02-04-2016, 04:47 PM
Quote:Finally, there's some common ground: everybody is different. Besides, I'm not sure if I'm in a minority or not, but I don't mix different systems in my workflow - the most I had at one given time were 1.3x and 1.6x cameras. Therefore, I did juggle lenses around to get "a lil' wider" or "a lil' longer" than I would otherwise have, but I was never making a big deal of DOF.Klaus already pretty eloquently explained why equivalent f-values does not open a can of worms (other than maybe internet forum troll-worms), not even where noise is concerned
I had and have fast lenses (f/1.4 primes and f/2.8 zooms - all right, I'm down to one of each now) but most of the time I was using them for working in low light, not for any special defocus effects. I have a 85/1.4 in my sights that may be more in line with what you say, but I'll use it for low light again, because I wouldn't know what to do with it otherwise.
Ah. If only. <_<
Since I can't use my Canon lenses on it, what's the point? I'll need to get a dedicated set of lenses anyway, and they have their own nomenclature. Luckily I know the multiplier in the case of Âµ4/3, but if you had been speaking of medium format (it'd take a rrrrreally rrrrrrich girlfriend, I agree), I would've been totally at sea. Therefore, I feel little need for calculations - it'd be easier to just memorize the (approximate) multipliers and just act by feel.
Besides, juggling the aperture numbers is opening a can of worms because there are a few quite odd concepts evolving - especially if you start bringing noise into that equation as some people do...