Since it doesn't do much, why get so emotional about equivalence?

Started 1 month ago | Questions thread
ForumParentFirstPrevious
Flat view
MrBrightSide Regular Member • Posts: 179
Since it doesn't do much, why get so emotional about equivalence?
5

I've noticed a pattern here. A civilian asks an equivalence-related question and the equivalence experts all dive in with passionate arguments. However, during the tirades, the experts always wind up enumerating a long list of things that equivalence doesn't do.

For instance, I've read statements from frequent posters that equivalence doesn't predict camera noise or shadow noise, doesn't predict image quality, doesn't predict lens-sensor interaction, only sort of predicts depth of field, definitely doesn't allow predictions about how different generations of sensors will behave nor predict how future sensors will behave, doesn't predict color accuracy, and can't be used as an exposure tool since there's no such thing as a "correct" exposure. I'm sure there are more that I've missed.

Given its  predictive limitations why invoke it so often? And why are people so passionate about defending it? What is it about this theory that makes its defenders so quick to anger and scorn?

ANSWER:
This question has not been answered yet.
ForumParentFirstPrevious
Flat view
Post (hide subjects) Posted by
(unknown member)
(unknown member)
tko
(unknown member)
tko
tko
ForumParentFirstPrevious
Keyboard shortcuts:
FForum PPrevious NNext WNext unread UUpvote SSubscribe RReply QQuote BBookmark MMy threads
Color scheme? Blue / Yellow