Let me give you another example. I'm a biker. When I'm travelling sometimes I see a scene worth a photo. I could use my phone, but that doesn't allow the control of the image that I want. I have a full-frame kit. To take that on the bike it needs to go in a bag somewhere, strapped to the bike. This makes the process of stopping for a photo somewhat cumbersome and reduces the fin of the trip. So I have another kit. It's a Panasonic GX80 along with the 12-32 and 35-100 zooms. That whole kit fits into a little belt bag. Now I just have to stop, take out the camera, change the lens if necessary, and take my shots. Put it all back again and carry on. Now, being mainly an FF users I'm accustomed to the settings that I want for FF to achieve the shot I want to take. Equivalence tells me what settings to use on the GX80. I've used it enough now that I don't have to think about it. But it is the equivalence theory that explains what is the basis of those decisions. You see many mFT and APS-C users just using the settings for FF, because that is what they see in discussion. No idea that 'f/8 and be there' is 'f/5.6 and be there' in APS-C and 'f/4 and be there' in mFT. The point really is knowing what settings to use if you move from system to system - or if you're a Canon or Nikon user, how to change settings if you're using the 'interchangeable body' idea. One set of lenses, bodies of different sensor size to optimise for different shooting situations. No one'e ever going to do equivalence calculations on the fly - but it gives the underpinning for how to handle the different sensor sizes situation.
Old fogeys like us were brought up mostly in a single format world, where one 'sensor size' had dominance, mostly caused by what processing labs were willing to do - and the constraints if you used a format which needed specialist processing. With digital it really doesn't matter much what the sensor size is. ILC's have some constraints. Equivalence also comes in handy making purchasing decisions, letting you understand what you might get from different options with different sensor sizes. For instance, I see a lot of people shelling out for FF when for the photography they do a smaller format would cover everything they do with the same quality, but they paid the cost of not understanding equivalence in terms of price, size and weight.
March 29, 2024
189
-
-
Yes, it makes me very grumpy when someone says something like "You don't understand the fundamentals of photography" and then goes on a diatribe where he gets just about everything wrong.
I like the bit where he saysIt is.
The problem I have is responding to posts like that without it looking like a put-down. -
I also cycle (a Brompton) and have a bag on the front where I can put my FF cameras. I agree that getting the gear out of this is not ideal. But more to the point, when I am using my Sony RX-100, I just look through the viewfinder and, if I cant achieve the framing I want with the zoom lever, I move closer or farther, if possible. It has never occurred to me to calculate this, and I have never even concerned myself with equivalence, which I probably dont understand. The process is entirely empirical for me. The same goes for positioning microphones when doing recording sessions. Now, if I am using prime lenses, I do have to think a little to choose the one I need, though it is usually the one I left at home that day. I solved that problem by getting a fixed lens camera!
Am I a hopeless case?
David
-
The arguments that arise with this and other similar arguments, are caused by a clash of personalities between the "empirical" photographer who operates using gut feeling or experience (or inexperience), and those who operate using technical aspects of the craft, to back up their choices. Just two different ways of operating, with shades of grey between the two extremes.
For me personally, I believe the theoretical basis of equivalence is undoubtedly correct, but when we throw lens characteristics such as resolving power, differences in sensor technology and I quess some other factors into the mix, the question drifts towards approximation.
Personally, I lean towards understanding the results my particular camera, with the particular lens I am using produces. I quess equivalence might be useful in giving me a rough starting point, if I am changing camera sensor size.
-
No, I've not responded at all yet. To be honest, there was so much confused information in his response that I didn't know where to start nor if he would listen.
-
I think I am with David on this (another hopeless case).
I look at a scene and my thought processes go something like this:
- Can I frame what I want with the lenses/cameras I have with me? Either by using the lenses I have or by stepping forward/backwards (or both) until I can get what I want.
- Do I need to mess around with the aperture to get the DoF that I want?
- Do I need to mess around with the shutter speed to get the image I want (e.g. with snow falling, I need a faster speed to capture flakes rather than streaks).
Is the end result OK looking through the viewfinder? If so "click".
