Forgot Password
Pentax Camera Forums Home
 

Reply
Show Printable Version Search this Thread
05-27-2014, 09:36 PM   #151
Veteran Member
jsherman999's Avatar

Join Date: Dec 2007
Photos: Gallery
Posts: 8,228
Original Poster
Does Oly win?

QuoteOriginally posted by jppp Quote
I think I like the Olympus 'lie' the best, it wins. A 28-300 f/2.8 !! The ad goes straight to equivalent FL without even a token mention that it's only 'equivalent' (lens is 6-64mm, large numbers on right put there by Tony, not in ad,) and then conveniently forgets about the aperture, leaving it at f/2.8. Great mix n' match, perfect cherry picking. And I love the shadow of the huge 300 f/2.8 the little P&S 'replaces', great touch! --Shame ==> Profits++



It is good that he finally pointed out some Nikon/Canon marketing-fact-fudging too, though.

.


Last edited by jsherman999; 05-27-2014 at 09:47 PM.
05-28-2014, 02:55 AM   #152
Senior Member




Join Date: Dec 2013
Location: Hamburg
Posts: 287
QuoteOriginally posted by OregonJim Quote
I could care less about this whole debate - I'm just reading it for entertainment.

However, I do want to point out that quoting from Wikipedia and referencing YouTube videos as gospel is rather sophomoric. If you're gonna get into such heated discussion, use credible sources!
Sorry some of us are not up to your standards of academic rigor.

So here they are: Pentaxforum 101 rules:
-do not quote from dictionaries
-do not quote wikipedia
-do not consult youtube
-do not treat the aforementioned as gospel

Glad to hear we were able to entertain you though.

---------- Post added 05-28-14 at 12:02 PM ----------

QuoteOriginally posted by jsherman999 Quote
I think I like the Olympus 'lie' the best, it wins. A 28-300 f/2.8 !! The ad goes straight to equivalent FL without even a token mention that it's only 'equivalent' (lens is 6-64mm, large numbers on right put there by Tony, not in ad,) and then conveniently forgets about the aperture, leaving it at f/2.8. Great mix n' match, perfect cherry picking. And I love the shadow of the huge 300 f/2.8 the little P&S 'replaces', great touch! --Shame ==> Profits++



It is good that he finally pointed out some Nikon/Canon marketing-fact-fudging too, though.

.
regarding "THE LIE", just checked dp review and their entire enthusiast compact camera roundup of april 2014, which includes the Olympus Stylus 1. The entire roundup completely fails to mention equivalent apertures. But there is hope. When you dig a little deeper you find this:

http://www.dpreview.com/reviews/sony-cybershot-dsc-rx10/images/apertures.png

So Equivalism is making inroads amongst the great unwashed ;-)
05-28-2014, 05:54 AM - 1 Like   #153
Loyal Site Supporter




Join Date: Mar 2009
Location: Southern Indiana
Photos: Gallery
Posts: 15,434
I will just say that for me, the goal of photography is making images that are well exposed, capture light and a particular scene in the way that I want. I am currently well able to do that with APS-C, although I probably could do the same with a full frame camera. Equivalence does nothing to help with regard to creating decent photos, it is more about comparing gear, which in my opinion is a fairly useless activity. I know there are people who study DXO Mark graphs (I have done it at times as well) in order to flog the idea that Canon sensors are worthless or, some particular lens is lousy, but those are just as useless when it comes to creating interesting photos.

So, yes, these things may be mathematically correct, but they don't really tell you much about photography. The only way is to take photos and if you come up against a place where you are unable to capture a scene you want, to figure out why not and what you need to change (what filters to add, different lens, etc) in order to capture it better.

DA 15 limited shot.

05-28-2014, 05:59 AM   #154
Senior Member




Join Date: Dec 2013
Location: Hamburg
Posts: 287
QuoteOriginally posted by Rondec Quote
I will just say that for me, the goal of photography is making images that are well exposed, capture light and a particular scene in the way that I want. I am currently well able to do that with APS-C, although I probably could do the same with a full frame camera. Equivalence does nothing to help with regard to creating decent photos, it is more about comparing gear, which in my opinion is a fairly useless activity. I know there are people who study DXO Mark graphs (I have done it at times as well) in order to flog the idea that Canon sensors are worthless or, some particular lens is lousy, but those are just as useless when it comes to creating interesting photos.

So, yes, these things may be mathematically correct, but they don't really tell you much about photography. The only way is to take photos and if you come up against a place where you are unable to capture a scene you want, to figure out why not and what you need to change (what filters to add, different lens, etc) in order to capture it better.

DA 15 limited shot.

