[ElJamoquio]

Who gives a crap about minute differences in DoF at f2.8 between sensors?

Good photographers?


Couldn't resist...

---------- Post added 04-13-14 at 04:10 AM ----------

What matters is whether you made the shot or not.

Exactly. If you're shooting for high DOF on a MF, you really want more than F/8 a lot of the time.

On my Q, you never, ever want more than F/8 (and I don't think you can get it, anyway).

At F/2.8??? EGADS!

[carrrlangas]

own a m43, aps-c, ff and mf. Who gives a crap about minute differences in DoF at f2.8 between sensors? At f8 or f11, you can have everything in focus for any sensor so it does not matter.

Then I bet you never print bigger than your screen size.. What you are saying just doens´t make sense. You could not care about equivalence (or reciprocity, diffraction, etc) but this is wrong.

[dtmateojr]

Then I bet you never print bigger than your screen size.. What you are saying just doens´t make sense. You could not care about equivalence (or reciprocity, diffraction, etc) but this is wrong.

How about 1m wide? Big enough?

---------- Post added 04-13-14 at 02:11 PM ----------

Good photographers?


Couldn't resist...

---------- Post added 04-13-14 at 04:10 AM ----------



Exactly. If you're shooting for high DOF on a MF, you really want more than F/8 a lot of the time.

On my Q, you never, ever want more than F/8 (and I don't think you can get it, anyway).

At F/2.8??? EGADS!

Then show me your f2.8 full frame shot :-D

On MF I shoot at f11 for landscapes. Same with aps-c. Of course I can shoot at f22 on both but that depends on what I want to achieve in a shot.

[awaldram]

Agreed. By the way, check out this find below! It's 5.2mm at the wide end, blows the Sigma 8-16 out of the water!! And check out that max aperture: f/2 !!!!!!!

We have our wide-angle, low-light king, people. All the larger formats like m43 and aps-c and FF are unnecessary now. Anyone who says otherwise obviously doesn't understand real world photography.





---------- Post added 04-12-14 at 06:58 AM ----------



And you would probably be correct under those shooting conditions, although the DA 15ltd will probably handle flare better than most 20-24mm Nikon lenses you'd have available.

But though you take th pxss is it fright or a need to willy wave ?

That camera is able to take pictures at shutter speeds that a FF camera would not be hand holdable at.

But we never see FF is shxt because at 'equivalent' focal lengths the shutter speed is unasable do we ?
Why is that ?

WHy don;t we see FF is shxt get a MF camera is you want to control DoF and have good DR because at 'Equivalent' Apertures it leaves the FF dead in the water.
Again why not just what is magical about FF euivalence ?

[dtmateojr]

The whole point of this thread is that full frame owners want to justify their purchase. This equivalence-fu is practically saying that unless smaller sensors dont mimic ff then they would always come out inferior. There will come a point where smaller sensors wont have an equivalent like the 85/1.2. Therefore they are inferior. That's not photography. That's gear whoring.

Let's assume that equivalence really makes a lot of sense. Then who the heck chose ff to be the standard? Why is shallow DoF something desirable?

Back when the word photographer actually meant something, changing exposure meant changing your aperture. You could not change ISO, max shutter speed was 1/500 and you were lucky if you got 1/1000. In low light, you were forced to open up and shallow DoF was a pain in the behind. I find it really funny that every noob and his dog wants mega-shallow DoF until the subject looks like his ears were folded back like a labrador.

Why keep pushing this superiority complex?

[ElJamoquio]

Equivalence is not about achieving shallower dof. It's about achieving the same DOF.

If you like F/4 on aps-c then great! If you prefer a more open aperture then other manufacturers offerings seem are often cheaper and better in ff.

Why stop at ff? Exactly!! Equivalence tells you why. Lenses for 645d/z are often thousands of dollars and the camera is $8500.

In the meantime the equivalence factor is 'only' 1.3 on maximum apertures of 2.8. That gives an equivalent aperture of about f/2.2.

So... $10k for F/2.2? Or $2k for F/1.8?

---------- Post added 04-15-14 at 05:20 AM ----------

But though you take th pxss is it fright or a need to willy wave ?

That camera is able to take pictures at shutter speeds that a FF camera would not be hand holdable at.

But we never see FF is shxt because at 'equivalent' focal lengths the shutter speed is unasable do we ?
Why is that ?

