Forgot Password
Pentax Camera Forums Home
 
Log in or register to remove ads.

Showing results 1 to 25 of 120 Search:
Forum: General Photography 02-03-2019, 10:21 AM  
"Equivalence" between formats and lenses...
Posted By BigMackCam
Replies: 627
Views: 22,027
Folks, I think we're probably just going to bounce back and forth with the same arguments, so I'll close the thread here, I think.

Thank you once again for your participation. It hasn't been dull, that's for sure :lol:
Forum: General Photography 02-03-2019, 10:17 AM  
"Equivalence" between formats and lenses...
Posted By BigMackCam
Replies: 627
Views: 22,027
It has been useful for me, Carl... I can only speak as I find :o
Forum: General Photography 02-03-2019, 07:27 AM  
"Equivalence" between formats and lenses...
Posted By BigMackCam
Replies: 627
Views: 22,027
I came across a few folks who had to un-learn things :lol: Me too, on a few occasions - but thankfully not many. I think I was just lucky... Without formal training, I tended to learn by reading, then trying out what I'd learned by writing small, isolated pieces of code. Only when I fully understood something at a fundamental level did I then use it.

That said, as a kid I had bad programming habits... I used to code "on the fly", with everything in my head, and I didn't add any in-line documentation. It was a culture shock for me when, in my first job, I found I had to first design any functionality without coding, then hand-write the resulting code on coder's paper sheets, and hand those to someone to have them input into a computer. And I had to book time on a computer to run, test and debug what I'd written. Debugging often meant noting down any problems, going back to my desk, modifying my coding sheets (or re-writing them!) and going back through the same cycle again :o That process made sure you got things absolutely correct on the first cycle as often as possible, if you didn't want to fall behind on delivery dates.



Thanks, Dave :) I remember the CoCo 2... I used to see them at my local Tandy store :D A friend of my Dad's had an earlier TRS-80 that I played around with for a while. Another friend, later on, had a Dragon 64, so I got to mess around with 6809 code a little when he was writing programmes for that.

I was crazy about computers - it consumed a huge amount of my time as a child, right the way through my teenage years, and it became my chosen career (at least to begin with). I had an awful lot of luck and good fortune along the way, though...

I started with the ZX-81, wrote some games and self-published a book of them... sold around a hundred copies of that through a local newsagents. That paid for my next computer, a Sharp MZ-80K, a year or two later. It was a fantastic machine... it had the benefit of loading the OS into RAM from tape deck at startup, so I had easy access to all sorts of development tools - compilers, assemblers, debuggers etc. I wrote mainly games for that too, one of which was sold commercially through Kuma Computers (looking back, it was quite simple and not very impressive, but it sold reasonably well). With the funds from that, I bought an old CP/M machine - a "Memory 2000" - with CP/M 2.2, and became more interested in the operating system, and controlling I/O systems and devices. Around that time (I think I was 15) I wrote some software for my Dad (at his request) to calculate financing schedules for his business clients when he was on site with them. He worked for Citibank Savings at the time. He showed it to his bosses, and soon after the company bought the code from me. With some of the money from that I bought a huge Westrex Pasca 640 machine with 2 x 8" drives and CP/M 2.2 :)

A couple of years later, I dropped out of school and got my first job as a programmer in the real world. It was a big and very silly risk to take, skipping university as I did, but I was extremely lucky and very driven so it worked out fine.

Not the best approach to learning, and one I'd not recommend to anyone else... but it sure was fun :D

Ah, happy days... :o

Apologies for drifting off-topic. I think you're right, Dave... a thread on "first computers" might be fun :)
Forum: General Photography 02-03-2019, 05:34 AM  
"Equivalence" between formats and lenses...
Posted By BigMackCam
Replies: 627
Views: 22,027
I don't think I'm going anywhere with that story, Alex... other than, perhaps, to illustrate how depth of understanding was / is important to me, but I got a long way initially without it (in this computer-related example). I felt compelled to gain that depth of understanding - I wasn't satisfied with simply knowing that high level statements in BASIC would give me certain results. I wanted to know why that happened, what was going on behind the scenes, to have fundamental understanding and control of what was going on.

I sometimes cringe when I look at web development activities these days, where some folks really only understand very high level programming related to very specific areas of functionality that relies on multiple frameworks and libraries of yet more high level code. So many of those people have no idea what's happening at the processor level. But that's mostly me being nostalgic for the way I learned. In reality, if they get the results they need without truly understanding the grass roots technology, it shouldn't matter to me.

