Robin Wong: Why Arguing About Equivalence Is Pointless Locked

Started 5 months ago | Discussions
This thread is locked.
Carol T Senior Member • Posts: 1,075
Re: Of course, I have an opinion on that.

Great Bustard wrote:

LightCameraAction wrote:

I think the premise of this thread is correct. Equivalence is useful when making purchasing decisions. Beyond that, why dwell on it?

Exactly!

I am one of the weirdest people in the world, for sure, and seem to do things differently than almost everyone else, but I use equivalence every time I shoot, even after years of using only m4/'3 gear: I think in 35mm terms, and back calculate to the settings I want in m4/3 (which are often unobtainable or in a range where m4/3 performs the worst, such as shooting wide open). That is one reason I prefer m4/3 to APS-C, the math is far easier (stupid reason, I know; the other is that the only system with lenses designed for APS-C is Fuji, and I hate their control system and the X-trans files). Plus, most of the photos I look at online that have EXIF are from 35mm systems, and I want to see if I could even remotely do the same with my m4/3 system.

ahaslett
ahaslett Veteran Member • Posts: 7,786
Re: Of course, I have an opinion on that.

Carol T wrote:

Great Bustard wrote:

LightCameraAction wrote:

I think the premise of this thread is correct. Equivalence is useful when making purchasing decisions. Beyond that, why dwell on it?

Exactly!

I am one of the weirdest people in the world, for sure, and seem to do things differently than almost everyone else, but I use equivalence every time I shoot, even after years of using only m4/'3 gear: I think in 35mm terms, and back calculate to the settings I want in m4/3 (which are often unobtainable or in a range where m4/3 performs the worst, such as shooting wide open). That is one reason I prefer m4/3 to APS-C, the math is far easier (stupid reason, I know; the other is that the only system with lenses designed for APS-C is Fuji, and I hate their control system and the X-trans files). Plus, most of the photos I look at online that have EXIF are from 35mm systems, and I want to see if I could even remotely do the same with my m4/3 system.

I use crop factors a lot of the time switching between systems, although my base is often MFT.

Andrew

-- hide signature --

Infinite are the arguments of mages. Truth is a jewel with many facets. Ursula K LeGuin
Please feel free to edit any images that I post

 ahaslett's gear list:ahaslett's gear list
Sigma DP1 Merrill Sigma DP3 Merrill Olympus E-M1 Sony a7R Panasonic Lumix DMC-GM1 +27 more
victorav Senior Member • Posts: 1,193
Re: A better idea!

Mark Ransom wrote:

cosmicnode wrote:

Mark Ransom wrote:

Bassam Guy wrote:

I'm tired of equivalence. Let's argue about something more meaningful like quarts vs liters or miles vs kilometers.

A quart is just a liter with a crop factor of 1.057 applied. Likewise a kilometer is a mile with a crop factor of 1.61.

I really really wish the U.S. had converted to metric back when there was interest in doing so. There's no good reason for being different from the rest of the world.

I converted to metric in the early to mid 70's, it's so much easier. But forget centimetres. hectometres etc they were never intended to be used in the modern metric system. it's very simple each dimension is 1000 times the previous dimension or the previous dimension divided by 1000, all based on the metre.

The problem in the UK is the road signs there are so many of them the cost would he very high to change over, from miles to kilometres.

Road signs don't last forever, you can change them as they wear out and need replacing.

There is a U.S. highway, I-19 in Arizona that has metric signage. There was a plan to change it over to miles and feet like the rest of the country when the signs were replaced, but it was derailed by local businesses. The freeway exit numbers were numbered by their distance along the freeway, and changing from kilometers to miles would have resulted in the renumbering of the exits. This would have required all those businesses to redo any promotional material that had directions to their business.

