DPReview.com is closing April 10th - Find out more

Seriously, Canon?

Started 5 months ago | Discussions thread
dan the man p Senior Member • Posts: 1,201
Re: Seriously, Canon?
2

j tokarz wrote:

equivalence. Ah' now thats something for the pixel peepers or scientists. Never bothered with that nonsense (my oppinion ). F4 or F2.8 on an olympus is still F4 or F2.8. Fantastic depth of field.Not everyone is bothered about bokeh. That can be put in in photoshop. Pixel peeping is not my sport. I don't see the point in blowing up a picture to see the hairs on a pixel. We are all different and like different things. I don't like canon prices and sizes.

It's not nonsense, and it doesn't have anything to do with pixel peeping, but whatever makes you happy. Just know it's not an apples-to-apples to compare the same F-number on different sensor sizes without accounting for the differences in total light gathered. There's no free lunch, or else we'd all be using tiny sensors since you can get large max apertures (in terms of F-number) with much less glass that way.

Edit: if you haven't already read this, I can definitely recommend doing so: https://www.dpreview.com/articles/2666934640/what-is-equivalence-and-why-should-i-care

 dan the man p's gear list:dan the man p's gear list
Sony DSC-RX0 Nikon Z6 Nikon Z 24-70mm F4 Nikon Z 40mm F2
Post (hide subjects) Posted by
KEG
KEG
KEG
KEG
KEG
KEG
KEG
KEG
KEG
KEG
KEG
KEG
KEG
Keyboard shortcuts:
FForum PPrevious NNext WNext unread UUpvote SSubscribe RReply QQuote BBookmark MMy threads
Color scheme? Blue / Yellow