I'm all for depth of understanding. But I think there's more than one route to get there. Learning formally by reading and practising is undoubtedly a great way. But sometimes folks will learn convenient tricks to help them achieve certain goals, and those can be useful until they develop a deeper understanding.

I do, however, accept the dangers and limitations therein, as I've previously noted :)
Forum: General Photography 02-03-2019, 05:14 AM  
"Equivalence" between formats and lenses...
Posted By BigMackCam
Replies: 627
Views: 22,027
There's an interesting parallel here - sort of - with my experiences in computer programming...

I got into programming as a young boy - I think I was 11 or 12 years old. My first computer was a Sinclair ZX-81 with 1K RAM. Initially, I learned to programme using the built-in BASIC interpreter, documented in the accompanying manual. Of course, I didn't really understand what the computer was doing, but BASIC gave me a means to an end, and I wrote some great little programmes. For a few months, I was able to achieve everything I wanted using just that limited knowledge of BASIC... but it was clear to me there was more going on behind the scenes, more I could do, things that I could achieve more efficiently if I understood the fundamentals. So I started reading up on microprocessors and instruction sets (my most-read book at the time was Rodnay Zaks' "Programming the Z80"), memory, I/O etc. And, indeed, I was able to do so much more... plus I then understood how the high level BASIC code I'd previously written was really working at the machine level.

Yet, for a time, I'd got by quite happily with just BASIC. It was enough to get me started :)

Years later, when I started working in IT, I realised most of the programmers I was working with had little detailed understanding of the computers they writing code for. They were developing in COBOL, FORTRAN, BASIC and PASCAL - often calling on huge libraries written by other people - and really didn't know the fundamentals of the processor or the inner workings of existing code packages; they didn't know what was going on under the hood, why certain things happened. Yet many of them were very good programmers, able to quickly design, write and test reliable code that matched requirements...
Forum: General Photography 02-03-2019, 02:26 AM  
"Equivalence" between formats and lenses...
Posted By BigMackCam
Replies: 627
Views: 22,027
I'd agree that, having used it a few times or for a short while, most folks that have used equivalence would likely use it much less over time. You either become familiar with the lenses you're using or, without thinking, translate between those lenses when switching systems. Or both.

I continue to shoot both APS-C and full frame (albeit in different brands), and I switch quickly and seamlessly between each format. Sub-consciously, I probably do a quick lookup in my head between my lenses on each format rather than calculating anything. Or maybe I'm doing the AoV equivalence calculation without even realising it. Either way, I don't think about equivalence now, or very rarely at least.

I guess the last time I used AoV and DoF equivalence together, and it was in an extremely rough and ready way, was when I bought my Sigma 30mm f/1.4 Art. I knew that I liked the subject isolation I could achieve at 50mm f/2.8 on full frame (with my 24-70 f/2.8 zoom). So I was looking at APS-C lenses in the 30 - 35mm range, and - without any precise calculations - knew that a 30mm f/1.4 lens would cover my needs...
Forum: General Photography 02-02-2019, 11:44 AM  
"Equivalence" between formats and lenses...
Posted By BigMackCam
Replies: 627
Views: 22,027
In response, I'll merely offer the following summary, gifted to me by one of our esteemed members:

"Equivalence" is a system made to match AoV and DoF between different formats, so logically it will be useful when you want to match AoV and DoF between different systems.


:D
Forum: General Photography 02-02-2019, 11:25 AM  
"Equivalence" between formats and lenses...
Posted By BigMackCam
Replies: 627
Views: 22,027
And that's it in a nutshell :)
Forum: General Photography 02-02-2019, 11:23 AM  
"Equivalence" between formats and lenses...
Posted By BigMackCam
Replies: 627
Views: 22,027
I'm just getting used to some new contact lenses, Dave, so that might not be a wise move just yet :lol:
Forum: General Photography 02-02-2019, 11:01 AM  
"Equivalence" between formats and lenses...
Posted By BigMackCam
Replies: 627
Views: 22,027
It's not about me wanting you to start from any assumption. We were, at the time, discussing my genuine use case. Actually, it was two genuine use cases if you take my Bill Cunningham and Lomo LC-A projects together. Maybe I was lucky that equivalence was a good fit for those use cases. But I can't figure out how to express any differently what I was trying to achieve and why.



