Is my thinking about equivalence right?

Started 5 months ago | Questions thread
Bassam Guy Veteran Member • Posts: 3,132
Un-equivalence
2

jwilliams wrote:

Muster Mark wrote:

Hi all, I realize this is NOT the topic everyone loves to discuss and I totally understand. I hope no-one feels annoyed by this post. That said, after some investigation I have come to the conclusion that "traditional" equivalence math is only useful as a rough heuristic to get a sense of what DOF will be and NOT a reasonable way to compare individual lenses or judge cost/performance of lenses in different systems.

No, not really. Equivalence is more than DOF or even mainly about DOF. I'll not go into any long winded discussion, but here's an article on this site that is a good read on the subject.

Equivalence is useful if you have any interest in light (and as a photographer, you probably should): Digital Photography Review (dpreview.com)

That is not true. 'Equivalence' implies at least two things. If 43 is your only sensor size then equivalence is meaningless.

 Bassam Guy's gear list:Bassam Guy's gear list
Olympus E-M5 II Olympus E-M5 III Olympus M.Zuiko Digital 45mm F1.8 Olympus M.Zuiko Digital ED 12mm 1:2 Olympus M.Zuiko Digital ED 60mm F2.8 Macro +6 more
Post (hide subjects) Posted by
Yxa
Yxa
Keyboard shortcuts:
FForum PPrevious NNext WNext unread UUpvote SSubscribe RReply QQuote BBookmark MMy threads
Color scheme? Blue / Yellow