11-16-2017, 05:17 PM
Are you trying to confuse me? 
If the aperture is f/2.8 and the shutter speed of two systems is the same, ISO will also be the same - the effect will be different because of the multiplication to "the (bloody) same size of picture" - this idea of "same size picture" is wrong!
Why fooling around with multiplication factors and pretend the only thing what counts is a final image of THE SAME size for all equivalenced sensor? One doesn't need to be a scientist to remember the effect of different film format sizes but that shitty waste of time called "equivalence" NEVER mattered in times of analogue film - why this ongoing useless debate today while none of the equivalence preachers can truly deliver the exact equivalence - which also goes for the amplification of different sensors. Who ever said a small smartphone sensor has to deliver the same poster size picture like a medium format?
Working with false assumptions is not helpful
If the aperture is f/2.8 and the shutter speed of two systems is the same, ISO will also be the same - the effect will be different because of the multiplication to "the (bloody) same size of picture" - this idea of "same size picture" is wrong!
Why fooling around with multiplication factors and pretend the only thing what counts is a final image of THE SAME size for all equivalenced sensor? One doesn't need to be a scientist to remember the effect of different film format sizes but that shitty waste of time called "equivalence" NEVER mattered in times of analogue film - why this ongoing useless debate today while none of the equivalence preachers can truly deliver the exact equivalence - which also goes for the amplification of different sensors. Who ever said a small smartphone sensor has to deliver the same poster size picture like a medium format?
Working with false assumptions is not helpful