And I've mentioned again and again the common use case we see in the Welcomes & Introductions forum - the guy who used to shoot a 35mm film camera back in the day, kept his handful of lenses, recently bought an APS-C camera, now wonders why they seem to work differently on his new body, and potentially needs a new lens to give him something close to the experience he had before. He has some experience of 35mm film, is now using APS-C.

I guess we're not likely to move forward on this, so perhaps best to draw a line there :o

Thanks again for participating in the discussion, Alex.
Forum: General Photography 02-02-2019, 09:57 AM  
"Equivalence" between formats and lenses...
Posted By BigMackCam
Replies: 627
Views: 22,027
Just so I know we're not talking at crossed purposes, could you please remind me what the assumption is, and what you question about it? I know these points have been discussed already, but it would save me going back through the entire thread :p :o



Great. All I'm adding to that is, DoF equivalence can be useful too, for the same reasons of comparing between formats. If you disagree, that's fine. But thats all I'm saying.



Asbolutely :D
Forum: General Photography 02-02-2019, 09:45 AM  
"Equivalence" between formats and lenses...
Posted By BigMackCam
Replies: 627
Views: 22,027
No, I really didn't take things personally. I was a little frustrated that we weren't getting through to each other, but I didn't take it personally. My point is, I could have been forgiven if I had. But you see the discussion differently to me, so the point is moot :o



As I said in my reply to Norm, I didn't expect to change anyone's mind. I did, however, hope that the extremely dismissive views on equivalence might soften ever-so-slightly to a point where folks might say, for example,

"I don't agree with using equivalence, and feel there are better ways to achieve the same goals. But I acknowledge it can apply to certain narrow circumstances - and if it's explained properly by those who understand it, that's fine. But I still don't particularly like it".
It seems to me that I was somewhat more open to changing, if only slightly, my views. And I did... slightly. I haven't changed my view that equivalence can be of use. But I've already listed the several points where I've willingly conceded certain points.
Forum: General Photography 02-02-2019, 08:45 AM  
"Equivalence" between formats and lenses...
Posted By BigMackCam
Replies: 627
Views: 22,027
Ha ha :lol:

Honestly, Norm, when I started this thread I didn't set out to convert anyone... It wasn't intended to be some kind of crusade in favour of equivalence. It couldn't have been, since I'm not coming from a position where I think equivalence is the correct, better or best approach :p The purpose was merely to generate discussion and better understand why opinions on it are so polarised. I expected that there'd be a range of opinions presented here, and hoped we might have constructive discussion (and disagreement) with respect for each others' views. What I didn't expect was the strength of negative feeling (vitriol, even) towards the concept, those who've used it and / or those who think it can have valid applications.

My current position acknowledges, and I mostly accept, a number of the excellent (less-emotionally charged) points raised here by those who don't like equivalence. I've softened somewhat (as I summarised previously) to be more mindful of the potential dangers, as well as the absurdity of introducing the concept in discussions where someone only shoots one format with lenses designed for that format - though I'm fairly sure I was never guilty of that in the past; but I'll be even more careful not to make that mistake.



Well, the thread was started to discuss this particular topic, and no-one was coerced to participate. Yet there are clearly those of us who find it an important enough subject to warrant discussion. But I agree with you, it's a minor thing that is often over-thought. I personally don't see it as a big deal.



I can't comment on your estimate. But I'd agree, from what I've seen, that equivalence has a bad reputation with some folks here... and yet, with others, not so. I guess that was what triggered this thread... Obvious disagreement seen in another thread, and others previously.



No argument on the "rough guide" aspect. But I will point out that the 38+ pages of discussion wasn't a one-sided promotion of equivalence... I'd say it was pretty evenly balanced between those that agree and those that disagree with it. In fact, aside from the odd moment where things got a little fractious, that's what I've found most enjoyable about it (if a little frustrating at times :p).

So, I'll say again to everyone who took part in the discussion thus far (and I expect it will gradually tail off now, as I don't think there's much more to be said... famous last words :lol:), "thank you" for your opinions, insight and time in presenting them. For me, at least, it hasn't been wasted :)
Forum: General Photography 02-02-2019, 06:46 AM  
"Equivalence" between formats and lenses...
Posted By BigMackCam
Replies: 627
Views: 22,027
Well, not everyone can comfortably carry large format with them :lol:



I'm not taking it personally, Alex, I promise you - and my apologies if it came across that way.

