalence.
Never said, or implied, such a silly thing.
Never said, or implied, such a silly thing.
I've never claimed otherwise. All I've said is that a technical understanding doesn't hurt, and might help. Misrepresenting what I say, and what Equivalence says, even claiming I said the exact opposite of what I say, and the exact opposite of what Equivalence says, is something of a sport around here.
So you prefer the composition of these photos to the photos below from the OP?
Your analogy is NOT like what you think. It is close to a photographer understanding how lighting affects a scene or how different lights have different color temperatures.
The TRUTH is, a virtually identical composition can be obtained with very different "effective" focal lengths, distances, etc. There are often BETTER ways to achieve what equivalence zealots preach.
That's what I got out of that message, OK, I am lazy and i love F1.2 on my FF, LOL.
Um, no, I really don't.
You claim that I want to divert the topic but the topic, as I recall, is you saying that shallow DOF is "Too often it is used by the lazy who are unable to utilized the environment and the background. It is a crutch that a few think makes a photo look 'professional'" but don't have any qualms about banal deep DOF photos.
Keep those strawmen coming! Clearly you want to divert the topic.
If anything is sad, it is that some people waste their time arguing against the *simple facts* of Equivalence rather than acknowledging them and then getting on with their photography.
Psst! I'll let you in on a secret -- you don't need to understand physics to understand Equivalence.
The "study of the 'equivalence'"? Now *that's* funny!
I did no such thing. Like I said, misrepresenting what I said, and misrepresenting what Equivalence says, even claiming the opposite, is a sport around here.
Well, it's true that there may be factors that are more important than perspective, framing, DOF, light on the sensor, brightness, and display size, but to dismissing those factors is, well....
Equivalence isn't something you "waste time" on anything more than you would "waste time" on focal length or aperture.
Wow -- someone saying perspective doesn't matter and thinking that the above "photos" somehow prove it. Um, no:As has been shown repeatedly, "equivalence" frequently affects a scene far less than you claim. For example, how do this 3 pics look nearly identical? They sure as heck were not taken with "equivalent" lenses or equivalent distances! LOL!!!!!
Totally agree, and even you use those F1.2 MFT lenses and not lookign for super thin DOF, you are still working with a sensor that's about 1/4 the size of a FF so still won't adddress the #2 and #3 on your list, I am a little surprised I don't see that many people mentioned those points in this forum, which to my own eyes is very obvious as owner of FF, APS-C and MFT myself. Most MFT fan seem to more focus on talking about " who cares about picture with one eye in focus only" kind of thing, makes sound it like that is the only thing about FF has to offer.
I have never once argued against the math behind equivalence. Those "simple facts" of the math are sound. Sure they are often a complete waste of time for someone trying to achieve his best, but the math is sound. Great in theory, but there is so much more that is far more important.
To say that "there is so much more that is far more important [than Equivalence]" is the same as saying "there is so much more that is more important than the focal length and aperture of a lens". I would argue that it's all worth knowing, but would argue against saying that it's anything difficult to understand that would require more than a few moments of anyone's time.
So you would say the same to anyone who was thinking about the 40-150 / 2.8 over the 40-150 / 4-5.6, then, right?
Wow -- someone saying perspective doesn't matter and thinking that the above "photos" somehow prove it. Um, no:It actually is pretty easy to get virtually identical composition/images with equipment that is not "equivalent.
It is very hard to carry on a conversation with someone who keeps lying.
