[Guest]

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 80 km/h is equivalent fast or loud to the 10 times bigger jet flying at 800 km/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.

 

I'm pretty sure there isn't a debate, because it *is*. It would be like debating gravity.

 

Which is actually a pretty good analogy - the gravity on Jupiter is different from on Earth. Yet we can compare Jupiter to Earth, even though the result is somewhat meaningless since a human couldn't exist on Jupiter.

 

So what that the 45mm f/1.8 shot is only exactly identical to the 90mm f/3.6 in a completely hypothetical/perfect/impossible world. It gives a benchmark. And 135 film is better than any other metric to compare.