[Brightcolours]

in my eyes, this equivalence debate is rather bullshit. Like comparing a remote toy plane to a delta-glider to a airplane - all of them can do things the others can't and only complete idiots would say the toy plane flying at 80km/h is equivalent fast or loud to the 10 times bigger jet flying at 800km/h.

 

Forcing scales go be equal is pointless and not helpful at all, especially if the consumers buying smaller cameras do it with the reason to have a smaller camera. What good for is it to tlell people who never used a camera what equivalence the FL is? I never looked to a 2000 mm lens and onyl once through a 1000 mm pointing at the other side of the street. How this lens behave in the wild - how could I know? And regarding the article: I just browsed over it, but if he wants to equivalence, he really should be able to bring the subjects to the same size, otherwise it's comparing apples with bananas.

We know you think it is bullshit, but you always come up with bullshit comparisons like that plane stuff above.  It makes no sense what so ever.

Equivalent lenses just is about understanding how to get a same certain FOV and/or certain DOF with different formats. Something real photographers have done through the decades.

 

And the planes thing above? They obviously have nothing the same. Indeed one needs to be a complete idiot to say above stuff about the planes, and it has no equivalence to the lens equivalence subject. You refuse to get lens equivalence, which is fine. But then refrain from posting about it in this manner?