Pretty Good Video on Equivalence

jsherman999 · 07-30-2014, 11:09 AM

Originally posted by Kunzite

The question was:

So, what changed in your case? (please forget about "equivalence" for the next post, there's no point in stating once again that it's useful for you).

I thought it was clear. Here, I'll put numbers in front of the points:

1) I don't need to shoot wide-open as often to get adequate subject isolation, which allows me to get closer to the lens 'sweet spot'
2) I don't have to rely on ISO for 'brightness' as much, have more Total Light when I do shoot wide-open, so my images in the same circumstances are more noise-free

Actually there's another, but I don't use it as often as the other two:

3) I sometimes underexpose a tad more at high-ISOs to capture more highlight detail - more DR up there to work with.

There are a few other things, one of which is that the larger VF has made composition a bit easier and more enjoyable, but that hasn't changed what I do, it's just resulted in more fun and more keepers, probably.

BTW, trying to explain something in detail or tie it to a past point for the benefit of readers is not 'stalling'. Should I not put forth the effort to explain things in detail to you any more?

.

Andi Lo · 07-30-2014, 11:11 AM

Originally posted by Rondec

I do shoot portraits mostly at f2.8 (on APS-C). I like having some environmental presence in photos, not just a blurred background, although it is possible with longer lenses on all these formats.

(77 at f2.8)

Choice is always good though

That's why we discuss this in the first place. Nice photo!

Kunzite · 07-30-2014, 11:12 AM

Originally posted by jsherman999

I thought it was clear.

That was addressed to ElJamoquio, you posted while I was typing. His answer is a bit less verbose

By the way, I like that you included "the larger VF has made composition a bit easier and more enjoyable", which is by no means insignificant IMO.

jsherman999 · 07-30-2014, 11:30 AM

Originally posted by Kunzite

That was addressed to ElJamoquio, you posted while I was typing. His answer is a bit less verbose

By the way, I like that you included "the larger VF has made composition a bit easier and more enjoyable", which is by no means insignificant IMO.

IMO your question wasn't the only one to ask, though - for a lot of folks it's not 'what do you do differently', it's often 'what do you do the same that brings you different results than before, and are those differences to your liking.'

And I'd like to hear from m43--> aps-c format changers as well.

The answers should be largely the same but maybe to a different degree, as the size gap between m43 & aps-c (or FF and medium-format digital) isn't as large as the difference between aps-c & FF.

Kunzite · 07-30-2014, 12:43 PM

One thing at a time

I didn't say which formats, even if we are on the Pentax Full Frame section (this thread is misplaced IMHO). And the question was targeted - to see if people are largely wanting the same thing (down to what makes the scientific "equivalence" works), or if they would rather look for each format's advantages. For example, I imagine that people could buy into medium format to print larger.
But I'd need questions which are not formulated to (in)validate "equivalence" - personal experience stories, with no trace of theory

ElJamoquio · 07-30-2014, 02:11 PM

Hey everybody, Pentax is rumored to announce a 22-35mm F/3.5:

HD Pentax-DA 645 28-45mm F4.5 ED AW SDM SR - Pentax Rumors

Big Dave · 07-30-2014, 07:02 PM - **1 Like**

I see a lot of people passing judgement without watching much of the video. It just shows that it is very hard to change your views after having them for so long. It is just physics and math. Neither of these is really up for debate. They are what they are. It was thought provoking though.

ElJamoquio · 07-30-2014, 08:27 PM

Originally posted by Big Dave

It is just physics and math. Neither of these is really up for debate.

Amen.

Kunzite · 07-31-2014, 12:07 AM

Originally posted by Big Dave

I see a lot of people passing judgement without watching much of the video. It just shows that it is very hard to change your views after having them for so long. It is just physics and math. Neither of these is really up for debate. They are what they are. It was thought provoking though.

Please read my firsts comments, then re-watch the video: he's changing well known basic notions like focal length (which, I'll say again, is not supposed to guarantee same angle of view on any format). He's playing with what should not be up to debate then blame the manufacturers for not following; that's not physics and math, is BS.
But I guess "equivalence" fans don't care, as long as it's pro-"equivalence" everything goes.

