Actual FOV 23 f2 not 35mm equivalent?

And with that swerve around logic, were done here. Good luck everyone.

Frodro100 wrote:

Hypoxic wrote:

Nothing you say is wrong, it's just that, despite all of this, it is still true that it is the convention for many, nay, most people to relate, to conceptualize within, to reference, the 35mm format. This is just the way it is, whether it is right or wrong, less accurate, or dated.

I don't take issue with anything you pose; I just get sick of people pretending they don't understand what is going on when someone discusses '35mm equivalence'. We all know what the original poster means. It is mind-numbing to constantly read through a thread when a third of the responses are participants thinking they are adding something very clever to the discussion by pointing out the imperfect reference of the 35mm field of view.

It is my experience, that, despite the APS-C sensor size being more popular, that most people still reference 35mm equivalents. Your argument that more people owning a certain sensor size dictates a change in the common reference is faulty. If your logic is true, then there are far more that own sensors smaller than APS-C, and therefore we should be converting all MF, FF, and crop sensors to a much smaller format that is in smartphones, point-and-shoots, etc.

Just really quick-- I might not have been clear, but I thought we both understood that the topic only makes sense when talking about interchangeable lens cameras. It's kind of pointless to talk about lens focal lengths with cameras that do not have interchangeable lenses to start with.

Let's say for a moment that perhaps my statistics are wrong. Perhaps most people relate to APS-C sensors now, as you purport. Look at the threads in response to the OP question. A number of them argue about the description, the semantics, rather than the original question. Every thread goes like this, over and over, and that's really the crux of my annoyance. Use common sense. We know what the person is talking about.

How else did you expect the thread to pan out, though? Did you read the OP? The topic is literally about this concept of equivalence using the assumption that it matters, as if there's something magical about the so-called "classic" focal lengths made popular for 135 film cameras. Turns out, not all people accept the premise. The result was totally predictable.