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?