I once worked with a guy who had just bought a surplus water tank, and was wondering what it would weigh when full. I asked him what the dimensions were, and as he gave them to me in inches I multiplied them by 2.5 in my head to get approximate centimeters. Once I had multiplied everything together to get cubic centimeters, I divided by 1000 to get liters and with the density of water being 1 used that as kilograms. One final conversion to pounds, and I was able to give him a figure as soon as he finished giving me the dimensions.

The superior unit of weight is the slug.

Great Bustard Forum Pro • Posts: 45,199
Re: Of course, I have an opinion on that.

Carol T wrote:

Great Bustard wrote:

LightCameraAction wrote:

I think the premise of this thread is correct. Equivalence is useful when making purchasing decisions. Beyond that, why dwell on it?

Exactly!

I am one of the weirdest people in the world, for sure, and seem to do things differently than almost everyone else, but I use equivalence every time I shoot, even after years of using only m4/'3 gear: I think in 35mm terms...

Could be worse -- imagine if you thought in 45 terms. 

...and back calculate to the settings I want in m4/3 (which are often unobtainable or in a range where m4/3 performs the worst, such as shooting wide open). That is one reason I prefer m4/3 to APS-C, the math is far easier (stupid reason, I know; the other is that the only system with lenses designed for APS-C is Fuji, and I hate their control system and the X-trans files). Plus, most of the photos I look at online that have EXIF are from 35mm systems, and I want to see if I could even remotely do the same with my m4/3 system.

For people who have extensive experience with FF, I can see that they might always want to think in those terms.  For example, my wife, who's in Japan at the moment, asked me how fast 40 km/hr is in mi/hr -- even though the signs and speedometers are in km/hr.

Great Bustard Forum Pro • Posts: 45,199
Re: Classic example of the utility of Equivalence!

Pete_W wrote:

Great Bustard wrote:

Pete_W wrote:

Great Bustard wrote:

Pete_W wrote:

Great Bustard wrote:

But let's be honest here -- with regards to IQ and DOF, how many are held back by their equipment from taking good, or even great, photos, as a function of the format they are using? I'd say very, very, very few.

It is sometimes an issue for me.

One of my hobbies is rail photography. I want the subject to be sharp from the front to the back so DOF is important, and if the train is moving I need a fast shutter speed to avoid motion blur. On a bright sunny day, I have no problems with my MFT gear. However when the light is low, the combination of the required f-stop and shutter speed invariably pushes ISO up further than I'd like.

FF will gather more light and will give me more capability in low light conditions.

FF will gather more light for a given exposure time *only* if it uses a more shallow DOF. Since you need a particular DOF and exposure time, neither FF nor mFT have a noise or DOF advantage over the other.

But isn't it the case that higher ISO on FF is less noisy?

The whole notion of ISO is greatly misunderstood, so bear with me as I explain. Let's say you need f/5.6 on mFT to get the desired DOF and 1/400 to mitigate motion blur. Let's also say that for the scene you are shooting, ISO 1600 gives the desired lightness for that exposure.

Then for FF, we'd use f/11 for the same DOF and 1/400 for the same motion blur. This will result in the same total amount of light projected on the sensor and thus more or less equally noisy photos for more or less the same tech. But FF would use ISO 6400 for the desired lightness since the exposure is two stops lower (but the same total amount of light is projected on the sensors, and it is the total amount of light, not the exposure, that matters with respect to noise).

In any case, for the same DOF and exposure time, FF would not have any noise advantage over mFT unless FF were using a better sensor (likewise, if mFT were using a better sensor, then FF would be at a noise disadvantage for the same DOF and exposure time).

Thanks, so based on what you've posted, and the others who've said much the same, FF would give me absolutely no benefit unless the sensor was better?

All else equal, yes.  The FF sensor will likely have more pixels, which will put it at an advantage (either as greater resolution, or a bit less noisy photo since noise filtering will often work better when it has more resolution to begin with), but by and large, pretty much no benefit at all.  But then there's operation, which often matters more than differences in IQ, anyway, and that may well favor mFT.

