11-15-2017, 04:35 PM
I will not waste more time into pointless equivalence discussions. I remain convinced it's only working fine in theory. In practice, it's not working and only kind of a crutch to roughly translate one giben FL on one sensor to another one. One cannot scale up or down apertures and FLs without scaling up or down tolerances of the used machinery and output.
That's very clear visible in wide-angle and ultra wide-angles - the closer FL goes towards 0, the more the lenses on smaller sensors struggle and show flaws everywhere. Be it corners, centers, CA, flares: For wide angle the sensor can't be too big. Opposite situation in Tele: The flaws are no longer in the lens or too big tolerances, but in it's user (shaking and needing high ISO to get shorter shutter speeds), the atmospheric conditions (wind, dust or mist).
The equivalencing game is working in theory - not so much in reality. Telling else is ignoring the limits of manufacturing and shooting conditions - no one is shooting in deep space, as no one gets close to absolute 0° K
That's very clear visible in wide-angle and ultra wide-angles - the closer FL goes towards 0, the more the lenses on smaller sensors struggle and show flaws everywhere. Be it corners, centers, CA, flares: For wide angle the sensor can't be too big. Opposite situation in Tele: The flaws are no longer in the lens or too big tolerances, but in it's user (shaking and needing high ISO to get shorter shutter speeds), the atmospheric conditions (wind, dust or mist).
The equivalencing game is working in theory - not so much in reality. Telling else is ignoring the limits of manufacturing and shooting conditions - no one is shooting in deep space, as no one gets close to absolute 0° K