Although, I could perhaps be forgiven if I was... Examples I've posted of my own use cases have been challenged on their validity. It's been suggested I've manufactured use cases and examples to fit equivalence, when I haven't. It's been suggested that I thought I got value from equivalence when I actually didn't... that, in fact, I had been fooled into thinking I did, when I know that I absolutely did get value from it.

You've mentioned in frequent threads - exaggerated for effect, perhaps - just how harmful and dangerous equivalence is, how its advocates push or force it upon beginners and actually like to cause harm by doing so. That's extreme, in my view, and that remains my biggest concern with your stance... not the fact that we disagree.



I think you got a bit more than that from me, Alex...
I agreed that applying equivalence in a cookie-cutter way without understanding why it works isn't a good thing
I agreed that it can be harmful if poorly explained
I agreed that it doesn't and shouldn't replace fundamental understanding
I agreed that it shouldn't be brought into discussions where someone hasn't already raised it in some form (at least, I think I did - if I didn't, I mention it now)
I even asked for some pointers on literature that would help me to understand how I could have approached my use cases differently (but was effectively told that my use cases were wrong)
And throughout all of the discussions, I've never once said equivalence is the correct, better, or best way of approaching certain situations. Only that it can be useful. And I've never questioned anyone's motives or integrity.

So, I'd like to think I've been quite balanced in all of this.

Conversely, in 38+ pages of discussion, I believe you're still pretty much where you were at from the start. I guess that's what I meant by inflexible.
Forum: General Photography 02-02-2019, 04:31 AM  
"Equivalence" between formats and lenses...
Posted By BigMackCam
Replies: 627
Views: 22,027
... and they're often surprised, too, by how noisy their DSLR photos are when they subsequently stop down to get everything in focus, due to the higher ISO settings required. It's one reason why smaller sensor formats and associated lenses can be beneficial for some types of photography, and why sometimes even a smartphone camera can be the best tool for the job.



Once again, Alex, no-one is forcing "equivalence" down their throats. That's an exaggeration and misrepresentation. Indeed, these comments are far more forceful and inflexible than anything mentioned here by those of us who feel "equivalence" can be useful. We're not forcing anyone to use it :o
Forum: General Photography 02-02-2019, 12:44 AM  
"Equivalence" between formats and lenses...
Posted By BigMackCam
Replies: 627
Views: 22,027
Thank you! I shall read that properly with my second cup of coffee this morning :)

Actually, all my talk of Bill has prompted me to watch "Bill Cunningham New York" again. I never tire of the film, nor the people in it. John Kurdewan features in several sections, and it's clear he was an incredibly valuable and much-loved asset to Bill...



Ha ha :lol:

I'm a little suprised no-one's used this one in relation to our discussions here:

"Don't Panic"


:D
Forum: General Photography 02-01-2019, 04:59 PM  
"Equivalence" between formats and lenses...
Posted By BigMackCam
Replies: 627
Views: 22,027
Douglas Adams... one of the heroes of my youth.

"I’ve got this terrible pain in all the diodes down my left side"... :lol:
Forum: General Photography 02-01-2019, 04:04 PM  
"Equivalence" between formats and lenses...
Posted By BigMackCam
Replies: 627
Views: 22,027
Thanks, Steve. A much-needed injection of humour :p :lol:
Forum: General Photography 02-01-2019, 03:52 PM  
"Equivalence" between formats and lenses...
Posted By BigMackCam
Replies: 627
Views: 22,027
Well summarised. I'd personally edit point 2 to read "Equivalence can cause confusion if explained poorly".

And to all those points, I would answer "strongly agree" :)
Forum: General Photography 02-01-2019, 03:42 PM  
"Equivalence" between formats and lenses...
Posted By BigMackCam
Replies: 627
Views: 22,027
What's quite interesting to me in this thread is, those who - like myself - claim to have found some value in equivalence haven't "pushed" (read "forced") it on anyone as the correct, better or best way of addressing certain scenarios. We've only claimed it's a convenient option. I'd have to read the entire thread again to confirm this, but my overwhelming sense is that we're just saying it can have some value... some degree of convenience. Most (all?) of us that find value in it seem to readily admit it's not a one-size-fits-all solution, nor that it does - or should - replace fundamental understanding. Yet those who oppose it seem very, very strongly opposed and less open-minded to other possibilities...
Forum: General Photography 01-31-2019, 05:56 PM  
"Equivalence" between formats and lenses...
Posted By BigMackCam
Replies: 627
Views: 22,027

"If it looks like a duck, swims like a duck and quacks like a duck, it probably is a duck"...