I've never thought about 'equivalence' because it has no relevance for me. I've mainly had APS-C cameras since 2004 and one FF one.
Alan
-
Yes Bob, it was a completely bewildering response. I don't know enough to comprehensively respond but I am doubtful anyway that he would be open to correction!
-
You're right. People are very resistant to finding out that their whole conceptual framework is crooked. But that's not the main reason for challenging this nonsense. We have a problem with internet media, not confined to photography - which is that people are exposed to all kinds of uncurated opinion, from people posing as experts - and these wonky ideas spread like wildfire. So, when someone posts this kind of rubbish it needs answering, lest others decide that because it went unanswered it must be right.
-
Do you remember to press the DOF preview button to check whether it's 'OK'? Plus of course, it works if your definition of 'OK' is covered by the mistitled 'exposure simulation' in the VF, not if you're trying to do something different.
-
Of course not. I'm a firm believer that anyone should practice photography in any way that they like, and in the end if one wants to grade photographers (which is invidious) then it's results that count. The only point is this, if a piece of knowledge is not something that you use, why deny it and in doing so claim that the facts are other than they are? That makes no sense at all.
-
I'm not so sure about that. There need be no clash because everyone is free to operate their hobby or business in any way that they like. I know many fantastic photographers who don't know much at all about the technical stuff. Having an eye for a shot and a creative approach to composition trump any amount of technical knowledge. I suspect that the issue is more mediocre photographers whose only prop is what they think is their technical knowledge. When that's challenged they become very defensive. Even worse are the ones who have erected another prop, devoted adherence to a particular brand.
-
Yes, if I remember to do that (and if it matters for the picture I am taking).
I agree. It's nice with my X100VI where I have the option of an optical viewfinder. That doesn't give me DoF but is an interesting alternative view.
Alan
-
I don't know. Has the horse has already bolted? Meaning it's too late or just impossible to counter the wildfire.
I was always of the view of countering misinformation. But last few decades of real life experiences (internet is just a mirror), countering misinfo mostly just leads to shooting the messenger. I always wondered what all the talk about gen X,Y,Z's was. There is a weird illogical sense of entitlement seems to be ballooning these days. People want to believe they know, before they have done any groundwork. We all want to believe we know things, but the checks and balances have been thrown out the door.
-
I am reminded of an article in Newsweek written by Isaac Asimov and entitled "A Cult of Ignorance" in which he said:
"There is a cult of ignorance in the United States, and there always has been. The strain of anti-intellectualism has been a constant thread winding its way through our political and cultural life, nurtured by the false notion that democracy means that 'my ignorance is just as good as your knowledge'."
The date of that article was January 1980.
Things do seem to be getting worse and it extends way beyond the United States. Sadly, politicians with an authoritarian tendency have always used it to their advantage.
-
In reality I suspect a lot of the misconceptions arise because of the advent of digital brought in initially a lot of people with no background in photography. The "equivalence" concept is somewhat useful but there are so many misconceptions that it can cause more problems than it solves. The add the Internet to spread misconceptions like a brush fire in August and there is no wonder we are where we are. Back when I was active, I used 35 mm (Leica M4) for "street" work, a Mamiya 645 and RB 67 medium formats for general fine arts work and a 4x5 for landscape. Back in those days I never heard of the term "equivalence" applied to camera formats. What one did was to gain the muscle memory associated with each camera by not only understanding the fundamental physics behind the equations but through using the cameras. The first time I encountered the term "equivalence" was when I was considering transitioning from film.
The concept is good for a few things, like when deciding what format to buy for your requirements. But that is about it. At the end of the day I expect it causes more confusion than it solves.
-
I have just posted a response to explain it again so we will see how that goes.
Lucky it's all happening in PMs. If this was in the open forum I have no doubt I'd be sandboxed by now for making Olympus owners unhappy. 😱
-
Whatever is being discussed in PMs, I believe DPReview moderators are able to read those under at least some conditions. And, obviously, if someone in a private message discussion feels that the messaging is abusive or violates the forum guidelines, that person can lodge a complaint that could also result in sandboxing or banning. Just something to think about.