**Rondec** · 07-31-2014, 02:59 AM - **1 Like**

Originally posted by Big Dave

I see a lot of people passing judgement without watching much of the video. It just shows that it is very hard to change your views after having them for so long. It is just physics and math. Neither of these is really up for debate. They are what they are. It was thought provoking though.

Well, I don't like those who claim that changing format will "make your lens longer (or shorter)" at all. Neither with the equivalence formulas or otherwise. A 50mm lens is a 50mm lens whatever format you are shooting. What angle of view you get with it will depend on the format, but relating all of it to an old film format that few folks currently shooting digital have used seems odd, to say the least. Actual performance is going to depend on the lens and the sensor tech as much as anything else. A Canon 50mm f1.8 is a great lens by equivalence standards, but a really lousy lens in real shooting. A K10 is equivalent to a D90 is equivalent to a K5 in terms of sensor size, but are going to give very different performances with regard to noise and high iso performance.

I just don't see this formula as shedding light on anything, except for a few folks on the internet forums who do shoot a lot of different formats and can't remember how one lens behaves on one versus another. I haven't shot full frame (film) for nearly 10 years and relating everything to an unfamiliar format just does nothing for me.

cali92rs · 07-31-2014, 05:15 AM

Why relate to an unfamiliar format? You know what a 50mm f1.7 looks on APS-C...using some factor you can get an idea of what lens you need to get to achieve a similar aov and dof without ever needing to have related anything to the 135 format.

Plenty of examples have been given of why equivalence was helpful to that particular person. Is the intent of your post to tell them that it indeed was not useful to them? That they were wrong in using it as a tool?

ElJamoquio · 07-31-2014, 05:46 AM

Equivalence killed my father.

**Rondec** · 07-31-2014, 06:04 AM

Originally posted by cali92rs

Why relate to an unfamiliar format? You know what a 50mm f1.7 looks on APS-C...using some factor you can get an idea of what lens you need to get to achieve a similar aov and dof without ever needing to have related anything to the 135 format.

Plenty of examples have been given of why equivalence was helpful to that particular person. Is the intent of your post to tell them that it indeed was not useful to them? That they were wrong in using it as a tool?

No, I can't speak for anyone else. I shoot one format, APS-C and it just isn't useful for me. Maybe you (and others) can speak for the interwebs, but I can't. My perception (could be wrong) is that most people shoot primarily one format (maybe with a phone as well, but that doesn't count since it is a fixed lens camera and I don't know anyone calculating equivalence for iphone lenses) with a kit lens and maybe a slow telephoto. Occasionally they might get a 50mm or 35mm prime.

If you have a K30 with a kit lens and a DA 35, equivalence tells you that you have crappy, slow gear. But so what? The question is whether you are able to get the shots you want. Photography should not be gear, but image-centric and equivalence is the play toy of gear heads, in my humble opinion.

ElJamoquio · 07-31-2014, 06:12 AM

Originally posted by Rondec

If you have a K30 with a kit lens and a DA 35, equivalence tells you that you have crappy, slow gear.

No one is telling anyone that except themselves.

**Rondec** · 07-31-2014, 06:24 AM

Originally posted by ElJamoquio

No one is telling anyone that except themselves.

People don't say that in so many words, but they will say as much when explaining, for instance, why four thirds gear is so much smaller than full frame gear. "Well, you have to remember what you are getting..." they will say and then the argument goes from there.

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	Canon, Nikon, Sony, and Other Camera Brands	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

07-30-2014, 11:09 AM	#391
jsherman999 Veteran Member Join Date: Dec 2007 Photos: Gallery Posts: 8,237 Original Poster	Originally posted by Kunzite The question was: So, what changed in your case? (please forget about "equivalence" for the next post, there's no point in stating once again that it's useful for you). I thought it was clear. Here, I'll put numbers in front of the points: 1) I don't need to shoot wide-open as often to get adequate subject isolation, which allows me to get closer to the lens 'sweet spot' 2) I don't have to rely on ISO for 'brightness' as much, have more Total Light when I do shoot wide-open, so my images in the same circumstances are more noise-free Actually there's another, but I don't use it as often as the other two: 3) I sometimes underexpose a tad more at high-ISOs to capture more highlight detail - more DR up there to work with. There are a few other things, one of which is that the larger VF has made composition a bit easier and more enjoyable, but that hasn't changed what I do, it's just resulted in more fun and more keepers, probably. BTW, trying to explain something in detail or tie it to a past point for the benefit of readers is not 'stalling'. Should I not put forth the effort to explain things in detail to you any more? .

