[ElJamoquio]

They are marking their interchangeable lens with the focal length

Except when they aren't.

Except if you want to "prove" the "superiority" of one format, like ElJamoquio here.

Again, for at least the second time this thread - equivalence says that any format can produce any picture. I'm not sure how many times I have to tell you that.

Sometimes it's cheaper with full frame and sometimes it's cheaper with the Q. It all depends on your desired picture.

---------- Post added 05-31-14 at 04:16 AM ----------

I don't know that I buy this 20 percent increase. Sounds like a made up statistic to me. But how big are you printing/viewing right now?

I'm not sure why this comes back to me and my needs again. My smallest prints are generally 10x15 and my largest is a hair under 40x60. That's irrelevant though, so I'm not sure why I even humored you. Humor me, now, you told me that the D7100 + 17-55 was better than the D610+24-85. I'm interested in the specs, and could easily sell my setup. Which of the two combos is lighter? wider? Longer? Faster at the short end, and by how much? Faster at the long end, and by how much?

I got the 20% from DxOMark. According to them it's also about 20% between the 18-55 on the K-5II and the 16-50 on the K-50 if I'm recalling correctly.

You biggest increase would come from combining multiple shots in a panorama.

Absolutely. I do panoramas all the time. I don't like using tripods though (not required, but helps a lot). But the pics I want the biggest end up being pics with movement a lot of the time.

I should mention that if Pentax releases a full frame camera, I will probably get it. I just won't get it (a) because equivalence proves it is better or (b) because it will be cheaper.

I'm going to buy a faster car. The car is lighter and has more power. But screw F=ma, that equation sucks. .

[Kunzite]

Except when they aren't.

Can you give one example of an interchangeable lens marked with some "equivalent" focal length?

equivalence says that any format can produce any picture

Your "equivalence" is wrong (and Joseph James "equivalence" doesn't make such claims).
But perhaps you could show me compacts resolving as much detail as a medium format camera. Or are you going to tell me the image is not important, just some "benchmarked" parameters?

[Rondec]

Except when they aren't.




Again, for at least the second time this thread - equivalence says that any format can produce any picture. I'm not sure how many times I have to tell you that.

Sometimes it's cheaper with full frame and sometimes it's cheaper with the Q. It all depends on your desired picture.

---------- Post added 05-31-14 at 04:16 AM ----------



I'm not sure why this comes back to me and my needs again. My smallest prints are generally 10x15 and my largest is a hair under 40x60. That's irrelevant though, so I'm not sure why I even humored you. Humor me, now, you told me that the D7100 + 17-55 was better than the D610+24-85. I'm interested in the specs, and could easily sell my setup. Which of the two combos is lighter? wider? Longer? Faster at the short end, and by how much? Faster at the long end, and by how much?

I got the 20% from DxOMark. According to them it's also about 20% between the 18-55 on the K-5II and the 16-50 on the K-50 if I'm recalling correctly.




Absolutely. I do panoramas all the time. I don't like using tripods though (not required, but helps a lot). But the pics I want the biggest end up being pics with movement a lot of the time.




I'm going to buy a faster car. The car is lighter and has more power. But screw F=ma, that equation sucks. .

It isn't about you or me specifically, it is just about photographers in general. To me, the reasons for full frame are (1) nicer viewfinder -- not sure if this changes as EVFs get better on smaller sensor cameras, but it is still nice to have. (2) better features -- this is not an issue with Pentax, but with Canon and Nikon there is a tendency to skimp on features of APS-C cameras. Maybe there will be a D400 this year, but till Nikon comes out with such a camera, full frame has better features (3) better resolution -- this is one where I struggle a bit. If you are shooting mostly low iso situations, then I doubt you will see a lot of difference between a K3 print and a D600 print. (4) narrow depth of field -- this is the thing that people throw around the most and the thing that I don't really need personally.

I could probably use four thirds just as easily as APS-C for my needs, but I am happy with things as they are.

[ElJamoquio]

Can you give one example of an interchangeable lens marked with some "equivalent" focal length?

No.

Or are you going to tell me the image is not important, just some "benchmarked" parameters?

No.

OK, I've answered many of your question, now please answer mine, that I've had to ask twice.

[Kunzite]

If you can't give even one example, stop making claims like this:

If they were using focal length on their lenses you'd have a point, but the manufacturers aren't.

There is no question addressed to me in your last 10 posts. I didn't go further back in this thread so I'll just ask: what was the question you asked twice?

[jsherman999]

Equivalence is nonsense because no one buy or use cameras of different formats in order for them to be equal.

Sigh.

Sigh, sigh, sigh, sigh.

Sigh.

Sigh.



.

---------- Post added 05-31-14 at 06:40 AM ----------

I should mention that if Pentax releases a full frame camera, I will probably get it. I just won't get it (a) because equivalence proves it is better or (b) because it will be cheaper.

It probably won't be cheaper, especially at first. But you say you won't get it because 'equivalence proves it is better' - equivalence doesn't prove any format is 'better', but it can describe lens/sensor combos that are better for you, for a certain set of applications, and that combo can be in m43, aps-c, FF, MFD, etc.

Can you list the reasons why you'd get a Pentax FF?

.