WHy don;t we see FF is shxt get a MF camera is you want to control DoF and have good DR because at 'Equivalent' Apertures it leaves the FF dead in the water.
Again why not just what is magical about FF euivalence ?

Equivalence uses the same shutter speed. That's part of the point and part of the beauty.

[monochrome]

I'd like to be able to skip FF altogether and go straight to 645z but I doh't have a spare $50,000 laying about.

Just wait a few calendar quarters and K-mount 'equivalence' won't matter any more, other than as a matter of pocketbook capacity.

[ElJamoquio]

I'd like to be able to skip FF altogether and go straight to 645z but I doh't have a spare $50,000 laying about.

Just wait a few calendar quarters and K-mount 'equivalence' won't matter any more, other than as a matter of pocketbook capacity.

It matters to Nikonians right now...?

let's say the used price of the 645D falls to ~$3000 and the new FF K-mount is $3000. Equivalence will help make it clear as to which one has better performance.

[monochrome]

It matters to Nikonians right now...?

let's say the used price of the 645D falls to ~$3000 and the new FF K-mount is $3000. Equivalence will help make it clear as to which one has better performance.

Per Ricoh Imaging US, the 645D will stay in production at a reduced price.

People who own or can buy or buy more FF Nikon lenses - can buy a Nikon FF camera now. There's nothing wrong with that.

People who own Pentax FF lenses, or would buy new Pentax FF lenses . . . . . . . let's say a Pentax FF is $2499 and equivalent to a D800e and a new 645D is $4699. How much are the lenses?

People who are happy as things are can keep using a K3 or K50 and their current lenses.

So

• 645z
• 645D
• FF (Pentax or other)
• K3
• K50

Equivalence isn't a relevant argument on any given day because there are already many choices.

[Rondec]

It matters to Nikonians right now...?

let's say the used price of the 645D falls to ~$3000 and the new FF K-mount is $3000. Equivalence will help make it clear as to which one has better performance.

Who buys a 645D (or Z) and thinks to himself, "Wow this 55mm f2.8 lens is just a really expensive FA 43 limited!" Usually, someone buys a medium format body because (a) they have shot medium format for a long time and own some lenses (which are not all super expensive) and (b) understand, like, and can see the difference in rendering between medium format and 35mm glass.

If a person can't see the difference, then there is no point in investing in such a kit, but there are definitely benefits beyond "equivalence." To me, it really is about the glass -- even more so with medium format than with other size sensors.

[jsherman999]

Equivalence isn't a relevant argument on any given day because there are already many choices.

One of the biggest misconceptions is that any talk of 'equivalence' is just code for 'why my sensor/lens combo is better.' That's not what it is.

It really just describes a relationship between formats that you can use to decide, for the shooting you want to do, what would work best within your budget, and maybe how much difference a format change would make.

It's also most important for mounts that share a FF and aps-c sensor, so you know how your current lenses will perform on the new format you buy (aps-c or FF) which can also help you decide if you might want to buy/sell some lenses. Pentax may enter that scope soon, and then (I hope) a lot of first-hand experience will enter the arena and there won't be so many dust-ups based on what I suspect is really, under the scenes, brand wars.

It only becomes a p**ing contest when someone gets butt-hurt about a given comparison that doesn't happen to favor their combo in performance or $$. One of the by-products of those p**sing contests is that sometimes some people start to get irrational and deny equivalence, or bad mouth it as a sort of agenda - when it's really just a simple relationship.

.

---------- Post added 04-15-14 at 10:02 AM ----------

But though you take th pxss is it fright or a need to willy wave ?

(Is there an awaldram-translator in the house?)

That camera (S100) is able to take pictures at shutter speeds that a FF camera would not be hand holdable at.

But we never see FF is shxt because at 'equivalent' focal lengths the shutter speed is unasable do we ?
Why is that ?

Probably because only the truly clueless would make that statement (in the way you phrase it.)

WHy don;t we see FF is shxt get a MF camera is you want to control DoF and have good DR because at 'Equivalent' Apertures it leaves the FF dead in the water.
Again why not just what is magical about FF euivalence ?

Couple reasons:

1) lack of many affordable really fast lenses for MFD that would fully realize this advantage,
2) overall cost of the system - $ delta between it and entry-mid FF is about 5x or 10x what the delta is between aps-c and FF,
3) up until now, low-light performance and AF and FPS have been underwhelming in MFD and don't meet a lot of folks' needs, and
4) size. It can matter. The body is big, the lenses are honkin'. If you're not shooting on a tripod it's not ideal for a lot of applications.

