Originally posted by jsherman999 Translation: Norm's having a bad day.
Norm, why does any comparison between FF and aps-c mean (to you) that FF is being declared "better" than any other format? Especially larger formats?
.
Because of the nonsense FF proponents spout. Because the whole idea of equivalence in promoted on the web is based on FF, when FF is one of about a dozen formats, because everyone who promotes FF seems to value what FF has to offer, and undervalues all the other formats.
But now that I answered your question Jay, how about answering one of mine.
Have you ever once noticed that I always mention FF is the most versatile digital format? But that it doesn't appeal to everyone?
SO how does that fit your theory?
Quote: Norm, why does any comparison between FF and aps-c mean (to you) that FF is being declared "better" than any other format? Especially larger formats?
I have to admit, my posts tend to be reactions to people saying totally dumb stuff, in that sense they tend to debunk the hogwash put out there by the gullible. And FF proponents seem to have some kind of monopoly of the gullible. The difference being, I have quite a few posts explaining exactly why folks should be gravitating towards FF rather than APS_c. I find most of the ignorant FF protagonists go on and on about FF as if no other format exists with endless nonsense. FF gives you twice the light, (unless you use half the ISO), Your worst lens on FF is better than your best lens on APS-c ( unless of course you're comparing 12 or 20 MP FF to 24 Mp APS-c, in which case FF loses rather badly, and your best lens on FF is worse than your worst lens on APS-C) ƒ2.8 APS-c is the same as ƒ4 FF (unless you're calculating an exposure.) This stuff just gets repeated over and over again without qualification.
So maybe you can explain to me as one who has posted some of this nonsense, why is it so important to you to bend the truth by posting incomplete information, that always seems to make FF better than it is?