D600 plus 24-85 is cheaper than k3 plus 16-50 the last time I checked.

• D600: the cheapest previous generation entry level 36x24 body on the market, already replaced by successor due to known Nikon quality issues which hugely hammered down prices as well.
  24-85: the cheapest variable aperture (something to 4.5) kit-zoom for 36x24 on the market; avaiulable as actual kit bundle

vs.

• K-3: the top of the line, enthusiast APSC body which still collects the highest price of all such APSC bodies
  16-50: the most expensive fixed 2.8 aperture standard zoom you can get for the above body; not available as kit bundle

Oh boy, you're not going to convert even the ones with the most humble of intellects with these kinds of crudely made up "comparisons".

Sadly your credibility also went down the drain since every reader easily understands that this cherry picking of the most extreme nonsense "comparison" was not by chance, but an active and deliberate piece of bluff for the unwary.

That is sectarian preaching, nothing else.

[ElJamoquio]

I've had both the 24-85 and the 16-50. I sold the 16-50. It's really no comparison, as you mention, but in the opposite way.

Just checked again, the K-3+ 16-50 is now ~$2100 and the D610+24-85 is ~$2300. It's still worth the upgrade in my view.

You're actually wrong about the K-3, it's cheaper than the D7100 and the 7D. I think the K-3 is better but your 'facts' are wrong.

[Winder]

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.

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.

Is school our most of our books were written for 35mm film, but we were using MF & LF in the studio. We were working in a different direction, but it was still equivalence. I still shoot 645 film and APS-C. At one point I was shooting with the Contax 645, Canon 5D, & Olympus E-3. Anyone who picks up a book on photography where the author has used a full frame camera for the examples and setting had better understand equivalence if they want to accurately recreate the exercises.

You guys might not have any use for equivalence. You only own one format. You never read photography books. You have no interest in recreating a look. Or you just don't care. It really doesn't matter. What I don't understand is why you care so much about a subject that you claim you don't care about? I understand why the people who do care about it and want to apply information are talking about it.

[ElJamoquio]

You guys might not have any use for equivalence. You only own one format. You never read photography books. You have no interest in recreating a look. Or you just don't care. It really doesn't matter. What I don't understand is why you care so much about a subject that you claim you don't care about? I understand why the people who do care about it and want to apply information are talking about it.

How did they decide on that format, anyway? Why was that format what's best for them?

[eyeswideshut]

Is school our most of our books were written for 35mm film, but we were using MF & LF in the studio. We were working in a different direction, but it was still equivalence. I still shoot 645 film and APS-C. At one point I was shooting with the Contax 645, Canon 5D, & Olympus E-3. Anyone who picks up a book on photography where the author has used a full frame camera for the examples and setting had better understand equivalence if they want to accurately recreate the exercises.

Absolutely. If you want to follow a photographic cookbook recipe written for 35mm with, say, your Olympus E-3 you had better know your equivalencies. And when you are out in the field with that camera, none of that matters anymore because you have what you have.
Now tell me, where in anything I wrote do you find something to suggest otherwise?

You guys might not have any use for equivalence.

Not that much, but I do not deny it's usefulness for the purposes outlined in Joseph James' article - which I was lead to believe is the starting point of any meaningful discussion on equivalence.

You only own one format.

Now, now, what's that got to do with the price of tea in china? a) It is not true, I have cameras ranging from the Q to Medium format and b) it is irrelevant for the purposes of this discussion and more of a reflection on your, er well, way of thinking. It's not about equivalence, it's about gear, ain't it?

You never read photography books.

Actually I do, but in truth they do tend to be the ones with the pictures, rather than the HowTo's.

You have no interest in recreating a look. Or you just don't care.

I would not say that. Photographers are often influenced by the "look" created by masters of the art, and I certainly would not mind improved imagery.

It really doesn't matter. What I don't understand is why you care so much about a subject that you claim you don't care about? I understand why the people who do care about it and want to apply information are talking about it.

It should be pretty obvious what I am for or against regarding equivalence. I outlined it a few posts back in my exagerated 'black cats in coal mines around midnight with a Pentax Q' example.