That will make a few heads explode around here!

If people understood what Equivalence actually says, rather than reacting to it the way Americans react to the label of "socialist", it would go a long way to cutting down on the "entertainment".

How would I know if the sensor is better?

If it's a Sony sensor. 

Camera manufacturers seem to keep a lot about their sensors secret.

There's DxOMark and photonstophotons, but, to me, the proof is in the pudding: comparison photos competently done.  I think DPR does an excellent job with their test scene shots, but their "DR comparometer", while excellent, doesn't show pushes from base ISO, which is something they really need to add.

Of course, even then, there's the issue of the RAW converter that is used.  DPR has chosen to use ACR for all the RAW conversions, which I think is the best way to do it, and "accurate enough" with regards to noise and resolution (color is a different matter, however).

Great Bustard Forum Pro • Posts: 45,199
Speaking of "thumpers"...

linux99 wrote:

Interesting to note that two of the main "equivalence" tub thumpers are now in full swing arguing that Equivalence is a FACT - did anyone say it wasn't?.

Seems like I am being accused of "Denying Equivalence"

Can you link and quote even one post in this thread where someone did that? 'Cause I didn't see it, and your self-victimization is a classic example of the anti-Equivalence crowd (noting, of course, that the "anti-Equivalence crowd" is composed of both Equivalence deniers and whiners who just don't like it being discussed, as if there weren't some other posts/threads they could be reading).

- which seems like a bit of a strange choice of words, almost religious, and in any case I have said no such thing. But it is so much easier to "win" against Straw Men.

Link and quote to the Straw Men argument -- aside from the one you just made, that is.

Really revealing!

Indeed!

This thread wasn't discussing the "truth of Equivalence" it was asking if it is a good idea to bring it up all the time.

As always, Equivalence is relevant any time different formats are being compared.

But when you see guys who HAVE to make a point - I guess they have to make that point!

I wonder why?

Because of people like you, who start threads on Equivalence, and then call the ensuing discussion on Equivalence a "hijack".

cosmicnode Veteran Member • Posts: 5,920
Re: A better idea!

Mark Ransom wrote:

cosmicnode wrote:

Mark Ransom wrote:

Bassam Guy wrote:

I'm tired of equivalence. Let's argue about something more meaningful like quarts vs liters or miles vs kilometers.

A quart is just a liter with a crop factor of 1.057 applied. Likewise a kilometer is a mile with a crop factor of 1.61.

I really really wish the U.S. had converted to metric back when there was interest in doing so. There's no good reason for being different from the rest of the world.

I converted to metric in the early to mid 70's, it's so much easier. But forget centimetres. hectometres etc they were never intended to be used in the modern metric system. it's very simple each dimension is 1000 times the previous dimension or the previous dimension divided by 1000, all based on the metre.

The problem in the UK is the road signs there are so many of them the cost would he very high to change over, from miles to kilometres.

Road signs don't last forever, you can change them as they wear out and need replacing.

60mph is approx 100kph, put up signs with 100 on them and a few will mistake them for 100mph, UK signs just have the numbers on them, Obviously you cant do 100mph on a UK road, but a 20mph sign would then be changed for a 30kph sign. Sweden changed over from using the left hand side of the road to the right hand over a weekend, the preparation took a long time and signs were covered until the weekend they were changed. The cost would be very high.

-- hide signature --

Mike.
"I say we take off and nuke the entire site from orbit, it's the only way to be sure."

 cosmicnode's gear list:cosmicnode's gear list
Nikon D1 Nikon D1X Nikon D1H Nikon D2H Nikon D2X +16 more
tjuster1 Senior Member • Posts: 2,222
Re: A better idea!

victorav wrote:

Mark Ransom wrote:

cosmicnode wrote:

Mark Ransom wrote:

Bassam Guy wrote:

I'm tired of equivalence. Let's argue about something more meaningful like quarts vs liters or miles vs kilometers.

