DPReview:What is equivalence and why should I care?

[Saracen]

Cannon was able to get people to switch away from perfectly good lenses because they changed the mount, they did this because the pull of digital photography was just to great, the benefits outweighed the cons.

I can see that happening for tiny camera system. My biggest dislike is that the 4/3rds just don't have the focusing I like, plus I've yet to use an EVF that is as good as a pentaprisim SLR, however, none of these are related to the sensor directly. Phase vs Contrast detection debates aside (or even that hybrid I think it was canon were doing).

One of the worst arguments people give against disruptive tech, is that the established legacy is a good thing. For instance I'd really like the 560mm Pentax have made, ok it's far too expensive, but I'd like it. Then again, would I take it with me next month? Lug that heavy SOB two flights, 15 hours to Bali? Carry it on the MRT on my stop-over? Nope. Meanwhile, someone with a smaller sensor.....

Myself I think that I'd want the smallest possible, but as I said before there are some limitations of the world, at least as far as I understand it, the whole particle and a wave thing never really sits well in my mind letting me understand it.

Do you mean EFS/EF? What about FD?

The FD to EF switch gave a convincing reason to switch, yet a lot of people stayed with FD for a long time, and some still use FD mounts, and even bodies. I would be one of them.

EF to EF-S was a bit more subtle since, if you had EF lenses (and I do) they would still work with new camera bodies, but if you needed a new lens to work with existing bodies you had, it might rule out buying EF-S lenses. Or it might not, depending on the existing body. It didn't necessitate replacing all your existing lenses .... though with a crop factor body you might want to add an ultra-wide if you needed that field of view.

As for me, I wouldn't necessarily argue against "disruptive" tech because the established tech is "good". Merely that I already have the established kit I need, that it does the job I need and that the significant cost of switching isn't justified by the relatively marginal benefits.

I'm not arguing against "disruptive tech". Not in photo kit, anyway. Just that I can't see it as suiting me. If I were starting from scratch, now, would I go 35mm'style DSLR or 4/3rd, or whatever? Dunno. I'd give all suitable routes a very firm audit. Right now, I'm a Canon user. Even if I stayed with 35mm-style DSLRs, it MIGHT not be Canon .... though in reality, it likely would. But, I'm starting where I am, not from scratch.

[CAT-THE-FIFTH]

It depends, with me, where I'm going when I do the lugging. And why. And for how long. If I'm going for the day, or a couple of hours, it's probably for a specific purpose, and I take what's relevant for that purpose, like macro shots in the woods, or bluebell scenes. But I used to go transatlantic several times a year, often for business, but with a leisure element too. I might take one lens for a trade show in Vegas, a couple for for landscape shots during a couple of days at the Grand Canyon, and the macro gear for a week visiting relatives somewhere else in the US. Ditto for product shots visiting Epson in Japan, but different lenses for a side trip to Mount Fuji, some time spent with Cherry blossom trees in Tokyo, or the spectacular fall leaves in the mountains, and yet something else for a trip to historic Kyoto.

Sometimes, I can be quite selective in what I lug, but sometimes, not.

The thing is though I found more and more often,I tended to try and get the most of out of what I had on the camera. Changing the lens a million times,means I am more likely to miss a shot(light changing or scene changing) and the best lens is the one on your camera(not in your bag at that moment!),plus it does not help that in certain situations I would rather not be changing the lens anyway especially on digital bodies. TBH,I also got fed up of lugging a load of lenses anyway,just because I "might" use them,and even then you might wish you had some other lens for that one shot,which you don't have and so on.

Then the other issue is storage. If you are with family and friends you might be able to keep some lenses safely,but in a hotel there is no guarantee that things will get nicked especially in a poorer country.

Adding to that many of the more modern zooms are good enough of a compromise IMHO,and better than many dedicated primes it seems.

But even that can lead to people wanting multiple zoom lenses covering the 12 to 600MM range,plus the monopod and a tripod for good measure,and so on.

I suppose if it is a job,then you might need to,but sometimes I like to enjoy the ride too!!

[Saracen]

I hear you, Cat, and up to a point, agree. But, given that my main interest is macro, you're simply not going to get what I want with any waljabout lens, when what I need is a 100mm macro, or an MPE-65, and the MT-24 twinflash. Similarly, ever tried taking a portrait or landscape with an MPE65?

Though, I concede, the 100mm macro is a good portrait lens, and even the twinflas has it's uses.

Sometimes, only a narrow-purpise lens will get you the shot, but can be of little use, or no use at all, outside of that narrow purpose. The MPE is probably the ultimate example of that.

So, yeah, I agree up to a point, but only up to a point.

[CAT-THE-FIFTH]

I get what you are saying,using a 24MM lens would not work when taking pictures of Elephants or at an airshow instead of a 400MM!! Maybe,what I meant to say,is that I wouldn't be talking every one of my lenses with me - if I was going to an airshow I would be taking only one tele with me(maybe two),if I was going for a walk in the lake district I wouldn't be taking a tele lens(unless I was trying to catch some of the RAF aircraft in training) and so on. Even if I was going on a longish trip,I still probably would not take everything with me,unless I had friends who I was staying with. For example I would not want to take 5 to 8 lenses with me everytime I left the hotel.

Even travel insurance only covers proven theft - its easy for someone like the cleaner with access to your room or anyone with a key to the safe to steal valuables especially in a poorer country and its your word against theirs.

I think as I get older,I prefer to carry the least amount of valuable stuff I can when travelling - personally I think it causes less headaches. Even looking at what I have now,I have loads of lenses,but in reality I only use a fraction of them. Some of the others are nice older lenses which I do use them sometimes,but I think I seem to enjoy owning them more than actually using them. Perhaps I need to ditch the whole shebang and start again!!

[Saracen]

I think we agree that, rather than take everything (and hire a lorry) we take a practical minimum. The question is .... what's a practical minimum?

As I said earlier, if I'm going to Bluebell woods, I might take one lens. But, if going abroad for several weeks, I'm likely to want to do several different types of outing, which will require more lenses.

I'm certainly tending away from a more purist approach, suggesting that just because lens A is better for a given project than lens B, I automatically go for lens A. I will often go for what's good enough, not what's best. What I choose for a wedding if I'm just a guest would be different to what I might choose to use if I've been asked to provide "official" photos. Though, to be honest, I've managed to avoid doing that for some years, and these days (for non-photographic reasons) would almost certainly simply refuse any such request. But if I went on a trip because someone had commissioned photos, the standard I'd expect of myself might well be different to going on that trip for a holiday, when any photos would be my holiday pics. For the former, I use the best lens I can for the job, but for my holiday pics, I'd probably use a superzoom that's good enough for my snaps, and a lot less mucking about with lens changing, and with lugging it about.

To be honest, I have been known to take a little Olympus compact, a C2020 I've had for years, or a newer Panasonic TZ25 point 'n' shoot. It is, for most of my snaps, good enough .... and stands out a hell of a lot less than a DSLR and flipping great lens. And I can get it in my shirt pocket.

In the past, I have been known to spend so much time getting photos of things the holiday felt more like a commissioned shoot. No longer, though.