Cheers

---------- Post added 05-25-14 at 07:19 PM ----------

How did they decide on that format, anyway? Why was that format what's best for them?

Come again?

b) it is irrelevant for the purposes of this discussion and more of a reflection on your, er well, way of thinking. It's not about equivalence, it's about gear, ain't it?

You nailed it.

It's about dogmatic "this is better than that" gear opinion. It's not neutral or scientific or undisputable or "correct".

[Winder]

You nailed it.

It's about dogmatic "this is better than that" gear opinion. It's not neutral or scientific or undisputable or "correct".

No, its about understanding the gear that you have. I use multiple formats because they have different strengths and weaknesses. I bought my E-3 and my 12-35 & 35-100 lenses for kayaking and I needed the "reach" and the best in class weather seals. My 5D was my working camera for events, and my Contax 645 was for projects where I have more control. Different formats excel at different things, and just like equivalence people should understand it.

---------- Post added 05-25-14 at 02:38 PM ----------

If you want to follow a photographic cookbook recipe written for 35mm with, say, your Olympus E-3 you had better know your equivalencies. And when you are out in the field with that camera, none of that matters anymore because you have what you have.

For photography students, you start out following the "cookbook". That how the students learn to manipulate the image. People use equivalence all the time when adjusting for exposure. You adjust ISO/Shutter/Aperture to get the proper exposure, but there are thousands of different settings that will yield identical exposure, but with different visual effects.

Equivalence might not matter in the field, because I'm going to take the shot with what I have, but obviously it plays a role in selecting what camera and lens I'm going to take out into the field with me based on what I plan on shooting that day.

[Kunzite]

You guys might not have any use for equivalence. You only own one format. You never read photography books. You have no interest in recreating a look. Or you just don't care. It really doesn't matter. What I don't understand is why you care so much about a subject that you claim you don't care about? I understand why the people who do care about it and want to apply information are talking about it.

Wow. So we're a bunch of photography illiterate people?
On the contrary, it's from photography books that I've learned the basic notions (except focal length, which was the first course of optics in school) - those which were "redefined" in the video, though you would not admit that. Some of the books I learned from weren't even centered around the small format.

How did they decide on that format, anyway? Why was that format what's best for them?

As in, you already know the answer that FF is the best for everyone? Your "equivalence" says so, right?
It's funny how some people says "equivalence" doesn't claim the superiority of one format, but in the end it somehow gets there.

[Winder]

it's from photography books that I've learned the basic notions (except focal length, which was the first course of optics in school) - those which were "redefined" in the video, though you would not admit that. Some of the books I learned from weren't even centered around the small format.

We never had an "optics" class. The entry level class was 35mm film and 50mm lens. The K1000 was the camera that you could buy through the program. I was shooting with Canon at the time.

Nobody is "redefining" optics. The video is about marketing. A 55mm lens will always be a 55mm lenses. It can never be an 85mm lens.

Pentax Telephoto 55mm f/1.4 DA* SDM Autofocus Lens 21790 B&H
From B&H
"Essentially equivalent to an 85mm f/1.4 lens upon 35mm SLR cameras"
The 55mm F/1.4 is a great lens for this focal length, but its not possible for this lens to really be the equivalent of an 85mm F/1.4. They are lenses of different focal length and aperture size.

The people who claim that a 55mm F/1.4 is the equivalent to an 85mm F/1.4 are the ones who are trying to "redefine" optics.

[ElJamoquio]

As in, you already know the answer that FF is the best for everyone? Your "equivalence" says so, right?
It's funny how some people says "equivalence" doesn't claim the superiority of one format, but in the end it somehow gets there.

It doesn't say that at all. Using equivalence you'll find that some people should purchase P&S's and some should purchase FF's. This isn't the 'ff-is-better' thread. This is the 'you need to use equivalence to determine if ff is better for you' thread.

---------- Post added 05-25-14 at 02:18 PM ----------

I use multiple formats because they have different strengths and weaknesses.

I bought my Q without ever trying it in a store.