A quart is just a liter with a crop factor of 1.057 applied. Likewise a kilometer is a mile with a crop factor of 1.61.

I really really wish the U.S. had converted to metric back when there was interest in doing so. There's no good reason for being different from the rest of the world.

I converted to metric in the early to mid 70's, it's so much easier. But forget centimetres. hectometres etc they were never intended to be used in the modern metric system. it's very simple each dimension is 1000 times the previous dimension or the previous dimension divided by 1000, all based on the metre.

The problem in the UK is the road signs there are so many of them the cost would he very high to change over, from miles to kilometres.

Road signs don't last forever, you can change them as they wear out and need replacing.

There is a U.S. highway, I-19 in Arizona that has metric signage. There was a plan to change it over to miles and feet like the rest of the country when the signs were replaced, but it was derailed by local businesses. The freeway exit numbers were numbered by their distance along the freeway, and changing from kilometers to miles would have resulted in the renumbering of the exits. This would have required all those businesses to redo any promotional material that had directions to their business.

I once worked with a guy who had just bought a surplus water tank, and was wondering what it would weigh when full. I asked him what the dimensions were, and as he gave them to me in inches I multiplied them by 2.5 in my head to get approximate centimeters. Once I had multiplied everything together to get cubic centimeters, I divided by 1000 to get liters and with the density of water being 1 used that as kilograms. One final conversion to pounds, and I was able to give him a figure as soon as he finished giving me the dimensions.

The superior unit of weight is the slug.

Ah, but the slug is a unit of mass, not weight! 

 tjuster1's gear list:tjuster1's gear list
Panasonic Lumix DMC-GM5 Olympus E-M5 III Panasonic Lumix G Vario 14-45mm F3.5-5.6 ASPH OIS Olympus M.Zuiko Digital ED 9-18mm F4.0-5.6 Panasonic Lumix G 20mm F1.7 ASPH +6 more
Dan_168 Veteran Member • Posts: 9,707
Re: Robin Wong: Why Arguing About Equivalence Is Pointless

linux99 wrote:

I like Robin Wong a lot - seems like a really genuine guy.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=zbTuIw8E0bc

What he says here is so very very true.

Arguing whether equivalence is pointless or not also totally pointless. I shoot with multiple format and I know when I would use what.

Carol T Senior Member • Posts: 1,075
Re: Of course, I have an opinion on that.

Great Bustard wrote:

Carol T wrote:

Great Bustard wrote:

LightCameraAction wrote:

I think the premise of this thread is correct. Equivalence is useful when making purchasing decisions. Beyond that, why dwell on it?

Exactly!

I am one of the weirdest people in the world, for sure, and seem to do things differently than almost everyone else, but I use equivalence every time I shoot, even after years of using only m4/'3 gear: I think in 35mm terms...

Could be worse -- imagine if you thought in 45 terms.

I have no idea what you mean, lol.

...and back calculate to the settings I want in m4/3 (which are often unobtainable or in a range where m4/3 performs the worst, such as shooting wide open). That is one reason I prefer m4/3 to APS-C, the math is far easier (stupid reason, I know; the other is that the only system with lenses designed for APS-C is Fuji, and I hate their control system and the X-trans files). Plus, most of the photos I look at online that have EXIF are from 35mm systems, and I want to see if I could even remotely do the same with my m4/3 system.

For people who have extensive experience with FF, I can see that they might always want to think in those terms. For example, my wife, who's in Japan at the moment, asked me how fast 40 km/hr is in mi/hr -- even though the signs and speedometers are in km/hr.

No, it's worse than that. I learned on APS-C cameras, first Sony and then Fuji (never used a real film camera, only those disposable ones), and shot FF only for a couple years before moving to m4/3 so I could go back to mirrorless. But I always thought of APS-C lenses in terms of FF ones. At least the math is easier than if I had used Canon shrunken APS-C, lol.

