Actual FOV 23 f2 not 35mm equivalent?

Thank you for a bit of common sense inserted into this thread.

I am sitting here, a little worried, that so many people don't seem to understand that the majority of people still use the 35mm camera as the reference for understanding other formats. Whether you like it or not, this is what most people do. Get over yourselves.

Ok, we get that there are variations of what '35mm' means.

Ok, we get that 'equivalence' has some arbitrary assumptions.

But I think it is ok for us to use a commonly understood format to give us a common reference point for us to understand and talk about lenses. It seems like a lot of people just want to point out technicalities and argue. This has the effect of one appearing obtuse when their intention was to appear intelligent.

Just Shoot Me wrote:

I'm sorry but for me your statement above makes no sense.

I grew up using a 35MM camera. I know, I got use to seeing with my minds eye, what a 21, 24, 28, 35, 50, 75, 90, 135 and 200mm lens FOV looks like.

So when I'm choosing a lens for a particular shot I think it 35mm FF terms. So If I want slightly wider than a standard 50mm lens I go to the 35. Which for Fuji is the 23. If I want a 50mm FOV I grab the Fuji 35.

If I grew up using a camera that used a smaller film size and the whole camera and film industry was based around that smaller film size then I wouldn't need to convert to FF equivalent.

Even when I used larger format camera I converted back down to 35mm FF terms as that is the way I see the shot.