07-30-2014, 11:11 AM	#392
Andi Lo Veteran Member Join Date: Jul 2008 Location: Halifax, Nova Scotia Posts: 2,924	Originally posted by Rondec I do shoot portraits mostly at f2.8 (on APS-C). I like having some environmental presence in photos, not just a blurred background, although it is possible with longer lenses on all these formats. (77 at f2.8) Choice is always good though That's why we discuss this in the first place. Nice photo!

07-30-2014, 11:12 AM	#393
Kunzite Pentaxian Join Date: Apr 2007 Location: Romania Posts: 15,132	Originally posted by jsherman999 I thought it was clear. That was addressed to ElJamoquio, you posted while I was typing. His answer is a bit less verbose By the way, I like that you included "the larger VF has made composition a bit easier and more enjoyable", which is by no means insignificant IMO.

07-30-2014, 11:30 AM	#394
jsherman999 Veteran Member Join Date: Dec 2007 Photos: Gallery Posts: 8,237 Original Poster	Originally posted by Kunzite That was addressed to ElJamoquio, you posted while I was typing. His answer is a bit less verbose By the way, I like that you included "the larger VF has made composition a bit easier and more enjoyable", which is by no means insignificant IMO. IMO your question wasn't the only one to ask, though - for a lot of folks it's not 'what do you do differently', it's often 'what do you do the same that brings you different results than before, and are those differences to your liking.' And I'd like to hear from m43--> aps-c format changers as well. The answers should be largely the same but maybe to a different degree, as the size gap between m43 & aps-c (or FF and medium-format digital) isn't as large as the difference between aps-c & FF.

07-30-2014, 12:43 PM	#395
Kunzite Pentaxian Join Date: Apr 2007 Location: Romania Posts: 15,132	One thing at a time I didn't say which formats, even if we are on the Pentax Full Frame section (this thread is misplaced IMHO). And the question was targeted - to see if people are largely wanting the same thing (down to what makes the scientific "equivalence" works), or if they would rather look for each format's advantages. For example, I imagine that people could buy into medium format to print larger. But I'd need questions which are not formulated to (in)validate "equivalence" - personal experience stories, with no trace of theory

07-30-2014, 02:11 PM	#396
ElJamoquio Veteran Member Join Date: Feb 2011 Posts: 4,873	Hey everybody, Pentax is rumored to announce a 22-35mm F/3.5: HD Pentax-DA 645 28-45mm F4.5 ED AW SDM SR - Pentax Rumors

07-30-2014, 07:02 PM - 1 Like	#397
Big Dave Veteran Member Join Date: Jan 2008 Location: San Antonio, Texas Photos: Gallery Posts: 547	I see a lot of people passing judgement without watching much of the video. It just shows that it is very hard to change your views after having them for so long. It is just physics and math. Neither of these is really up for debate. They are what they are. It was thought provoking though.

07-30-2014, 08:27 PM	#398
ElJamoquio Veteran Member Join Date: Feb 2011 Posts: 4,873	Originally posted by Big Dave It is just physics and math. Neither of these is really up for debate. Amen.

07-31-2014, 12:07 AM	#399
Kunzite Pentaxian Join Date: Apr 2007 Location: Romania Posts: 15,132	Originally posted by Big Dave I see a lot of people passing judgement without watching much of the video. It just shows that it is very hard to change your views after having them for so long. It is just physics and math. Neither of these is really up for debate. They are what they are. It was thought provoking though. Please read my firsts comments, then re-watch the video: he's changing well known basic notions like focal length (which, I'll say again, is not supposed to guarantee same angle of view on any format). He's playing with what should not be up to debate then blame the manufacturers for not following; that's not physics and math, is BS. But I guess "equivalence" fans don't care, as long as it's pro-"equivalence" everything goes.

