[jsherman999]

"Don't confuse me with facts, my mind is made up".

The above is indeed the mantra of the Equivalence Denialist.

The facts are wrong. Or they don't matter to me, and they should't matter to anyone who's a REAL PHOTOGRAPHER! because I say so.

[Drake Avenue]

The real problem here is that there are more words than photos being posted.

[cali92rs]

I just hope I'm not the sort of guy who gets a full frame camera and then looks down on everyone else who still shoots crappy APS-C.

What about the APS-C people that imply that FF people have wasted their money?

The average person shoots with a camera phone...would they care, or even notice the difference under normal circumstances? Probably not. But we are "Forum People" and not the average consumer. We notice and pay for subtleties.
Otherwise, why pay for the faster prime when the slower zoom will be more convenient AND the increase in IQ will only show up in rare circumstance? Or why do some folks get MF backs that cost more than the average car when FF will do the job 75% as well?

[Rondec]

The above is indeed the mantra of the Equivalence Denialist.

The facts are wrong. Or they don't matter to me, and they should't matter to anyone who's a REAL PHOTOGRAPHER! because I say so.

I guess I would say that the focus of photography is not about figuring out what lenses are equivalent to other lenses. It is about using a camera to capture the world around us and hopefully some of its beauty. My wife doesn't really understand the difference between formats, but she understands shooting and framing and ways to make people look their best. I talk about crop factors and high isos and her eyes glaze over. Equivalence doesn't mean anything to her.

I told her that with full frame she would essentially get a little narrower depth of field and a little better ability to shoot in dark situations and she was fine with that. Numbers wouldn't really change that at all.

Equivalence folks tend to be numbers folks and specs folks and they don't understand that there are a lot people who aren't that way and for whom those sorts of discussions end up increasing confusion rather than dispersing it.

The best thing is to shoot with what you have and if you aren't happy with it, figure out how to remedy that. Buying a new lens, a new camera or a flash are all reasonable options, but first you need to figure out where specifically you are struggling.

---------- Post added 02-26-15 at 02:25 PM ----------

The real problem here is that there are more words than photos being posted.

Sorry. I have been doing my best, but there doesn't seem to be much point...

[GeneV]

True, and we miss the most important part about taking a photo--having a good camera in your hand when the moment comes. My wife is pretty well wedded to the Lumix LX7 and her iPhone, but she also has a great eye. My attraction to Pentax K with was the MX and the M lenses--quality equipment I would have with me and use. I have put more shutter clicks on the Kx + DA Ltd than any other DSLR because I will carry it.

[jsherman999]

I guess I would say that the focus of photography is not about figuring out what lenses are equivalent to other lenses.

^ Straw man. Nobody who uses equivalence to make a purchase decision or what-equipment-to-bring decision thinks photography is about "figuring out what lenses are equivalent to other lenses."

[normhead]

The above is indeed the mantra of the Equivalence Denialist.

The facts are wrong. Or they don't matter to me, and they should't matter to anyone who's a REAL PHOTOGRAPHER! because I say so.

Actually, I'm not sure you can label any particular group as having a monopoly on the above.... although folks like yourself will jump out and say "hey, I'm not like that", if you read about the study, you'll realize what people think and how often they repeat it, has nothing to do with whether or not they are right. If you're going to start picking on people I'd put Equivalence Deniers right up there with FF exaggerators. You can be a fine photographer without understanding theoretical equivalence and formulae. In a few circumstances it might make things a bit easier, but for the most part, it's a photographic side note. Certainly not worthy of highlighting in a thread. As I said, at school, it might have been worth one passing comment. Something like "notice how the 250mm on your 8x10 view camera (where it's a nice portrait lens) differs in effect from the 250mm on your 35mm." That's really all you need, the rest you can figure out. The amount of time it's been given on this forum is absolutely insane.

[GeneV]

What about the APS-C people that imply that FF people have wasted their money?

The average person shoots with a camera phone...would they care, or even notice the difference under normal circumstances? Probably not. But we are "Forum People" and not the average consumer. We notice and pay for subtleties.
Otherwise, why pay for the faster prime when the slower zoom will be more convenient AND the increase in IQ will only show up in rare circumstance? Or why do some folks get MF backs that cost more than the average car when FF will do the job 75% as well?

