-
Welcome to the new forums! Please read this first. For known issues we are working to resolve, click here.
I was happy...
- Thread starter Hope1943
- Start date
Uh ho. Another lecture that's gonna set things right. ....I guess. Duly noted, as requested.
Peace.
John
Last edited:
cameron2
Veteran Member
John, I don't understand. Could you create another thread or two on this topic to help us clarify it?
Cameron2 -
Almost every time there is a thread about "Equivalence" it fills up with arguments among the "equivalence junkies" with the same old tired discussions/arguments/fusses about equivalence. To me it is irrelevant to taking a descent picture - If you like it and think it's great, "equivalence" is just a way to pass the time when you don't have much else to do.
BUT there are several folks on this forum that are deadly serious about their point of view on it - like the world will end if they don't prevail. - much knashing of teeth and wailing. I simply cannot understand how something can be so darn important to people when it is the picture that counts and always was and always will be.
Of course photographers are like that - very conservative and set in their ways. Anything and everything has to be discussed and argued about. 35mm full frame was once considered way too small to be any good at all, light meters in cameras, auto anything was horrendous, built in flashes, battery operated cameras, etc, etc. Our cameras are now little computers and can do wonderous things, so now we've taken the arguments to the physics of the thing, when in fact, it doesn't make much difference at all.
Look at the picture! That's all that counts - and stop being so deadly serious. Get over it. You will NEVER reach perfection not matter how hard you try, nor how much money you spend trying to get there. Now if you-all want to argue about "equivalence" or any other darn thing, you can do that. The rest of us - me anyway - will just chuckle. or something. Chucklers welcome.
And, thanks Mr. Ignorance is Bliss guy. Yeah, I know about "equivalence." I just don't care. Maybe you shouldn't either.
peace.
John
rovingtim
Veteran Member
If all you shoot is m4/3rds and are not comparing to other system's lenses, there is 0 need to ever touch on equivalence.
Equivalency ONLY matters when comparing different systems with different sized sensors.
Equivalency ONLY matters when comparing different systems with different sized sensors.
Yes. Thank you. I'll quit reading the "equivalence" threads now, except for occasionally poking at some stuffed shirts as they huff and puff and over-inflate. ...and phones are "equivalent" to ...................? .....soup???
Peace.
John
Last edited:
Barry Twycross
Veteran Member
I'm still happy, I don't take any notice of them.
Hey John,And that's equivalent to what?I have bad news for you. The colossal squid has the largest eyes in the animal kingdom, its low light vision is so good that it can see where the sunlight doesn't even reach: above 2000m depth in the ocean. The colossal squid can see the slightest movement of bioluminescent plankton, a source of light so fait that us humans can't see. They can detect sperm whale movements under 3000m of depth.
From now on you should convert everything you see to the colossal squid standards. Forget about your camera, you should feel bad about your own vision
Peace.
John
Hmm... equivalent to a Squid Pro Quo maybe?
Ha, Ha! I love it!Hey John,And that's equivalent to what?I have bad news for you. The colossal squid has the largest eyes in the animal kingdom, its low light vision is so good that it can see where the sunlight doesn't even reach: above 2000m depth in the ocean. The colossal squid can see the slightest movement of bioluminescent plankton, a source of light so fait that us humans can't see. They can detect sperm whale movements under 3000m of depth.
From now on you should convert everything you see to the colossal squid standards. Forget about your camera, you should feel bad about your own vision
Peace.
John
Hmm... equivalent to a Squid Pro Quo maybe?
Peace.
John
This is your webpage, right?
Just curious... are you saying that it is (you are) THE source on the subject matter of equivalence?
cameron2
Veteran Member
Yeah, probably. He's a pain in the *** and he tops it off with condescension that would kill an adult hippo, but on the technical stuff, he's almost always correct. And when it comes to the E word, there's no one more invested in the business of arguing E on DPR than he is!
Great Bustard
Forum Pro
- Messages
- 28,369
- Solutions
- 17
- Reaction score
- 34,046
Yep.
My apologies for the inference -- I should have said the original source (as the Equivalence Essay predated DPR's Equivalence articles by about a decade).
In any case, here are DPR's articles:
https://www.dpreview.com/articles/2666934640/what-is-equivalence-and-why-should-i-care
https://www.dpreview.com/learn/2799100497/equivalence-in-a-nutshell
https://www.dpreview.com/articles/8...e-shedding-some-light-on-the-sources-of-noise
https://www.dpreview.com/articles/0388507676/sources-of-noise-part-two-electronic-noise
https://www.dpreview.com/articles/5365920428/the-effect-of-pixel-and-sensor-sizes-on-noise
Here's another:
And here's google's seach page for "Photographic Equivalence":
photographic equivalence - Bing
Intelligent search from Bing makes it easier to quickly find what you’re looking for and rewards you.
And here:
E-1 Lens system question..?
Per prior discussion, when an OM 35mm Lens w/adapter is used on the E-1, my understanding is that the DOF will be doubled along with the Focal Length, but that the as selected F stop will still provide the indicated speed/light transfer. That makes sense and I finally managed to insert that 1"...
is the very first post ever (that I am aware of) on the subject of Equivalence, although I was not aware of it at the time I wrote the Equivalence Essay (I learned of the concept from others).
