The Recent F/stop Controversy

Started 1 month ago | Discussions thread
fferreres Senior Member • Posts: 1,567
Re: Disingenuous posting
1

Great Bustard wrote:

kiwi2 wrote:

Great Bustard wrote:

Michael Fryd wrote:

kiwi2 wrote:

Why exactly should I be worried about achieving equivalence between the two..??

You shouldn't be concerned about equivalence between these two.

It's weird that so many [intentionally] misrepresent Equivalence saying that they should be shooting Equivalent photos on different formats, even though Equivalence *explicitly* says quite the opposite. It's as if someone said to multiply mi/hr by 1.6 to get km/hr, and they said, "Why should I drive the same speed in Europe as I do in the US?"

So now with a real world example, it suddenly doesn't matter any more...???

Remember when Richard Butler said to you:

Disingenuous posting

It's already been made clear in one thread that no one is saying that the f-number of a lens actually changes and that the standard exposure model is based, for better or worse, on f-numbers and light per unit area.

So no, no one is saying that the f-number "becomes" something else. Or "is" something else on a different sensor. You repeatedly reverting to that claim is clearly disingenuous.

You've made apparent that you know this already. You're also seemingly aware that equivalence doesn't claim it, and that there is some value to a whole-image understanding of total light.

If you continue to intentionally misrepresent the idea of equivalence, purely because you want to play games of semantics or because you've decided you don't deem it useful, this thread will be deleted.

Do you remember that? You're doing the *exact same BS* again. Where does Equivalence say, or imply, that one should use one system to get photos Equivalent to photos taken with another system? Where does Equivalence say, or imply, that the differences between System A and System B are *necessarily* going to be so significant that one *must* take Equivalence into account with each and every photo?

Once again, your are *intentionally* misrepresenting what Equivalence says/implies. Your straw man argument is *exactly* like me posting a photo of a scene at f/4 1/400 ISO 100 and f/8 1/100 ISO 400 that look all but identical and then making the specious claim that there's no difference between f/4 and f/8, no difference between 1/400 and 1/100, and no difference between ISO 100 and ISO 400. And you do this kind of ++++ all the freakin' time!

He did not missrepresent anything. Actually, nobody is opposed to the idea of equivalence. And Richard Butler's own articles about it is probably the bible to understand it. But you remembering a very old post un bringing it an unrelated thread as a threat is something sad.

The problem comes when things that are Equivalent are tried to made Equal. And when in trying to made Equal, they try to reinvent photography by designating lenses with FOV and f-milimeters. Nobody argues about any logical argument of what could eventually compare to something else, as in one dollar in terms of yuans.

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