[toni-a]

https://www.dpreview.com/articles/266693...uld-i-care

[southerncross]

Many ways to skin a cat, some a little better than others. Though f/2 on FF makes more sense than the equivalent f/1.0 on the m4/3 sensor. Then again m4/3 makes more sense than Sony FE for a travel system.

[JJ_SO]

If you had posted that earlier, Toni-A, you would have saved Klaus some work. 
 
At 2014, all was said, including the stuff he avoided like f1/4 remains f/1.4 in terms of shutter speed to aperture combination. And like the small hint, that all what is said is valid for cameras roughly around the same generation. A 2008 D3x at 24.5 MP is something different in terms of noise than a current D750 or a 20.8 MP D5 of 2016. As well as in terms of dynamic range which is just another part of the game.
 
I like also to quote Toshihisa Iida:

Some of the F2 and F2.8 lenses you’ve announced will give similar depth of field to F1.4 lenses on full-frame. At that point, what advantage is there to medium-format imaging?
By the numbers, depth of field might be similar, but we think that the actual images look different.
And it’s not just about depth of field. There’s wider dynamic range, and greater resolution and so on. Overall there’s a lot of benefit from using a medium-format sensor.

 
I think, the more I read about, the equivalencing game is a nice try to equalize out what can't be equalized beyond a certain degree. It's all and not only a couple of numbers. But nice to show off or argue around other more meaningful matters.

[obican]

Slightly irrelevant but I love how this little information sometimes makes some heads explode:

 

At the same sensor size and aperture, DOF is actually determined by the magnification ratio.

[JJ_SO]

^_^ Also, airy-discs as (the only) scale for DoF depend on certain resolution. Bringing up the ISO changes also the impression of DoF although the landscape photogs hardly work above ISO 800. Meaning, "equivalence" becomes straightforward useless if I take pictures in a situation I have to use wide open aperture and am just grateful I can open it that far.

[obican]

Fuji has two DOF scales, one calibrated for film and one for digital. Should they also do one for high ISO?

[JJ_SO]

"calibrated"  :lol: 

 

Good one...

[Rover]

Except now FF isn't the hottest thing after the Sun's core, so I dare everyone obsessed with equivalence to always do a calculation in medium format figures as well... (all five of the medium formats to boot...)

[obican]

How shall we calculate the DOF equivalance for 6x6 format? Vertically? Horizontally? Diagonally? Depending on how you measure them, 80/2.8 in 6x6 would be equivalent to a 35/1.2, 50/1.8 and a 43/1.5 in 35mm format respectively.

 

Funny thing is, 35/1.2 would get a lot of people excited, 50/1.8 sounds like a cheap kit lens and 43/1.5 is just confusing to most people, yet they are equal to the same lens in 6x6 depending on how you measure them .

[Rover]

That just serves to underline how evasive (and frankly, phony sounding - at least to me) the whole concept is. Snake oil anyone?