[ElJamoquio]

Humor me, now, you told me that the D7100 + 17-55 was better than the D610+24-85. I'm interested in the specs, and could easily sell my setup. Which of the two combos is lighter? wider? Longer? Faster at the short end, and by how much? Faster at the long end, and by how much?

For the third time...

[Kunzite]

That question wasn't addressed to me - why should I answer? Why should I defend a claim I didn't make?

[ElJamoquio]

If you can't give even one example, stop making claims

You said 'manufacturers' a few posts back. Most manufacturers use labels of equivalent focal lengths on some of their cameras or advertising materials for lenses.

Later you challenged me to provide 'interchangeable lenses' that are labeled (not advertised) with focal length labels. By restricting the definition in two ways I can no longer provide you an example.

---------- Post added 05-31-14 at 05:47 AM ----------

Honestly, the reviews don't look that great on the Nikon 24-85. Maybe it is great on full frame and would trounce other lenses on APS-C, but I doubt it. It looks to me like most 17-50-ish f2.8 zooms will have significantly better performance on APS-C than that lens. Even the DA 17-70 probably would outperform it, based on Photozone's testing.

That question wasn't addressed to me - why should I answer? Why should I defend a claim I didn't make?

Yes, you did. I quoted you so you can see where you told me the 17-50ish f/2.8 zooms are better. Did I just misinterpret you?

[Kunzite]

Your logic is faultless: you claim I, "Kunzite", said something, then "prove" it by quoting Rondec. Can't argue with that.

Sorry, but it's you who must support your claim that manufacturers aren't "using focal length on their lenses" - which at best (i.e. including the irrelevant compacts) is a faulty generalization.
Now you're talking about advertising? Moving the goalposts, hmm...

[Fogel70]

Ricoh is using equivalent focal length when naming GR lens units.
FI the APS-C 33mm f/2.5 unit is named - A12 50mm f/2.5 and the 1/1.7" 5.1 - 15.3 mm f/2.4-4.4 unit is named S10 24-72mm f/2.4-4.4.

They don't even use the word "equivalent" in the description (*except for the fine print)

The GR LENS A12 50 mm lens has a focal length of 50 mm. Part of its appeal is that it gives a natural visual field with an angle of view nearly the same as the human eye. The 50 mm focal length is one of the most basic for candid photography. Compared to a wide-angle lens, a suitable distance is maintained from the subject, and the photographer is able to chat with the subject and elicit natural expressions to capture the person in a candid way without undue attention being paid to the camera. GR LENS A12 50 mm is also a macro lens. The photographer can enjoy close-up photography to a maximum magnification of 1/2x and, from a wide open aperture setting, obtain images with excellent sharpness and high contrast and resolution to the edge.

GXR / Digital Cameras | Ricoh Global

[ElJamoquio]

Your logic is faultless: you claim I, "Kunzite", said something, then "prove" it by quoting Rondec. Can't argue with that.

My mistake, sorry, I did get you two confused.

you who must support your claim that manufacturers aren't "using focal length on their lenses" - which at best (i.e. including the irrelevant compacts) is a faulty generalization.
Now you're talking about advertising? Moving the goalposts, hmm...

Compacts don't have lenses? It's very clear that the OP was talking about P&S / Bridge cameras, which clearly have focal lengths labeled on the front of their lenses (sometimes on the side) as equivalent focal lengths.

[eyeswideshut]

Ricoh is using equivalent focal length when naming GR lens units.
FI the APS-C 33mm f/2.5 unit is named - A12 50mm f/2.5 and the 1/1.7" 5.1 - 15.3 mm f/2.4-4.4 unit is named S10 24-72mm f/2.4-4.4.

They don't even use the word "equivalent" in the description (*except for the fine print)

GXR / Digital Cameras | Ricoh Global

Ricoh immediately add "that it gives a natural visual field with an angle of view nearly the same as the human eye. The 50 mm focal length is one of the most basic for candid photography."
Using focal length as short hand for angle of view is just one of those givens in photography. Thus Ricoh correctly identifies the lens. They mention the physical focal length and the equivalent focal length in terms of angle of view. Me think no one could ask for more candor.

[jsherman999]

Can you give one example of an interchangeable lens marked with some "equivalent" focal length?

equivalence says that any format can produce any picture

(and Joseph James "equivalence" doesn't make such claims).

Yes, it does. In fact he's stated that very thing in forums before. There's always the caveat that the available lenses have to allow for it - ie have to have a large enough linear aperture - but one of the underlying tenets of equivalence is that any format size can make any image, given the right lens. It's kind of a basic thing you need to understand if you claim to understand equivalence.

.

[Rondec]

Sigh.

Sigh, sigh, sigh, sigh.

Sigh.

Sigh.



.

---------- Post added 05-31-14 at 06:40 AM ----------



It probably won't be cheaper, especially at first. But you say you won't get it because 'equivalence proves it is better' - equivalence doesn't prove any format is 'better', but it can describe lens/sensor combos that are better for you, for a certain set of applications, and that combo can be in m43, aps-c, FF, MFD, etc.

Can you list the reasons why you'd get a Pentax FF?

.

Because it is there?

Honestly, I have purchased every Pentax flagship from the K10 on, even ones that weren't a huge jump from previous models (except for the K5 IIs). My wife shoots for as a professional and we use the money she makes to buy more gear. I just don't think my photography will change a whole lot with such a camera.