The interwebs are once again aflame (sarcasm alert) with a recent post on Digital Photography Review concerning digital camera ‘equivalence’ (no, I’m not going to provide a link, find it yourself). Ever since digital cameras were introduced, professional-amateur photographers (an oxymoron if ever there was one), have spent half their lives debating why one format is superior or inferior to another. Most of the mass debating is done by those who have the most extensive portfolio of duck photographs one can imagine.
Now you might wonder why, from what you would assume to be perfectly reasonable people, would there be such angst and warfare over such issues. If you ever find an answer, please post it somewhere for all to read. The sad thing is, all of this detracts from the very basis of what photography is about, which is pretty much just recording things and events that have meaning to you and yours, unless of course you are a professional photographer actually working to someone else’s remit, when slightly different rules may apply. But even then it often doesn’t matter, if the end result is good enough, no one cares whether it came from a $50 phone camera or a $60,000 medium format camera.
But when it comes to professional-amateur photographers, the real world simply doesn’t accord with their beliefs. Only Scheimpflug principles, Nyquist frequencies, inverse square laws et al prevail, as these optical worriers attempt to debunk any notions by non-specialists that suggest they just like to take photographs and the camera doesn’t really matter. Most of them just blow a lot of smoke.
Then again, these things just keep the interwebs turning over, giving the professional-amateur photographer something to argue about between duck seasons. Meanwhile, amateur and professional photographers go about their business simply taking photographs, enjoying themselves and/or making a living.