Quote: Oh, I've been trying that too. The concept of equivalence is still witchcraft to some.
That's because it's largely a useless concept... the concept that an image has to be exactly a certain way, and that one should try and emulate what one does with one system on another system suggests that photography is a technical medium in which it is important to exactly create a specific image and that images that aren't created exactly that way are somehow lacking. it's a very rigid way of looking at photographic systems. That is "techcraft". The assigning of non-existent technical requirements to artistic media. You can study your graphs and tables, any of which have the ability to be a complete mis-representation, and doesn't present any information you can't absorb more usefully or practically by looking through the viewfinder. Information is useless without context, and those who promote this concept of "equivalency" tend to focus on very narrow measurable criteria to the exclusion of all else, including the context in which those criteria need to be understood.
But the biggest fault of techcraft is it's fallacious belief that it can understand through mathematical formula etc. Like the social sciences, there are things you have formula for and things you don't. Being able to measure some things but not others, and some very important things, micro-contrast and it's effect on the appearance of sharpness, how the control of CA affects the appearance of sharpness etc. or deliberately leaving them out of the discussion creates a narrow discussion based on depth of field, or dynamic range etc. things that can be measured. And in DoF it's extremely problematic, because, extremely narrow DoF for most photographers is not a desirable characteristic, very often.
SO you have those for whom "equivalency" is not understood (in it's limited technical explanations) who look through a camera lens and examine the images and you understand perfectly without the mumbo-jumbo. Then you techies who have tried (like Psychologists) to turn a soft science into a hard science., and spend way to much time reading numbers and charts to prove things that present only part of the picture. And in between you have those who just understand intuitively the difference between different formats, because they've looked through a lot of cameras., and most of those absolutely do not need to understand a bunch of numbers. Their hand reaches out for the appropriate camera based on the shooting situation. No one looks at a bunch of charts to see what sensor will give them 6 inches of DoF at f 5.6 from the distance they are shooting. And if they did, they would still be choosing an APS-c camera much of the time, they would also be choosing FF cameras, micro 4/3 cameras, and view cameras with scanning backs. But most of us don't have a closet full of different format cameras. We want the best compromise. Every sensor is some kind of compromise.
APS_c is a very good compromise system, so are FF cameras. There is no equivalency because no one format presents a "standard" against which others should be measured. The key is to understand the strengths and weaknesses of each system, not in some bogus "equivalency" concept that ignores ease of use, versatility, carry weights, ergonomics, the different ages and light absorption properties of different sensors, the effects of CA and distortion, the internal processing engines of different cameras etc.
From my perspective equivalency is just too narrow a focus to be useful. It's not witchcraft. It's a microscopic look at one small part of camera systems, so myopic as to be next to useless from an artistic stand point. WHo has a better understanding of the laws of motion? The guy who can create a device to launch a basket ball through hoop 24 feet away using mathematical formula. Or the guy who just does it by practicing his 3 point shot? There are two ways to understand things. Throw in ability of the human brain to appreciate non-random characteristics that have never been completely defined, and what you have is pseudo science.