In other news, I got PL4 Elite 40% last week for BF. And have spent enough medical bills on one of our cats to pay for most of what I would want in a FF system, if anyone made what I want. Honestly the medical treatment hopefully will benefit the cat far more than a FF system would me (doesn't matter how good your gear is if you have no talent and drive and it just sits on a shelf).

Great Bustard Forum Pro • Posts: 45,199
Re: Of course, I have an opinion on that.

Carol T wrote:

In other news, I got PL4 Elite 40% last week for BF. And have spent enough medical bills on one of our cats to pay for most of what I would want in a FF system, if anyone made what I want. Honestly the medical treatment hopefully will benefit the cat far more than a FF system would me (doesn't matter how good your gear is if you have no talent and drive and it just sits on a shelf).

What's the point of having a camera at all if you don't have a cat to take photos of? 

Carol T Senior Member • Posts: 1,075
Re: Of course, I have an opinion on that.

Great Bustard wrote:

Carol T wrote:

In other news, I got PL4 Elite 40% last week for BF. And have spent enough medical bills on one of our cats to pay for most of what I would want in a FF system, if anyone made what I want. Honestly the medical treatment hopefully will benefit the cat far more than a FF system would me (doesn't matter how good your gear is if you have no talent and drive and it just sits on a shelf).

What's the point of having a camera at all if you don't have a cat to take photos of?

Well, turns out this *is* the cat I usually photograph when I photograph cats, especially for testing purposes.

I do have to wonder how many people on DPR would spend $4000 on diagnostics for a cat, though, on top of god knows how much in treatments over the last 1-1/2 years, lol. Probably could hire a lot of time with human models for that, if nothing else.

(unknown member) Junior Member • Posts: 47
Re: post the links

tko wrote:

Pete_W wrote:

march hare wrote:

Nothing like a micro four thirds user bringing up the old FF equivalence post again ......... eventually the blame falls on FF users when the thread goes pear shape

There were a number of inflammatory and derogatory comments about MFT posted by FF users that made that thread go pear-shaped. While an MFT user started the thread, the derailing was because of the tone of the responses.

I didn't see that. I've never seen that.

And no one ever said Olympus is "dead".

RobbieBear Senior Member • Posts: 2,226
Re: A better idea!

Seasider wrote:

Good idea. We can convert sayings like 'you can't put a quart into a pint pot' into 'you can't put a FF sensor into an EM1 mkiii'.

Or..

You can't put a Nikon 120-300 f2.8 into an Oly 40-150 2.8. Not even its case.

 RobbieBear's gear list:RobbieBear's gear list
Olympus E-M1 Olympus 12-40mm F2.8 Pro Olympus E-M1 II Panasonic 20mm F1.7 II Panasonic Lumix G Vario HD 12-32mm F3.5-5.6 Mega OIS +2 more
RobbieBear Senior Member • Posts: 2,226
Re: A better idea!

tjuster1 wrote:

victorav wrote:

Mark Ransom wrote:

cosmicnode wrote:

Mark Ransom wrote:

Bassam Guy wrote:

I'm tired of equivalence. Let's argue about something more meaningful like quarts vs liters or miles vs kilometers.

A quart is just a liter with a crop factor of 1.057 applied. Likewise a kilometer is a mile with a crop factor of 1.61.

I really really wish the U.S. had converted to metric back when there was interest in doing so. There's no good reason for being different from the rest of the world.

I converted to metric in the early to mid 70's, it's so much easier. But forget centimetres. hectometres etc they were never intended to be used in the modern metric system. it's very simple each dimension is 1000 times the previous dimension or the previous dimension divided by 1000, all based on the metre.

The problem in the UK is the road signs there are so many of them the cost would he very high to change over, from miles to kilometres.

Road signs don't last forever, you can change them as they wear out and need replacing.

