Originally posted by Class A I agree with a lot of what you've said, but not with the above.
The equivalency argument is not based on the idea that you'd always want to take equivalent images.
It is used to make fair comparisons.
Yes, I know, which is what I said.
The reason I fleshed it out explicitly is that so many people read a discussion on equivalency and then ask a variation of the question, "
but why do you need to try to take equivalent images all the time?" **(see edit) which indicates that they may not even understand
why equivalency is being discussed, much less the particular tenets of equivalency.
Quote: The "real practical low-light advantage" of FF, does not stem from the sensor size. It comes from the faster lenses. That's why I don't entirely agree with the DxOMark approach of granting better low-light scores to FF sensors. They should be comparing sensors, not lenses.
Stating it like this ^^ isn't ideal, IMO, because... I don't know the best way to put it besides "it doesn't map to real life options". It doesn't really come from the faster lenses, because the lenses we're talking about are usually the same lenses - or at least lenses with the same maximum apertures. DXOMark gets this, and their scores tend to map directly with the user experience - and thus are fairly useful.
EDIT ** Just like this:
Originally posted by Pål Jensen we don't want them to be equal. Thats why we never heard about equivalency in the film days.
.