Is my thinking about equivalence right?

Started 3 months ago | Questions thread
MOD Tom Caldwell Forum Pro • Posts: 43,197
This month’s very own equivalence thread
7

Ok, it can be very informative and we can let it run, but how many times have we discussed this very point?

Some fully understand, others come from a more limited understanding of what it specifically means to them.  Others simply don’t  care and it it is the image that is caught that counts and not the technicalities of physics.

Myself I like to compare the equivalent field of view (only) and refer it to the common denominator of what a FF fov “looks like” in my mind. Luckily the 4/3 sensor allows this with a simple 2x multiplier that even my mental mathematics can cope with.  I found it so much more of an issue when using a Pentax Q with its tiny odd-sized sensor.

As far as I am concerned a “fast” M4/3 lens is a “fast lens” and I care nothing about what it might be equivalent to in FF sensor terms.  If it makes images that I like I need not know  what the equivalence might be in order that I can be assured that my personal appreciation is “correct”.

In any case I am sure that we appreciate these regular updates as they always seem to be popular.

But I would  not be so relaxed if the thread became personal or in any other respect ragged around the edges.  Nor need we have a continuator thread to follow up the seemingly endless argument.

-- hide signature --

Tom Caldwell

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