I have not heard someone tell another photographer they wasted their money. That does not seem like the kind of thing you hear much around this forum....even if there is a lot of expense for little gain. Most of what we spend on equipment is something of a waste of money in the eyes of others.

[normhead]

I have not heard someone tell another photographer they wasted their money. That does not seem like the kind of thing you hear much around this forum....even if there is a lot of expense for little gain. Most of what we spend on equipment is something of a waste of money in the eyes of others.

Must have been pre-emptive strike just in case someone was going to say it...
If you dabble in something like photography, you've wasted some money. I've bought lots of things that didn't turn out to be what I needed. So even if some one did point out you wasted you money buying an FF, no big deal. Sometime I think I wasted my money going for APS-c instead of 4/3... it's not biggy.

From my Scottish grand mother's perspective, if you bought a tool and it didn't pay for itself, you wasted your money. The other side of that is, if I buy something for my personal enjoyment, then it pays for itself while I'm experiencing that enjoyment. It's pretty hard to argue in that case it's wasted money. If you have the money and you want to buy a 645z for your personal enjoyment, and you enjoy every trip you take more than you would without it, then it's money well spent. Wasted? It's only wasted if it doesn't give you the enjoyment you expected. It doesn't even have to be real. If you enjoy your FF, more than you would an APS-c for no other reason than you drank the FF cool aid, you're still enjoying it and it's still worth it. But you're going to have, in that case a serious disagreement with the little kid saying "the emperor has no clothes." You're going to absolutely despise that kid.

[mohb]

If you're not out there when it matters it doesn't matter what format you are using.
Taken with a Nikon point and shoot - carrying a rucksack full of climbing gear limits your carrying capacity.

[Rondec]

^ Straw man. Nobody who uses equivalence to make a purchase decision or what-equipment-to-bring decision thinks photography is about "figuring out what lenses are equivalent to other lenses."

It could be. I feel like equivalence proponents have a tendency to break out equivalence as a sledge hammer to break all other formats than full frame to bits. It is even stated that full frame is better than medium format because it has faster equivalent lenses available.

I understand what it says, the theory just doesn't really tell much that I don't already know and it seems to confuse a lot of other folks out there.

[Ash]

That's why a small, lightweight FF camera (and lenses) would be the best of both worlds - practical enough to carry around as well as excellent in producing quality images.
There no point in retorting the insignificance of a larger format when there are practical differences already noted in the other brands that offer APS-C and FF cameras. Pentax, interestingly, have made the bold move to start with digital MF cameras before FF. I think that was a good move, further putting Pentax on the map but the time is nigh for them to bridge the gap with FF to go with their highly acclaimed FA Ltd lenses.

[Dartmoor Dave]

Today I've been reading "The English Universities Press: Photography" by Stanley W Bowler, published in 1940. It's full of all kinds of fascinating information about extinction meters and developing in pyrogallic acid, and some very helpful tips about glass plates vs sheet film. But strangely there's nothing about equivalence. It's almost as if amateur photographers shooting roll film with twin lens reflexes in the 1940s, and professionals using large format view cameras, weren't interested in pretending that they were actually using 35mm. In fact, 35mm is dismissed in a single paragraph as the "miniature" format.

It's certainly clear that the advantages and disadvantages of larger and smaller formats were well understood in the 1940s, and that photographers at that time were able to make sense of it all without any need for equivalence. And I bet that if you could bring Mr Bowler forward to the present and hand him a DSLR in full manual mode, he'd be able to use it perfectly within two minutes.

[jsherman999]

It's certainly clear that the advantages and disadvantages of larger and smaller formats were well understood in the 1940s, and that photographers at that time were able to make sense of it all without any need for equivalence. And I bet that if you could bring Mr Bowler forward to the present and hand him a DSLR in full manual mode, he'd be able to use it perfectly within two minutes.

I can also make use of any camera within a few minutes without having to use, or even be aware of, equivalence. I would hope any forum member could.

If I'm making a purchase decision, though, or if I'm trying to judge the validity of a manufacturer's claim, or if I have two/three systems to choose from for a particular task and want to pick the best for that task, it's nice to have some knowledge of equivalence.

Mr Bowler, were he brought here via time machine and shown the choices available - would probably agree.

.

[Dartmoor Dave]

Mr Bowler, were he brought here via time machine and shown the choices available - would probably agree.

Alas, Mr Bowler wasn't one of the notable personages collected by Bill and Ted.