There is a U.S. highway, I-19 in Arizona that has metric signage. There was a plan to change it over to miles and feet like the rest of the country when the signs were replaced, but it was derailed by local businesses. The freeway exit numbers were numbered by their distance along the freeway, and changing from kilometers to miles would have resulted in the renumbering of the exits. This would have required all those businesses to redo any promotional material that had directions to their business.

I once worked with a guy who had just bought a surplus water tank, and was wondering what it would weigh when full. I asked him what the dimensions were, and as he gave them to me in inches I multiplied them by 2.5 in my head to get approximate centimeters. Once I had multiplied everything together to get cubic centimeters, I divided by 1000 to get liters and with the density of water being 1 used that as kilograms. One final conversion to pounds, and I was able to give him a figure as soon as he finished giving me the dimensions.

The superior unit of weight is the slug.

Ah, but the slug is a unit of mass, not weight!

Aah, may the force be with you!

 RobbieBear's gear list:RobbieBear's gear list
Olympus E-M1 Olympus 12-40mm F2.8 Pro Olympus E-M1 II Panasonic 20mm F1.7 II Panasonic Lumix G Vario HD 12-32mm F3.5-5.6 Mega OIS +2 more
RobbieBear Senior Member • Posts: 2,226
Re: Of course, I have an opinion on that.

Great Bustard wrote:

But that's not to say that you can't take good, and even great, photos without knowing, or caring about, the facts.

Totally agree!

 RobbieBear's gear list:RobbieBear's gear list
Olympus E-M1 Olympus 12-40mm F2.8 Pro Olympus E-M1 II Panasonic 20mm F1.7 II Panasonic Lumix G Vario HD 12-32mm F3.5-5.6 Mega OIS +2 more
RobbieBear Senior Member • Posts: 2,226
Re: Robin Wong: Why Arguing About Equivalence Is Pointless

Confusedabit wrote:

Personable chap and useful for knowing how to get the best out of Olympus but not which format to buy or which make within that format as a sole source of information.

And that is exactly what is required on a forum where most users, one would assume, have opted already to use the particular platform that he discusses.

 RobbieBear's gear list:RobbieBear's gear list
Olympus E-M1 Olympus 12-40mm F2.8 Pro Olympus E-M1 II Panasonic 20mm F1.7 II Panasonic Lumix G Vario HD 12-32mm F3.5-5.6 Mega OIS +2 more
Henry Richardson Forum Pro • Posts: 19,110
Check DXO DeepPrime noise reduction

Henry Richardson wrote:

Pete_W wrote:

Henry Richardson wrote:

Pete_W wrote:

One of my hobbies is rail photography. I want the subject to be sharp from the front to the back so DOF is important, and if the train is moving I need a fast shutter speed to avoid motion blur. On a bright sunny day, I have no problems with my MFT gear. However when the light is low, the combination of the required f-stop and shutter speed invariably pushes ISO up further than I'd like.

FF will gather more light and will give me more capability in low light conditions. However the thing I love about MFT is small size/weight. I can have absolutely everything I need in one bag that isn't bulky or heavy.

Can you give an example of the shutter speed, aperture, and ISO you need to use with m4/3 in low light to get what you want?

Remember that to get the same DOF with FF in the same conditions you will need to close the aperture 2 stops and raise the ISO 2 stops. For example, if with m4/3 in low light you were using 1/1000, f11, ISO 6400 then with FF you would use 1/1000, f22, ISO 25,600.

If I set shutter speed to 1/1000, aperture to f/8 and leave ISO at auto, in late afternoon light conditions the camera will push ISO up above 1600 and I get a lot of noise. If I set aperture to f/4 I start to lose sharpness in the background.

Okay, that means with FF you would need 1/1000, f16, ISO 6400 or higher. Generally m4/3 at ISO 1600 will be pretty much the same as FF at ISO 6400 -- 2 stops difference. This is an excellent example of where understanding equivalence is very useful.

