I find this thread quite an interesting read. My opinion can stir so much here but have yet to be proved otherwise from my original statement. It's really a true statement from the dawn of photography. I'll just say that consider how wet-plates, to dry plates, to roll film and to digital have been made to make the art form more convienent. Yet the actual art form of composition in the frame, predates photography by thousands of years.
So you do now admit there is no difference between a portrait taken with a 135mm @ f2 and a 100mm a little closer for the same framing @ f2.8? http://www.canonrumors.com/forum/index.php?topic=12567.msg226691#msg226691
If equipment doesn't matter where are you going to get your 35% more compression from?Quote"- 35% more compression. = a unique rendering physically because of focal length.
- 1 stop advantage = a unique rendering physically because of aperture."
Or a 200 f2 and a 135 f2? http://www.canonrumors.com/forum/index.php?topic=12545.msg223532#msg223532
Exactly. Just how you view f/4 and f/2.8 are virtually the same. Doesn't matter.
I could shoot MF film to get a similar look but its more inconvienent for me. I'd shoot a more inconvienent system if need be and still get my photos.
If you take a comment out of context you can make anything up. A FF f4 and a crop camera f2.8 are virtually the same!
But your latest outlandish comment states, by logical extension, depth of field has no importance in photography. You claim you can shoot any image with any camera give enough time and application, how do you limit the dof with your box brownie, P&S or iPhone to get you the same "unique look" as your FF camera and your 135 f2 wide open? You can't. You are just being stubborn, obtuse and foolish.
like I said before, I'm not going to answer every single situation you present, that's for your imagination. You find the answer but I already know of a few to the one you mentioned above. I'll leave it at that.