Forgot Password
Pentax Camera Forums Home
 

Reply
Show Printable Version Search this Thread
05-24-2014, 11:54 PM   #91
Senior Member




Join Date: Dec 2013
Location: Hamburg
Posts: 287
QuoteOriginally posted by ElJamoquio Quote
That's awesome.

I could make the same picture with a FF camera as you did with the Q. If you used equivalence, so could you. Maybe you'd find you didn't need as much gear to do everything you want to do.
Of course you could. But what is your point?

05-25-2014, 12:04 AM   #92
Senior Member
jppp's Avatar

Join Date: Jun 2011
Location: SW Finland
Photos: Gallery
Posts: 141
Tony's response to the feedback:
05-25-2014, 12:46 AM   #93
Pentaxian




Join Date: Apr 2007
Location: Romania
Posts: 8,416
Response? He's simply trying to ridicule those "critics and corrections". Cheap tactics like this are disgusting and unprofessional (but I know some people here will find it funny, well, anything goes if it's for the Cause).
05-25-2014, 01:16 AM   #94
Forum Member




Join Date: Mar 2014
Posts: 71
QuoteOriginally posted by eyeswideshut Quote
Because I never said that my goal was to create the exact same image with a Q that I could create with another format camera.
The single one point of equivalence theory is that you can take any picture just the same with any camera (and sensor size). That is why it is called "equivalency". It is not called "mine is longer than yours theory". That is only what some less well equipped fanboys try to make of it.
Regarding the equivalency theory you can easily match 36x24 and MF cameras with Q sized cameras and the other way around, regarding any aspects which depend on focal length, ISO, aperture.

So no need to worry in equivalency theory ghost town.

05-25-2014, 01:30 AM   #95
Senior Member
jppp's Avatar

Join Date: Jun 2011
Location: SW Finland
Photos: Gallery
Posts: 141
QuoteOriginally posted by Kunzite Quote
Response? He's simply trying to ridicule those "critics and corrections". Cheap tactics like this are disgusting and unprofessional (but I know some people here will find it funny, well, anything goes if it's for the Cause).
Ok. Thanks.
05-25-2014, 01:44 AM   #96
Pentaxian




Join Date: Apr 2007
Location: Romania
Posts: 8,416
Don't get me wrong, that was 100% about his "response". I guess I should say thanks for posting it, it's quite interesting to observe certain "equivalence" advocates' response when their theories aren't accepted.
QuoteOriginally posted by HavelockV Quote
The single one point of equivalence theory is that you can take any picture just the same with any camera (and sensor size). That is why it is called "equivalency". It is not called "mine is longer than yours theory". That is only what some less well equipped fanboys try to make of it.
Regarding the equivalency theory you can easily match 36x24 and MF cameras with Q sized cameras and the other way around, regarding any aspects which depend on focal length, ISO, aperture.
Actually you can only take "equivalent" images, matching a limited number of parameters. It's easy to fell into the trap of ignoring everything else, or to misapply it when you shouldn't - the end result is the same: "FF is the best!".
Who on Earth would attempt to use "equivalence" between Q and 645z? Aren't you buying those cameras for completely different purposes?
05-25-2014, 02:00 AM   #97
Senior Member




Join Date: Dec 2013
Location: Hamburg
Posts: 287
QuoteOriginally posted by Kunzite Quote
Don't get me wrong, that was 100% about his "response". I guess I should say thanks for posting it, it's quite interesting to observe certain "equivalence" advocates' response when their theories aren't accepted.

Actually you can only take "equivalent" images, matching a limited number of parameters. It's easy to fell into the trap of ignoring everything else, or to misapply it when you shouldn't - the end result is the same: "FF is the best!".
Who on Earth would attempt to use "equivalence" between Q and 645z? Aren't you buying those cameras for completely different purposes?
I thought the rebuttal was pretty funny actually. Only problem is that equivalence becomes the hammer that makes the whole world look like a nail. It is often used in contexts where it does not matter. Only if we accept the premise of wanting to create equal output in terms of the five parameters identified by Joseph James does equivalence even come into play. But as you have been trying to valiantly point out in this discussion, that premise must itself be judged in terms of its usefulness. And I'm with you on this: equivalence is just not very usefull.

A good case in point is the alleged deviousness of manufacturers regarding focal length 'equivalence'. I think you commented on that already. As soon as we understand that 35mm focal length equivalence is being used (for historical reasons) as a subsitute shorthand for angle of view, the whole argument just evaporates.

So to me, It's not that the paradigm of equivalence is wrong, it's just that is is irrelevant much of the time.
Cheers
05-25-2014, 03:14 AM   #98
Pentaxian




Join Date: Apr 2007
Location: Romania
Posts: 8,416
Well, regardless of what is said I find "Ron"-like characters simply annoying, and not at all funny. My sense of humor (and I assure you, I do have a strong sense of humor) could be very different than others'. I dislike clowns, too.

Thank you for understanding my position Indeed, it is based on 3 points:

1. Usefulness. Indeed, most of the time one would not compare two formats. And when doing it, in many occasions not all parameters would have to match (e.g. if only interested in angle of view) while others of interest to you are not included (but perhaps influenced by this system). Quite often, you might look at things which are different for each format.
I believe equivalence is a word too big for something incomplete and with a limited usefulness.
I believe the "equivalence" that claims how you MUST compare is wrong, because it doesn't care for your needs.

