Upload & Sell: On
| p.2 #3 · “Full Frame Equivalence” and Why It Doesn’t Matter |
The article wasn't written for FMers...you guys know this stuff. It is not meant to discourage the legitamate comparison if you are most familiar with full frame and find it convenient to think in those terms. Nor is it in any way meant to promote smaller formats...it's really a response to rabid fanboys on the opposite spectrum. I get crazy rabid comments and emails that effusively purport that all crop lenses are garbage, and the main justification for this is that smaller formats can't do as shallow depth of field. The times when more depth of field are desired, and thus many of the advantages of larger sensors are negated, are conveniently ignored.
As to the total light argument...the reason I bring it up is because in the real world it is nowhere a direct correlation to image quality based solely on sensor size. For the ratio to hold, it requires that the sensor technologies are the same, and have the same efficiencies, etc, which makes it valuable for approximating how one sensor design may scale with size, but is terrible as a blanket equivalence based on sensor size alone. I agree that the IS argument had no place in the discussion, and actually got on to remove it before coming here...it has since been removed.
Frankly, the crazy analogies by many (non FMers) became quite annoying. While in some cases, things are simplified due to trying to avoid getting bogged down in the weeds, I don't think there's anything factually incorrect.
You guys are not really the target audience. People here understand the relationships between formats and also understand its all about making the best image. Frankly, when the article went viral this morning, I kind of hoped it wouldn't get discussed here, as FM tends to stay out of this discussion most of the time, and it's refreshing. And that was the point....it'd be nice if everyone thought more like this crowd.