Lovely shot - lovely lens.

05-28-2014, 06:39 AM - 1 Like   #155
Site Supporter
cali92rs's Avatar

Join Date: May 2011
Location: Long Beach, CA
Posts: 3,297
QuoteOriginally posted by Rondec Quote
I will just say that for me, the goal of photography is making images that are well exposed, capture light and a particular scene in the way that I want. I am currently well able to do that with APS-C, although I probably could do the same with a full frame camera. Equivalence does nothing to help with regard to creating decent photos, it is more about comparing gear, which in my opinion is a fairly useless activity
In almost every beginner photography book I have read, one of the first topics they touch on is using aperture to minimize DOF to isolate a subject or increase DOF to have most of the scene in focus.

A newbie could buy a $100 point-and-shoot because equivalent aperture is not taken into account in your logic above. It is not apparent that using a p-n-s will not get you the isolation you may want or need because it's equivalent f-stop is so large.
And that is where it can be used in comparing gear.
05-28-2014, 07:31 AM   #156
Loyal Site Supporter




Join Date: Mar 2009
Location: Southern Indiana
Photos: Gallery
Posts: 15,434
QuoteOriginally posted by cali92rs Quote
In almost every beginner photography book I have read, one of the first topics they touch on is using aperture to minimize DOF to isolate a subject or increase DOF to have most of the scene in focus.

A newbie could buy a $100 point-and-shoot because equivalent aperture is not taken into account in your logic above. It is not apparent that using a p-n-s will not get you the isolation you may want or need because it's equivalent f-stop is so large.
And that is where it can be used in comparing gear.
It is taken into account by my logic. If you are struggling with your camera because, of some deficiency (lack of narrow depth of field lenses would qualify) then, you need to figure out if you can fix it with your current camera or not.

I don't see many serious photographers using point and shoot cameras, but certainly a Q or a Nikon V series camera are well able to take a wide variety of shots. Just not necessarily narrow depth of field.

Edit: I also don't know why people constantly bring up the extremes. What if somebody gets confused in the differences between their i phone and a 645D? The answer is that they won't. The issues are in the much smaller differences in larger sensored cameras.

Last edited by Rondec; 05-28-2014 at 08:49 AM.
05-28-2014, 08:08 AM   #157
Senior Member




Join Date: Dec 2013
Location: Hamburg
Posts: 287
QuoteOriginally posted by cali92rs Quote
In almost every beginner photography book I have read, one of the first topics they touch on is using aperture to minimize DOF to isolate a subject or increase DOF to have most of the scene in focus.

A newbie could buy a $100 point-and-shoot because equivalent aperture is not taken into account in your logic above. It is not apparent that using a p-n-s will not get you the isolation you may want or need because it's equivalent f-stop is so large.
And that is where it can be used in comparing gear.
I bet you could send a child into a camera store and ask him to pick a camera. Guaranteed, he or she will not come out thinking a point and shoot will somehow match a full format behemoth. And that's before even talking to the sales guy.

All in all, the fear that newbies might be mislead is probably exagerated.
05-28-2014, 08:45 AM   #158
Pentaxian




Join Date: Feb 2010
Location: Eureka, CA
Photos: Gallery | Albums
Posts: 1,890
QuoteOriginally posted by jsherman999 Quote
But some people buy the Q or the Nikon 1 or something similar to do something like shoot telephoto, and if they listen to the wrong camera store clerk or forum denizen, they might no realize the limitations involved in doing that. Or, they might buy a FF system to shoot birds when all they care about is the stuff the Q could bring. Equivalence can really, really be their friend! It can save them from buying something they don't really want - whether that's the Q, or the aps-c (or FF) system.
Would equivalence really be the consumer's friend, or would it merely confuse him? Equivalency is a form of technical knowledge. As such, it has the advantage of being precise and irrefragable. But the disadvantage is that few people can relate the findings of equivalency to their visual experience. Few people know what the numbers generated by equivalency equations really mean. So if a camera store clerk wishes to explain the differences between various formats to a customer, what would be more effective: explaining to the customer the theory of equivalency, or simply showing pictures taken from each of the formats in question?

Too often arguments based on equivalency fall under the heading of "true but irrelevant" or "true but misleading." That's probably the chief source of resentment against equivalency. People are intimidated by technical knowledge, because its based on science and, when applicable, is very powerful. What is not appreciated, or easily articulated, is the limited usefulness of equivalency as a knowledge for non-technical people or its precise bearing on matters related to aesthetic judgments.