With your shutter speed and DOF requirements FF would not gain you anything. You would just have generally bigger, heavier gear and lots more expense to buy into a FF system.

There are lots of posts here recently about the new DXO DeepPrime noise reduction. Some say it is like getting a sensor upgrade. It might be worthwhile to look at that for your high ISO shots.

-- hide signature --

Henry Richardson
http://www.bakubo.com

(unknown member) Junior Member • Posts: 47
Re: Check DXO DeepPrime noise reduction

Henry Richardson wrote:

Henry Richardson wrote:

Pete_W wrote:

Henry Richardson wrote:

Pete_W wrote:

One of my hobbies is rail photography. I want the subject to be sharp from the front to the back so DOF is important, and if the train is moving I need a fast shutter speed to avoid motion blur. On a bright sunny day, I have no problems with my MFT gear. However when the light is low, the combination of the required f-stop and shutter speed invariably pushes ISO up further than I'd like.

FF will gather more light and will give me more capability in low light conditions. However the thing I love about MFT is small size/weight. I can have absolutely everything I need in one bag that isn't bulky or heavy.

Can you give an example of the shutter speed, aperture, and ISO you need to use with m4/3 in low light to get what you want?

Remember that to get the same DOF with FF in the same conditions you will need to close the aperture 2 stops and raise the ISO 2 stops. For example, if with m4/3 in low light you were using 1/1000, f11, ISO 6400 then with FF you would use 1/1000, f22, ISO 25,600.

If I set shutter speed to 1/1000, aperture to f/8 and leave ISO at auto, in late afternoon light conditions the camera will push ISO up above 1600 and I get a lot of noise. If I set aperture to f/4 I start to lose sharpness in the background.

Okay, that means with FF you would need 1/1000, f16, ISO 6400 or higher. Generally m4/3 at ISO 1600 will be pretty much the same as FF at ISO 6400 -- 2 stops difference. This is an excellent example of where understanding equivalence is very useful.

With your shutter speed and DOF requirements FF would not gain you anything. You would just have generally bigger, heavier gear and lots more expense to buy into a FF system.

There are lots of posts here recently about the new DXO DeepPrime noise reduction. Some say it is like getting a sensor upgrade. It might be worthwhile to look at that for your high ISO shots.

Learning how to use DxO Prime properly will get you a lot farther than worrying about equivalence.

RobbieBear Senior Member • Posts: 2,226
Re: True - but often irrelevant - so why bring it up all the time?

LevAizik wrote:

I like Robin, but don't forget that he is Olympus's salesperson

visionary.

I agree with Robin that understanding equivalence doesn't make somebody a better photographer because photography is about light, composition, capturing the moment, and storytelling, but you can't deny the importance of understanding equivalence before making purchasing decisions.

And once that decision is made, discussions become a moot point.

Equivalence is essential when considering the performance/price ratio of the gear.

Yup, when considering those things. having considered those things it becomes...well, a moot point.

When a company advertises an F4 lens on a crop sensor equivalent to an F4 lens on a full-frame sensor, it practices false advertising, and it is good that people call companies on their bulls**t.

Which companies claim that? All advertisers seek to make the most of their own product but with a basic understanding, one can generally see the wood for the trees.

Companies that lose in the equivalence war

Please explain.

I call 80-300mm equivalent FL on an Oly 40-150 lens a win. Wars are fought on ideologies.

should price their gear accordingly. The problems start when they price their equipment about the same as full-frame gear. This is basically what happened to Olympus and Panasonic. They pushed themselves into a corner by false advertising.

 RobbieBear's gear list:RobbieBear's gear list
Olympus E-M1 Olympus 12-40mm F2.8 Pro Olympus E-M1 II Panasonic 20mm F1.7 II Panasonic Lumix G Vario HD 12-32mm F3.5-5.6 Mega OIS +2 more
Keyboard shortcuts:
FForum MMy threads