A great many of your posts in the thread have a lot of emotion behind them, Alex, and that's probably why I've chosen those words. They seemed representative, if - I'll admit - a little exaggerated for effect :lol:

I respect your conviction and emotion (even if I sometimes disagree with the presentation). You clearly care a great deal, and that's admirable :)
Forum: General Photography 01-31-2019, 05:19 PM  
"Equivalence" between formats and lenses...
Posted By BigMackCam
Replies: 627
Views: 22,027
And that's really the biggest area of our disagreement :o

I don't see either of us as correct at the expense of the other, Alex. I respect both approaches and see value in each. You seem intent and vociferous in demonising a concept instead of its mis-informed or poorly-skilled tutors, despite - I might add - all of the concessions I've tried to make along the way.

You can't bundle all those who see some value in equivalence into the same group, claiming they all don't want to explain it properly. That's absurd. There are plenty who understand equivalence - including its clear benefits and limitations - and who are capable of explaining it properly. There are no doubt others who understand it, yet don't explain it well. And then there are the folks who misunderstand it and try to help but fail..

There is nothing malicious in this, and no need for paranoia... the equivalence advocates aren't out to get everyone :p :lol:
Forum: General Photography 01-31-2019, 04:47 PM  
"Equivalence" between formats and lenses...
Posted By BigMackCam
Replies: 627
Views: 22,027
We're never going to agree on this point :p You maintain the concept is the problem, I maintain it's the way it's explained and hence applied. We're just going to have to agree to disagree here. Even so, I don't think we're that far apart...



No - I agree it can be confusing depending on how it's taught (and any aspect of photography can be confusing if it's poorly taught). I don't consider myself to be especially intelligent or clever, yet with minimal research and validation I was able to separate those telling me accurate information from those who were feeding me misinformation (albeit well-meant). The misinformation didn't fundamentally ruin my photographic journey for the next five years. How many of us really take at face value everything we're told without verifying it by considering more than one source of information and trying things out for real?? I'm all for recognising the danger to unsuspecting beginners from poor tutors, but let's not assume they have no independent thought and ingenuity. A few bits of well-meant bad advice won't ruin a photographer if he has half and ounce of sense about him. If it does, I respectfully suggest he has more than equivalence to worry about...
Forum: General Photography 01-31-2019, 03:31 PM  
"Equivalence" between formats and lenses...
Posted By BigMackCam
Replies: 627
Views: 22,027
For me, it depends on the type of image and the intended size and media of reproduction. I'm usually happy if it can look good (which doesn't have to mean noise-free) on a 17" laptop screen or 23 - 24" external monitor. To that end, I'm happy to let ISO float almost without restriction on my K-3 and K-3II. I've plenty of keepers at ISO 3200 - 6400 for that reproduction size, and a good few above that - though post-processing is even more important at those levels, of course. On my old GX-10 (K10D) I tend to prefer ISO 400 as the limit, but will go to 800 without concern if necessary...
Forum: General Photography 01-31-2019, 02:09 PM  
"Equivalence" between formats and lenses...
Posted By BigMackCam
Replies: 627
Views: 22,027
I like that summary and comparison. I will say, I can imagine some folks may take issue with the last statement - that deep knowledge isn't really needed to use a rule of thumb - because less experienced users may rely on the rule of thumb without learning the reasons why it works. But that happens in so many aspects of photography, and the user of the concept has a responsibility to apply time and effort to increase their understanding accordingly, if they wish to grow in ability.



TAv is my favourite shooting mode, especially since a lot of my photography is in variable and/or less than ideal light. When creative control over motion capture (or otherwise) and depth of field are pre-requisites - and they are for me, most of the time - it's a fantastic mode :)
Search took 0.01 seconds | Showing results 1 to 25 of 120

 
Forum Jump


All times are GMT -7. The time now is 04:58 PM. | See also: NikonForums.com, CanonForums.com part of our network of photo forums!
  • Red (Default)
  • Green
  • Gray
  • Dark
  • Dark Yellow
  • Dark Blue
  • Old Red
  • Old Green
  • Old Gray
  • Dial-Up Style
Hello! It's great to see you back on the forum! Have you considered joining the community?
register
Creating a FREE ACCOUNT takes under a minute, removes ads, and lets you post! [Dismiss]
Top