I was thinking the same thing. What's important isn't the absolute comparison, but that we each get familiar with the equipment we use and apply it to the task at hand in a satisfying manner.

I use Micro 4/3, which has a nominal 2X magnification factor (not a crop factor, because the lenses are NATIVE to the format, unlike putting a full frame lens on APS-C). But I've used other formats, and understand the lens choices I needed to make for each of them.

In the photo lab where I worked back in the film days, we had equivalence charts that matched focal length and field of view coverage across both film formats and brands of lenses. They were helpful. Also helpful were depth of field indicators on lenses, which have all but disappeared. Now I carry the DOFC (depth of field calculator) app on my phone for the rare instances when I need to be precise.

We worry far too much about finding the perfect camera, lens, brand, format... When simple photographic education and experiences are what we need. I learn more behind the camera or in front of photo software than I do from endless debates about what gizmo is best. The proof is in the photograph.

I cook, and I don't know that anyone has ever asked me what pot or pan I used... Either they like the dish, or they don't.

Glad you finally agree, that parameters can be changed to get a shallow DOF.

AS far as name calling look in a mirror to see who is disingenuous.

Someone who is disingenuous is slightly dishonest and insincere in what they say.

I am neither.... And you know I'm right,

Oh yes, fast lenses, today, are used more for low light situations, and for a faster shutter speed.

Why do you and your friend always have to be so rude and ridicule people all the time, and call them names. When you point your finger at some, remember, you have three more pointing at you.

Have a nice day....

Wouldnt that be somewhat counter productive volume-wise ?

I find that a perfectly good substitute for color coding is just noting the post count. Verrrrry approximately, any thread past about 25 posts or arriving at page three always has a minimal infomation quotient and a commensurately sky high entertainment quotient.

&&&&&&&&&&&&&&&&&&&&&&&&&

Well OK, some topics such as "Camera Straps" never become contentious even after several pages. But nevertheless, even though such threads obviously will never have a "sky high" entertainment quotient, any thread beyond two or three pages about "camera straps" will get to be about 98% mildly amusing and at best perhaps 2% useful info. Amusement isnt in the content, but simply in the *magnitude* of repetitious posts about a very limited topic, the manic need to participate by those with absolutely nothing new to add. Its amusing.