Heck I bought most of my cameras - whether 1/1.7, 1/2.3, APS-C, or FF, online.

I guess I could've spent days poring over images online, compared to known objects at known distance, and done analysis of the image noise, perspective, etc, etc, to determine what I suited my style the best.

Instead I spent minutes and used equivalence.

[Kunzite]

@Winder:
By school I mean school (gymnasium in these parts), not photography school.
I already proved to you what he did, pointing where in the video he's making claims about why focal length "doesn't work" and whatever. What you're doing is called "invincible ignorance".

How they're saying it is more correct than most applications of "equivalence". It has about the same angle of view - which is what people care about - and it's equally as fast exposure-wise - people care about that, too. Nobody claimed it would also offer the same DoF, noise or whatever; you decided on your own that it MUST.
Of course I would not care, and just use the lens as it is.

@ElJamoquio:
And by using the "equivalence" right - i.e. just like you - they would reach the same conclusion - that "FF" is better. And they would believe it, because they did it "by themselves" - not realising they took a preprogrammed path.
Clever.

[eyeswideshut]

We never had an "optics" class. The entry level class was 35mm film and 50mm lens. The K1000 was the camera that you could buy through the program. I was shooting with Canon at the time.

Nobody is "redefining" optics. The video is about marketing. A 55mm lens will always be a 55mm lenses. It can never be an 85mm lens.

Pentax Telephoto 55mm f/1.4 DA* SDM Autofocus Lens 21790 B&H
From B&H
"Essentially equivalent to an 85mm f/1.4 lens upon 35mm SLR cameras"
The 55mm F/1.4 is a great lens for this focal length, but its not possible for this lens to really be the equivalent of an 85mm F/1.4. They are lenses of different focal length and aperture size.

The people who claim that a 55mm F/1.4 is the equivalent to an 85mm F/1.4 are the ones who are trying to "redefine" optics.

This is getting hillarious! I fear YOU do not understand equivalence. NO ONE is redifining optics. It is the sensor size that redifines the depth of field of that lens, but in terms of aov the statement from b&h is absolutely correct. And as EVERYBODY knows, focal length has been used for decades (centuries?) as shorthand for aov. Only pedants or equivalists can quibble with that.

But yes I know, you are merely trying to save little children from the pitfalls of erroneously thinking that somehow they can recreate the same image as that produced by an 85mm lens on ff. The folly! They need to be told that there is no short cut to the holy grail.

[ElJamoquio]

@Winder:
By school I mean school (gymnasium in these parts), not photography school.
I already proved to you what he did, pointing where in the video he's making claims about why focal length "doesn't work" and whatever. What you're doing is called "invincible ignorance".

How they're saying it is more correct than most applications of "equivalence". It has about the same angle of view - which is what people care about - and it's equally as fast exposure-wise - people care about that, too. Nobody claimed it would also offer the same DoF, noise or whatever; you decided on your own that it MUST.
Of course I would not care, and just use the lens as it is.

@ElJamoquio:
And by using the "equivalence" right - i.e. just like you - they would reach the same conclusion - that "FF" is better. And they would believe it, because they did it "by themselves" - not realising they took a preprogrammed path.
Clever.

It's not a conspiracy, it's a mathematical/physical truth.

[eyeswideshut]

It doesn't say that at all. Using equivalence you'll find that some people should purchase P&S's and some should purchase FF's. This isn't the 'ff-is-better' thread. This is the 'you need to use equivalence to determine if ff is better for you' thread.



---------- Post added 05-25-14 at 02:18 PM ----------



I bought my Q without ever trying it in a store.

Heck I bought most of my cameras - whether 1/1.7, 1/2.3, APS-C, or FF, online.

I guess I could've spent days poring over images online, compared to known objects at known distance, and done analysis of the image noise, perspective, etc, etc, to determine what I suited my style the best.

Instead I spent minutes and used equivalence.

Well good for you. I didn't know this paradigm was so powerful. Not even Joseph James makes any claim to such all encompassing explanatory power. But it is often the followers who improve upon the original beyond all recognition!

[filoxophy]

Are we done here?