QuoteOriginally posted by ElJamoquio Quote
Knowing equivalence will kill the 'you should get a smaller format because it combines large DOF with low noise' myth.... that otherwise will never die.
I seriously doubt that many people believe in this myth; but even if they do, so what? It's an entirely harmless illusion. If believing it makes them more content with what they have, why awake them from their dogmatic slumbers?

05-28-2014, 09:40 AM - 1 Like   #159
Site Supporter




Join Date: Feb 2011
Posts: 4,893
QuoteOriginally posted by eyeswideshut Quote
All in all, the fear that newbies might be mislead is probably exagerated.
I've heard that APS-C cameras are less expensive, lighter, etc than FF on this forum many, many times.

---------- Post added 05-28-14 at 09:42 AM ----------

QuoteOriginally posted by northcoastgreg Quote
I seriously doubt that many people believe in this myth; but even if they do, so what? It's an entirely harmless illusion. If believing it makes them more content with what they have, why awake them from their dogmatic slumbers?
I don't care if someone wants to remain ignorant. Lurkers, etc., come here to learn, so even if the author believes something that's incorrect, I will usually still correct the author, for the benefit of the lurkers.
05-28-2014, 09:53 AM   #160
Senior Member




Join Date: Dec 2013
Location: Hamburg
Posts: 287
QuoteOriginally posted by northcoastgreg Quote
So if a camera store clerk wishes to explain the differences between various formats to a customer, what would be more effective: explaining to the customer the theory of equivalency, or simply showing pictures taken from each of the formats in question?

Too often arguments based on equivalency fall under the heading of "true but irrelevant" or "true but misleading." That's probably the chief source of resentment against equivalency. People are intimidated by technical knowledge, because its based on science and, when applicable, is very powerful. What is not appreciated, or easily articulated, is the limited usefulness of equivalency as a knowledge for non-technical people or its precise bearing on matters related to aesthetic judgments.
It won't happen. Any sales clerk who is a) fully conversant with the tenets of equivalism and b) able to communicate those to a mildly intersted customer will be off on a management track career or otherwise greener pastures tomorrow.
05-28-2014, 10:03 AM   #161
Pentaxian




Join Date: Apr 2007
Location: Romania
Posts: 8,832
QuoteOriginally posted by eyeswideshut Quote
All in all, the fear that newbies might be mislead is probably exagerated.
Oh, but newbies are mislead - by about a dozen versions of "equivalence". For example, I saw cases in which they genuinely believed that a 50mm APS-C lens would frame differently than a 50mm FF lens, both mounted on the same camera (because they were told that focal length measures angle of view, like in the video).

ElJamoquio, my APS-C camera is less expensive and lighter
05-28-2014, 10:19 AM   #162
Senior Member




Join Date: Dec 2013
Location: Hamburg
Posts: 287
QuoteOriginally posted by ElJamoquio Quote
I've heard that APS-C cameras are less expensive, lighter, etc than FF on this forum many, many times.


Something tells me I better not ask what might be wrong with that assumption?

QuoteQuote:
I don't care if someone wants to remain ignorant. Lurkers, etc., come here to learn, so even if the author believes something that's incorrect, I will usually still correct the author, for the benefit of the lurkers.
Probably it is that attitude that causes some allergic reactions to equivalism.
05-28-2014, 10:44 AM - 1 Like   #163
Site Supporter
cali92rs's Avatar

Join Date: May 2011
Location: Long Beach, CA
Posts: 3,297
QuoteOriginally posted by Rondec Quote
It is taken into account by my logic. If you are struggling with your camera because, of some deficiency (lack of narrow depth of field lenses would qualify) then, you need to figure out if you can fix it with your current camera or not.

I don't see many serious photographers using point and shoot cameras, but certainly a Q or a Nikon V series camera are well able to take a wide variety of shots. Just not necessarily narrow depth of field.

Edit: I also don't know why people constantly bring up the extremes. What if somebody gets confused in the differences between their i phone and a 645D? The answer is that they won't. The issues are in the much smaller differences in larger sensored cameras.
I admit I went into extreme just to prove a point.
But you can also take 3 instances that are talked about all the time around here, micro 4/3, APS and FF.
You mentioned above you just care about the final result, the picture. So let's just say you want a normal lens.
How would you know what a normal lens without equivalence? Look through the viewfinder? Ok, I will order 3 separate cameras from amazon. Then order a few lenses from each mount and hope they are in the correct ballpark. Or you can do the same by walking into the camera store, looking through a view finder of each camera with separate lenses.

Or you can multiply focal length by 2, then by 1.5 and another by one, and not even need to look through a viewfinder, not set foot into a camera store etc.
You can dance around it all you want, but that simple calculation...which everyone here does whether or not they want to admit to it, is equivalence.

