relative size difference m43/APS/FE

addy landzaat wrote: LAbernethy wrote: The equivalence theory is very nice. It creates strife wherever it goes because it keeps banging into reality and the practical. Can you elaborate? I agree that the relevance of equivalence theory at times is overstated, but it does describe reality I think. I can test it and seems correct. What am I missing?

When I raise a camera and lens to my eye, I'm thinking about subject, light, gesture, framing, context, et cetera.

I am not doing a grade school math exercise: Tommy has a 6.1MP Minolta 7D with a 600mm lens and Tammy has 61MP Sony A7RIV with a Sony FE 28-70MM lens. They are both photographing a charging Grizzly Bear ....

Equivalence is some simple facts on how the AoV an aperture determines some fundamental aspect of the images such as DoF, noise and the effect of diffraction. It does not need proponents.
It is a sensible thing to understand as it will help set your system optimally. There is a reason after all that f/64 is typically not available in our systems although it makes perfect sense on other systems.
I never understood why this simple concept is so controversial

addy landzaat wrote: Jonas A-R wrote: I never understood why this simple concept is so controversial It is controversial because sometimes it is not relevant - the f/6.7 on the long end for the Olympus 75-300 and f/6.3 for the Sony (APS) 70-350 will make little difference in real live in decent light and you're able to use, say, around 800iso for a decent shutterspeed. Yes, the Olympus set might be at 1000iso with a slightly smaller sensor - but that is not a huge difference and both pictures will be more then acceptable in most cases.

Equivalence quickly lets you calculate that the difference is 1.25stops, so the m4/3 ISO800 shot would give the same noise as APSC ISO1900 at the same shutter speed.
Whether that is acceptable and irrelevant will probably differ from user to user


Edited by Jonas A-R - 07 December 2021 at 16:49

If shooting on film you might have a point. It's bits and bites. Ones and Zeros. But you still shoot in the moment with what you have.

Jonas A-R wrote: I never understood why this simple concept is so controversial

I think people who make equivalence controversial might do so for various reasons.

If they only ever shoot with one format, and don't anticipate adding a different format, it's of little value to them.

Large sensor shooters might resent being reminded that smaller sensor systems can often produce equivalent photos.

Small sensor shooters might resent being reminded that larger sensor systems can often produce photos that can't be made with existing small sensor systems.

And, as I said earlier, I think many who raise objections around equivalence have simply made incorrect assumptions about what it is intended to predict.

Others like you and me, who perhaps use multiple formats, and who know what equivalence is intended (and not intended) to predict regard it as a simple and helpful tool.

addy landzaat wrote: sybersitizen wrote: I think people who make equivalence controversial might do so for various reasons ... Others like you and me, who perhaps use multiple formats, and who know what equivalence is intended (and not intended) to predict regard it as a simple and helpful tool. Let me look up exceptionalism To me the most annoying bit is the people who kept on mentioning it in all situations it was not relevant. It is a very technical view of photography and not all photographers are mathematicians. Not everybody is interested. I know and understand it, but in many cases it is irrelevant to me. Might be different for you, but it is to me. So, I understand it and use it when it is relevant for the case, but in many cases I am not interested to discuss it. I might want to explain it to somebody when it is relevant.

I was explaining why I think some people make equivalence controversial. If someone really understands what it's about but finds related discussions annoying or boring, that shouldn't be a matter of controversy. Just avoid those discussions.

Edited by sybersitizen - 07 December 2021 at 19:44

sybersitizen wrote: Jonas A-R wrote: I never understood why this simple concept is so controversial I think people who make equivalence controversial might do so for various reasons. If they only ever shoot with one format, and don't anticipate adding a different format, it's of little value to them. Large sensor shooters might resent being reminded that smaller sensor systems can often produce equivalent photos. Small sensor shooters might resent being reminded that larger sensor systems can often produce photos that can't be made with existing small sensor systems. And, as I said earlier, I think many who raise objections around equivalence have simply made incorrect assumptions about what it is intended to predict. Others like you and me, who perhaps use multiple formats, and who know what equivalence is intended (and not intended) to predict regard it as a simple and helpful tool.

Good points. Equivalence can be boiled down to: there is no free lunch