Originally posted by Kunzite That assertion - based on the idea that "focal length", "aperture" and "ISO" are "lies" except on a specific format - was a central point in his video, so I wouldn't simply ignore it.
I've said I think "lies" is going too far, unless you characterize it more of a "lie by omission". The "28-300 f/2.8" lens Olympus is selling, for example, is the manufacturer leaving out some information, selectively changing it partially to make their product more enticing, make it seem like that P&S is a valid replacement for an aps-c or FF camera. They benefit from telling half the story, using only part of the equivalence relationship.
.
Quote: There are only two things I'm struggling with:
1. which "equivalence" are we discussing today? (and why can't we agree on some "standard equivalence"?)
It's all encapsulated
here, which is completely consistent with what I've been saying for three years (and in this thread,) consistent with what Falk Lumo's pointed out in his article, and as far as I've seen is consistent with what's in the new dpreview article, and is not refuting anything Tony states in his video re equivalence. What definition are
you using?
(I suspect you just like to troll/argue, but good things
can come from these discussions)
Quote: 2. why some people are insisting so much with this "equivalence", when its practical application is so extremely limited?
It's exactly no more 'limited' than knowing what happens when you open your lens up one stop - and using that knowledge.
It helps you decide what system to buy, or if changing formats would help you for your typical shooting. It can save time, effort, equipment churn, and can end up getting you better results which make you a slightly happier shooter.
If you only ever shoot one format, it's of much less value to you. But folks who only intend to shoot one format don't engage in these discussions.... do they?
.