MFD is really great for a couple things but it was never meant to be a general DSLR replacement.
.

[ElJamoquio]

One of the biggest misconceptions is that any talk of 'equivalence' is just code for 'why my sensor/lens combo is better.' That's not what it is.

It really just describes a relationship between formats that you can use to decide, for the shooting you want to do, what would work best within your budget, and maybe how much difference a format change would make.

Exactly. With more sizes of sensors, it becomes MORE relevant to consumers, not less.

[jsherman999]

Let's assume that equivalence really makes a lot of sense.

It does.

Then who the heck chose ff to be the standard?

Equivalence itself does not define a 'standard' in any way. It just provides a way to find out for example what a given FL/F-stop combination on one format would look like on any other format. (and compare other things, but those are the most common comparisons made.)

Now, 'FF' or '35mm' or '135mm' is a sort of ad-hoc focal-length comparative standard, but that has nothing to do with equivalence - it's just an accident of history that right when we moved to digital most people were shooting 35mm SLRS and had 35mm SLR lenses, and the first digital DSLRs mounted those same lenses but had smaller smaller sensors - aps-c sensors - and thus folks needed a way to 'convert' back to the standard they were used to.

You can argue about what should be the 'standard', but something needs to be - otherwise for example we just have focal lengths to go by and have no way of communicating things like FOV.

Think of it this way: why is Greenwich, England adopted as the global time standard? Aren't there better choices now, like maybe Hong Kong or Mumbai or New York? It's the standard because we need an arbitrary standard and it was first through the gate and it doesn't really matter where that meridian is, only that there is one.


.

[Rondec]

It does.



Equivalence itself does not define a 'standard' in any way. It just provides a way to find out for example what a given FL/F-stop combination on one format would look like on any other format. (and compare other things, but those are the most common comparisons made.)

Now, 'FF' or '35mm' or '135mm' is a sort of ad-hoc focal-length comparative standard, but that has nothing to do with equivalence - it's just an accident of history that right when we moved to digital most people were shooting 35mm SLRS and had 35mm SLR lenses, and the first digital cameras mounted those lenses but had smaller smaller sensors - aps-c sensors - and thus folks needed a way to 'convert' back to the standard they were used to.

You can argue about what should be the 'standard', but something needs to be - otherwise, we just have focal lengths to go by and have no way of communicating things like FOV.

Think of it this way: why is Greenwich, England adopted as the global time standard? Aren't there better choices now, like maybe Hong Kong or Mumbai or New York? It's the standard because we need an arbitrary standard and it was first through the gate and it doesn't really matter where that meridian is, only that there is one.


.

Yes, but at this point, the majority of digital users have used only APS-C or smaller formats and for them the 35mm "equivalency" is meaningless. I know it is for me. I shot film for awhile, but I didn't own a bunch of lenses -- just a 28 to 80 and a 50mm f1.4. When I think of lens length versus field of view, APS-C is what I think of. And a lot of photographers are like me.

[jsherman999]

Yes, but at this point, the majority of digital users have used only APS-C or smaller formats and for them the 35mm "equivalency" is meaningless. I know it is for me. I shot film for awhile, but I didn't own a bunch of lenses -- just a 28 to 80 and a 50mm f1.4. When I think of lens length versus field of view, APS-C is what I think of. And a lot of photographers are like me.

Yes, you can make the case that the FL-standard reviewers, etc use should move to aps-c, and then everything be stated in equivalent FL in terms of aps-c instead of 35mm. Folks have been saying that for years, as did I when I shot only aps-c.

We would then just say for example "your 50mm 1.8 lens on FF is a 33mm f/1.2 equivalent" instead of "your 50mm f/1.8 lens on aps-c is a 75mm f/2.8 equivalent." We could also move the time standard to Bankok, which is more near the center of most human population, if the churn would be worth it.

Personally I don't see much point in changing, but it doesn't really matter much as long as something that doesn't move again can be used for comparison. One problem is that we may see greater adoption of FF going forward, and everyone may be shooting either even smaller highly-efficient formats and/or FF in 10, 15 years, and adopting aps-c as a standard might look silly then.

What may really make sense? iphone as the FL 'standard'.