Originally posted by stevebrot Yes, misguided.
3.8mm - 5.9mm is what it is. Referencing it to the 24x36mm format is silly since very few Q users have an experience with the 35mm format. It would be better to label the lens as a wide zoom than 22-33mm FF equivalent.
I have to strongly disagree on a couple counts - first, it's likely that the Q users are mostly ILC customers already, probably still own or have owned aps-c, but possibly FF/film as well.
Second, forcing a new 'standard' based on Q format seems silly. Requiring buyers to learn what "3.8mm" really looks like for example compared to ap-sc, FF, film, another MILC, micro 4/3, etc.
It's also likely they're already acclimated to 135mm reference from other formats they've used, which standardize to it.
It's best to do what we're doing now - state the real FL if you wish, but convert everything to a single standard for the sake of comparison so we know what FOV we're talking about. FF/135mm works perfectly fine as this standard.
Imagine the conversation otherwise:
Q: I want to buy this Q, but what FOV does this 3.8mm - 5.9mm lens give me?
A: It's a 3.8mm - 5.9mm lens, that's all you need to know.
Q: But... I want to know if it will be wide & long enough for what I want. What does it compare to?
A: It compares to a 3.8mm - 5.9mm lens. You're shooting Q, you don't need to convert to anything else, much less the odious "FF".
Q: Really, I just want to know what other lenses I might want to buy. Can you help?
A: No. This conversation is terminated.