Now, in which one of those linked articles, or the linked post, did any of them say or imply:
According to the equivalence guys, full fame is the only way to go to get a descent picture.
as the OP claimed?
Great Bustard
Forum Pro
- Messages
- 28,369
- Solutions
- 17
- Reaction score
- 34,046
In the same way someone telling you to social distance and wear a mask is also "a pain in the ***". More than that, given how many are *willfully ignorant* on the subject and *constantly and actively misrepresent* Equivalence, that's where the :tops it off with condescension that would kill an adult hippo" comes from.
And, unlike the willfully ignorant, when I find I'm in error, I right myself, rather that acting like a Dunning-Kruger clown.
That was true for a long while, but I think others are outdoing me in that regard, nowadays.
cameron2
Veteran Member
Yup. It was called small format (not "full frame", which has a completely different meaning -- almost every camera made is a full frame camera, with the exception of the GH1, GH2, and a few compacts!)
I had a 35mm camera, because I couldn't afford better. I started with my dad's Minolta. Lovely (affordable) camera, although made out of a plastic that eventually turned to goo and dust. I also shot Pentax, because it was also affordable -- amazing cameras for their time and their price!
The first 35mm system I bought (once I was out on my own and had a good income) was a high-end Canon. Used, of course, but used by a pro photographer. What an amazing kit, though! I love shooting Canon cameras to this day, although I stopped buying them after m43 came out.
It makes a big difference in IQ at the margins, but that big difference makes a big difference in price and size and weight. But I will tell you this: The photos that I get from a m43 sensor today (even from the original G1) are miles better than what I could get on 35mm film. And my dad was an engineer for Kodak, so I knew cameras and film. The original 12mp m43 sensor had at least 2 stops advantage over expensive 35mm film, and we've picked up the better part of another stop or two advantage at high ISO since then. (We are at the end of that road, though. The QE can't improve more than another 30% or 40% tops, and at that point we'd be at 100% QE, which is theoretically impossible.)
The next big area of improvement will be on the software side, and if they do a good job with it, even m43 will be way bigger of a sensor than we need. (However, that 1" to m43 size-range of sensor produces lenses that are perfect in (my) hand, so I don't see a reason to go smaller than 1" unless I want a super-duper-long tele.)
Just imagine a computer stitching and overlaying together 100s of shots to make sure that everyone's eyes are open, that the focus is perfect on each, and filling in more DR and detail with ever frame that it overlays. The *** used to do this with satellite photos in the 60s so they could read ... um ... stuff ... from space. They had to do it by hand. In a dark-room. We're about to see it show up in $500 bodies and some of the features are already showing up in phones.
All I want is the joy of taking photos and then enjoying those photos later.
Joy. Not brand. Not resolution. Not stops of DR. Just joy.
Peace.
cameron2
Veteran Member
That is true, and I do respect you for it.
Great Bustard
Forum Pro
- Messages
- 28,369
- Solutions
- 17
- Reaction score
- 34,046
You said, and I quote:
According to the equivalence guys, full fame is the only way to go to get a descent picture.
So, no, you don't know about Equivalence (unless you know and are actively misrepresenting it).
If you don't care, maybe you shouldn't start threads misrepresenting topics you don't care about.
If you meant "peace", you wouldn't have started this thread. Perhaps you mean "tap"?
Tuonov2
Senior Member
...and you are "Great" Says so right in your name. Touchy, touchy.... but a keckuva high horse. Must be one of those college profs or something. What IS a Bustard anyway? Maybe go shoot some pictures with your "equivalence." I just have my tiny little m4/3 cameras ... and a couple of Sonys....and a couple of Nikons - but all tiny sensors. I sold my Full Frame stuff because it didn't cut it for what I wanted.
I guess I;ll just go back to my little stuff and you can go look over your lecture notes.
Done
John
Last edited:
Yes, you have seen through the sphere of confusion and are now one of the per-unit area enlightened.
This is the deep dark secret that the 4/3 alliance never mentioned while blinding the public with their seemingly rational words of "light compact sytem balanced with good sensor performance". They never told you that Equivalance is one of the primary (if not the most important of) photo parameters.
I can paraphrase from the 61mm Photographers Handboook:
As you can see, Equivalance is a critical camera setting.
Great Bustard
Forum Pro
- Messages
- 28,369
- Solutions
- 17
- Reaction score
- 34,046
Depending on the crowd, a pony, or even a chihuahua, can be considered a "high horse".
Wait 'till you find out I take vaccines, wear a mask in public during pandemics, believe in a spherical Earth, and all that kind of stuff!
"Bustard" is a typo. ;-)
I take a few. Would you like to see some? Let me know. Thing is, it will likely play out the same as it did when responding to this guy, forwards and backwards.
I don't take photos with "equivalence". Add that to the list of your misunderstandings of what Equivalence is all about.
So am I supposed to be enraged? Shocked? In tears? Let me know.
How about you do what interest you, and I'll do what interests me? I mean, I have never once -- not once -- started a thread on a topic I didn't have an interest in.
Promise?
Last edited:
Similar threads
Keyboard shortcuts
- f
- Forum