So, looking at normal lenses, 25mm for Micro 4/3, 30-35mm for APS-C, 50mm for FF.
If someone wants the look of a run of the mill cheapie 50mm f1.7 wide open, then they have to look at equivalent apertures for APS-C and Micro 4/3. You can go through the effort and exercise of looking through the viewfinder of 3 separate format cameras. Or you can just bite the bullet, admit that equivalnce is useful tool and you can add a stop in your head for APS-C and 2 stops for micro 4/3, all without leaving your couch.

Then of course the next logical step is to compare the prices of the lenses that will give you that look that you want.

How is that not useful in comparing gear?
05-28-2014, 11:07 AM   #164
Veteran Member
jsherman999's Avatar

Join Date: Dec 2007
Photos: Gallery
Posts: 8,228
Original Poster
QuoteOriginally posted by Rondec Quote

DA 15 limited shot.

The DA 15ltd, in it's brilliance, transcends all formats and talk of equivalence. Unfair example.

---------- Post added 05-28-14 at 12:21 PM ----------

QuoteOriginally posted by northcoastgreg Quote
Would equivalence really be the consumer's friend, or would it merely confuse him? Equivalency is a form of technical knowledge. As such, it has the advantage of being precise and irrefragable. But the disadvantage is that few people can relate the findings of equivalency to their visual experience.
I think It can be explained very simply - you don't need to use any math at all, really, to explain the effects on photography. Minimum entry-knowledge to the discussion, though, would be aperture and how it works to affect total light and thus noise and DOF. (most folks intuitively will understand FOV right away.)

QuoteQuote:
Few people know what the numbers generated by equivalency equations really mean. So if a camera store clerk wishes to explain the differences between various formats to a customer, what would be more effective: explaining to the customer the theory of equivalency, or simply showing pictures taken from each of the formats in question?
A set of photographs would be much more effective. Which is the main reason I posted this video - it shows very clearly equivalence in action, so to speak, whether or not you agree with his conclusions about camera companies willfully lying.

You can't always count on a camera store clerk having a set of photos under the counter , ready to whip out to show equivalence, though, so I think there has to be some level of easy-to-understand narrative available as well.

.

Last edited by jsherman999; 05-28-2014 at 11:23 AM.
05-28-2014, 11:24 AM   #165
Site Supporter




Join Date: Feb 2011
Posts: 4,893
QuoteOriginally posted by eyeswideshut Quote
[/COLOR]Something tells me I better not ask what might be wrong with that assumption?



Probably it is that attitude that causes some allergic reactions to equivalism.

I do it politely. It's not their fault they know something that's 'wrong'. Most of the people know something that just isn't true, and spread misinformation unintentionally.

I'm glad people are happy with their cameras and I try to keep them happy with their cameras.
Reply

Bookmarks
  • Submit Thread to Facebook Facebook
  • Submit Thread to Twitter Twitter
  • Submit Thread to Digg Digg
Tags - Make this thread easier to find by adding keywords to it!
24x36mm, aps-c, bokeh, camera, convention, depth, distance, dof, equivalence, exposure, f-stop, field, film, full-frame, half, image, iso, length, lens, noise, pentax, people, sensor, size, subject, video, view
Thread Tools Search this Thread
Search this Thread:

Advanced Search


Similar Threads
Thread Thread Starter Forum Replies Last Post
Nature Pretty Simple-Simply Pretty tessfully Post Your Photos! 9 12-05-2013 05:46 AM
Henrys deal on a D7100 - Pretty compelling package! Clarkey Non-Pentax Cameras: Canon, Nikon, etc. 3 10-31-2013 08:23 PM
The inexpesive shooting table from ebay is pretty good. liukaitc Photographic Industry and Professionals 2 07-21-2012 03:44 AM
Equivalence? 300mm/2.8 plus a 1.7X TC jpzk Pentax SLR Lens Discussion 10 09-28-2010 08:09 AM
DA 10-17mm Fisheye-New for a pretty darn good price Cedromar Pentax SLR Lens Discussion 2 01-31-2010 06:10 PM



All times are GMT -7. The time now is 08:51 PM. | See also: NikonForums.com, CanonForums.com part of our network of photo forums!
  • Red (Default)
  • Green
  • Gray
  • Dark
  • Dark Yellow
  • Dark Blue
  • Old Red
  • Old Green
  • Old Gray
  • Dial-Up Style
Hello! It's great to see you back on the forum! Have you considered joining the community?
register
Creating a FREE ACCOUNT takes under a minute, removes ads, and lets you post! [Dismiss]
Top