Re: “Full Frame Equivalence” and Why It Doesn’t Matter
alundeb wrote: Jman13 wrote:
The article wasn\'t written for FMers...you guys know this stuff.
Thanks for that clarification! I thought the remarks about people going on about equivalence included some of us here. I should have remembered that if you write articles of interest to us, you share them here yourself.
About the rabiat fanboys, I can understand that some people feel provoked. Like when you say that a 35-100 mm f/2.8 lens is equivalent to a 70-200 mm f/2.8 except DOF. You know that this is not the case, not for shutter speed. IMO you are fuelling the attacks yourself by pretending the smaller format has advantages that are not real, even though you know better.
I don\'t believe anywhere in the article do I say that smaller formats are better than larger formats for any reason. I do poi t out several situations where the image quality advantage of larger formats are negated, and these cases are absolutely true.
There seems to be a base misunderstanding that I\'m trying to put smaller formats above full frame. I\'m not. In no way shape or form. I also am not saying it isn\'t useful if you think in terms of 35mm FOV via focal length. And I even say so in the article. That is what crop factors are useful for. The main gist is that people need to stop immediately looking at something like the 35-100/2.8 and saying things like, \"its really only a 70-200 f/5.6\". It gives similar FOV and minimum depth of field as that on full frame but that is only relevant if you are somehow trying to gain back full frame levels of shallow depth of field, or you are somehow trying to get m4/3 to exactly match the output of a full frame system, which is a fools errand.
Feb 03, 2013 at 07:08 AM
Previous versions of Jman13's message #11320695 « “Full Frame Equivalence” and Why It Doesn’t Matter »