07-31-2014, 02:59 AM - 1 Like	#400
Rondec Loyal Site Supporter Join Date: Mar 2009 Location: Gladys, Virginia Photos: Gallery Posts: 27,652	Originally posted by Big Dave I see a lot of people passing judgement without watching much of the video. It just shows that it is very hard to change your views after having them for so long. It is just physics and math. Neither of these is really up for debate. They are what they are. It was thought provoking though. Well, I don't like those who claim that changing format will "make your lens longer (or shorter)" at all. Neither with the equivalence formulas or otherwise. A 50mm lens is a 50mm lens whatever format you are shooting. What angle of view you get with it will depend on the format, but relating all of it to an old film format that few folks currently shooting digital have used seems odd, to say the least. Actual performance is going to depend on the lens and the sensor tech as much as anything else. A Canon 50mm f1.8 is a great lens by equivalence standards, but a really lousy lens in real shooting. A K10 is equivalent to a D90 is equivalent to a K5 in terms of sensor size, but are going to give very different performances with regard to noise and high iso performance. I just don't see this formula as shedding light on anything, except for a few folks on the internet forums who do shoot a lot of different formats and can't remember how one lens behaves on one versus another. I haven't shot full frame (film) for nearly 10 years and relating everything to an unfamiliar format just does nothing for me.

Thread Tools	Search this Thread
	Search this Thread: Advanced Search

07-31-2014, 05:15 AM	#401
cali92rs Veteran Member Join Date: May 2011 Location: Long Beach, CA Posts: 3,354	Why relate to an unfamiliar format? You know what a 50mm f1.7 looks on APS-C...using some factor you can get an idea of what lens you need to get to achieve a similar aov and dof without ever needing to have related anything to the 135 format. Plenty of examples have been given of why equivalence was helpful to that particular person. Is the intent of your post to tell them that it indeed was not useful to them? That they were wrong in using it as a tool?

07-31-2014, 05:46 AM	#402
ElJamoquio Veteran Member Join Date: Feb 2011 Posts: 4,873	Equivalence killed my father.

07-31-2014, 06:04 AM	#403
Rondec Loyal Site Supporter Join Date: Mar 2009 Location: Gladys, Virginia Photos: Gallery Posts: 27,652	Originally posted by cali92rs Why relate to an unfamiliar format? You know what a 50mm f1.7 looks on APS-C...using some factor you can get an idea of what lens you need to get to achieve a similar aov and dof without ever needing to have related anything to the 135 format. Plenty of examples have been given of why equivalence was helpful to that particular person. Is the intent of your post to tell them that it indeed was not useful to them? That they were wrong in using it as a tool? No, I can't speak for anyone else. I shoot one format, APS-C and it just isn't useful for me. Maybe you (and others) can speak for the interwebs, but I can't. My perception (could be wrong) is that most people shoot primarily one format (maybe with a phone as well, but that doesn't count since it is a fixed lens camera and I don't know anyone calculating equivalence for iphone lenses) with a kit lens and maybe a slow telephoto. Occasionally they might get a 50mm or 35mm prime. If you have a K30 with a kit lens and a DA 35, equivalence tells you that you have crappy, slow gear. But so what? The question is whether you are able to get the shots you want. Photography should not be gear, but image-centric and equivalence is the play toy of gear heads, in my humble opinion.

07-31-2014, 06:12 AM	#404
ElJamoquio Veteran Member Join Date: Feb 2011 Posts: 4,873	Originally posted by Rondec If you have a K30 with a kit lens and a DA 35, equivalence tells you that you have crappy, slow gear. No one is telling anyone that except themselves.

07-31-2014, 06:24 AM	#405
Rondec Loyal Site Supporter Join Date: Mar 2009 Location: Gladys, Virginia Photos: Gallery Posts: 27,652	Originally posted by ElJamoquio No one is telling anyone that except themselves. People don't say that in so many words, but they will say as much when explaining, for instance, why four thirds gear is so much smaller than full frame gear. "Well, you have to remember what you are getting..." they will say and then the argument goes from there.