The fallacy of 35mm "equivalent focal lengths"

Started 3 months ago | Discussions thread
tko Forum Pro • Posts: 12,796
the fallacy of fallacy posts
8

Anytime I see a post w/the word "fallacy" I'm going to assume it is a fallacy.

The thing is, when you do a comparison, you keep vary some things, keep others constant. Here, we've got things varying all over the place. Pixel density, lens quality, noise, different sensor generations, atmospheric distortions, subjective observations of image quality, wide range telephoto zooms compared to fixed zoom with telephotos.

Equivalence is a very simple thing. What you've done here is to use a lot of words to define it to your world view.

The explosive power of one atom bomb is equal to 50,000 pounds of TNT. Simple enough, right? But then the arguers come in. What? But you can't carry 50,000 pounds of TNT in a plane. TNT isn't radioactive. It has a different explosive time profile. The color is different. One is harder to obtain. All true, but irrelevant to the initial statement.

Lens equivalence is the simplest thing in the world. People like to make it complicated and confusing by throwing in other factors. Which, are of course important. But they don't change anything about equivalence.

-- hide signature --

no, I won't return to read your witty reply!
professional cynic and contrarian: don't take it personally
http://500px.com/omearak

Post (hide subjects) Posted by
BAK
tko
Keyboard shortcuts:
FForum PPrevious NNext WNext unread UUpvote SSubscribe RReply QQuote BBookmark MMy threads
Color scheme? Blue / Yellow