2. Changing the basics. Focal length, aperture, ISO - all have well defined meanings; yet some "equivalence" advocates, Tony for example, would try to redefine them. Even if they don't, it can still cause confusion - a 50mm on m4/3 being "equivalent" to a 100mm on FF, yet if you put that 100mm on m4/3 it won't behave like a 50mm. Doh! - but there are people confused by that.
They're better as they are, thank you. And if the effort of "explaining equivalence" would be put into explaining the basic notions, we'd live in a better world.

3. Lack of precision and consistency.
For example, using the "crop factor" instead of the frame dimensions would hide the aspect ratio (and you don't get similar results if the aspect ratio is different) - that's a precision issue. Using ISO as a measure of noise is inconsistent (there are warnings against that in JJ's article, but some are doing it nevertheless) and inaccurate (noise is not necessarily directly proportional with ISO, and not necessarily the same between different sensors).

Bjarne Stroustrup (the "father" of C++) once said: "Legacy code" often differs from its suggested alternative by actually working and scaling. Well, the "legacy" system always works... how about the alternatives?

05-25-2014, 03:38 AM   #99
Senior Member
Aksel's Avatar

Join Date: Apr 2014
Posts: 210
I like the video. And other his videos also. They are very enlightening and educating.

But I found one argument, which is not found the answer.

The argument is:
QuoteQuote:
...the fact that the Ricoh is a better-corrected lens design than the full-frame Nikkor is intriguing,... the era of universal superiority for larger lenses and formats is well and truly over.
cromatic abrasion blog
My question is: is it possible this kind of correction of these APS-C/MFT lenses, that all these "equivalent"-maths (from FF comparision) does not make any sense anymore?
05-25-2014, 04:44 AM   #100
Forum Member




Join Date: Mar 2014
Posts: 71
QuoteOriginally posted by Kunzite Quote
I believe the "equivalence" that claims how you MUST compare is wrong, because it doesn't care for your needs.
Obviously for most if not all buying decisions equivalency has no point at all and they would be quite ill advised to listen to the equivalency-advocates. The logic of real world buyers is (feel free to check with real people outside forums):

Johnboy wants a 36x24 camera for the reason it gving him a little less DoF at the extreme end aperture settings
--> Johnboy invests a shitload of extra money to buy such a 36x24 camera, which gives him the small DoF option, because otherwise his needs are fully fullfilled by a $600 cam. Now he shells out a whopping $1600. So he has paid the camera makers all this extra $1000 money for some extra DoF effects every now and then.
--> The very last thing Johnboy will tolerate from now on is to get the same results as he would get from the $600 camera DoF-wise. He already paid the suckers. A lot.
--> His friend Lisa shoots her $600 camera with a Tamron 17-50/2.8 ($280). Johnboy wants a similar standard zoom to simply protect his $1000 extra investment and still get that tiny extra small DoF, so he needs a Tamron 24-70/2.8 --> $1,150.
05-25-2014, 05:06 AM   #101
Senior Member




Join Date: Dec 2013
Location: Hamburg
Posts: 287
QuoteOriginally posted by HavelockV Quote
Obviously for most if not all buying decisions equivalency has no point at all and they would be quite ill advised to listen to the equivalency-advocates. The logic of real world buyers is (feel free to check with real people outside forums):

Johnboy wants a 36x24 camera for the reason it gving him a little less DoF at the extreme end aperture settings
--> Johnboy invests a shitload of extra money to buy such a 36x24 camera, which gives him the small DoF option, because otherwise his needs are fully fullfilled by a $600 cam. Now he shells out a whopping $1600. So he has paid the camera makers all this extra $1000 money for some extra DoF effects every now and then.
--> The very last thing Johnboy will tolerate from now on is to get the same results as he would get from the $600 camera DoF-wise. He already paid the suckers. A lot.
--> His friend Lisa shoots her $600 camera with a Tamron 17-50/2.8 ($280). Johnboy wants a similar standard zoom to simply protect his $1000 extra investment and still get that tiny extra small DoF, so he needs a Tamron 24-70/2.8 --> $1,150.
Funny, but dude get with the program. A Canon EF 24-70mm f/4.0 is all he needs to show his friend Lisa who is boss. I think you had better go back and study the tenets of Equivalism

Last edited by eyeswideshut; 05-25-2014 at 05:07 AM. Reason: typo
05-25-2014, 05:20 AM   #102
Site Supporter




Join Date: Feb 2011
Posts: 4,892
D600 plus 24-85 is cheaper than k3 plus 16-50 the last time I checked.
05-25-2014, 05:30 AM   #103
Pentaxian




Join Date: Apr 2007
Location: Romania
Posts: 8,416
QuoteOriginally posted by eyeswideshut Quote
Funny, but dude get with the program. A Canon EF 24-70mm f/4.0 is all he needs to show his friend Lisa who is boss. I think you had better go back and study the tenets of Equivalism
No, he would be just the "equivalent guy" (and even that will need lot of explaining), in order to be the boss he needs at least f/2.8.
05-25-2014, 06:11 AM   #104
Senior Member




Join Date: Dec 2013
Location: Hamburg
Posts: 287
QuoteOriginally posted by Kunzite Quote
No, he would be just the "equivalent guy" (and even that will need lot of explaining), in order to be the boss he needs at least f/2.8.
That would be 'Supremacism' and might not sit well with Lisa.
05-25-2014, 07:12 AM   #105
Site Supporter




Join Date: Feb 2011
Posts: 4,892
learning equivalence = buying the best gear for your purpose (and getting mocked by those who didn't?)
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 08:57 AM. | See also: NikonForums.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