spt_gb
Senior Member
and some subsequent cameras used Imperal formats, which were based on an 8.5x6.5" plate, but 8x10" glass plates were also used and considered to be a full sized plate.
-
Welcome to the new forums! Please read this first. For known issues we are working to resolve, click here.
FF?
- Thread starter David Hughes124436
- Start date
Joseph S Wisniewski
Forum Pro
Except that you didn't actually "explain" anything. All you did was throw out basically a one liner about 43x35 inch film. But that's not the real issue...
No, Dave, it becomes a "definition". There really wasn't any use of the term "full frame" before it was coined to describe uncropped 24x36mm. But that's not the real issue, either...
PP? Is that "pooh pooh" or "post process"? Consider that one of the reasons the discussion isn't going the way you want may be that you're having trouble expressing exactly what it is that you want.
Bingo. This is the whole point of the matter.
The word "pint" acquired a definition. It wasn't floating around out there with some other meaning ("red, orange, yellow, pint, green, blue, indigo, violet", or "would you look at the pint on that girl!") and then got adopted for a fluid measure. It was created specifically for a certain size of fluid measure (16 or 20oz, depending on your continent).
The phrase "full frame" again wasn't just hanging around, it was created to describe a specific size of sensor, 24x36mm.
You are taking the role of the people you claim to dislike, those redefining a word in common use based on some other observation. "We don't use ounces any more, but hey! 500ml is close to an old fashioned pint, let's redefine the word". And now it's "A very obscure 43x35mm film size exists, let's redefine 'full frame' because of that".
Except that the "pint redefiners" have more logic on their side.
Their redefinition sells. Yours won't.
--
Rahon Klavanian 1912-2008.
Armenian genocide survivor, amazing cook, scrabble master, and loving grandmother. You will be missed.
Ciao! Joseph
http://www.swissarmyfork.com
I never thought about that, but maybe that's why I'm more content with moderate wide angle lenses on my DSLR. I used to be happy with 24mm on film, though I sometimes shot my 21-35 at its widest (which was either the nominal 21 or maybe 22 - I can't remember how it tested). I was surprised to find that I was pretty happy with 17mm on APS-C, and now very happy with 16mm.
- Dennis
Gallery at http://kingofthebeasts.smugmug.com
--Yah the finders on the aps size cameras suck but only because they sleeved down the finders they already had instead of designing one just for the aps size. and yes we still have lenses we use that were designed for full frame. But the point is the same there is noting intrinsiicly magic about 24x36mm sensor. its just another size.
bosjohn aka John Shick [email protected]
Joseph S Wisniewski
Forum Pro
That's common on eBay. It's not people being "imprecise" or making "errors", it's called "keyword spamming". Deliberately stuffing unneeded (and often totally incorrect) words into listings in order to make them come up on as many searches as possible. It's a marketing technique, the people who do it know exactly what they're doing.
--
Rahon Klavanian 1912-2008.
Armenian genocide survivor, amazing cook, scrabble master, and loving grandmother. You will be missed.
Ciao! Joseph
http://www.swissarmyfork.com
David Hughes124436
Veteran Member
Hi,
The RPS defined miniature cameras as having less than 5 square inches of negative. In the 1930's, from memory of reading it somewhere.
Regards, David
Joseph S Wisniewski
Forum Pro
Peter, look on the bright side. At least they use those terms in a positive sense, to invoke the good qualities (handling, size, style) of the rangefinder. In general, no one says things like "a rangefinder-like inability to use long telephoto lenses" or "a rangefinder-esque difficulty with macro photography".
Would you rather be complimented for your Arnie-esque physique or insulted for Arnie-like political views?
My favorite example of a "shifting term" is MF.
To a few thousand people, it's still "medium format", but a dpReview search shows that for about 10 times as many people, it's "manual focus".
--
Rahon Klavanian 1912-2008.
Armenian genocide survivor, amazing cook, scrabble master, and loving grandmother. You will be missed.
Ciao! Joseph
http://www.swissarmyfork.com
Joseph S Wisniewski
Forum Pro
Actually, it sounds plausible. My 1973 copy of Aaron Sussman's "The Amateur Photographer's Handbook" frequently referred to 35mm cameras as "miniature cameras", with the implication that medium format was the smallest thing that wasn't "miniature".
Maybe the line was just slightly under "quarter plate". If 3.25x4.25 was a "quarter plate", those 2.5 inch (620, 120, etc) roll film Kodaks probably weren't ever considered "miniature".
--
Rahon Klavanian 1912-2008.
Armenian genocide survivor, amazing cook, scrabble master, and loving grandmother. You will be missed.
Ciao! Joseph
http://www.swissarmyfork.com
Joseph S Wisniewski
Forum Pro
"Sleeved down"?
A viewfinder consists of a relatively simple magnifier, coupling the focusing screen to the eye. The magnification ratio can be set to pretty much anything the camera maker desires.
But there is only so much light availaible from the focusing screen. If you take an APS screen that is about 2/5 the total area of a FF screen, and magnify it so that it's the same apparent size as the FF screen in the viewfinder, you have 2/5 the light, about 1.5 stops dimmer. It's worse for a four thirds camera, where you have 1/4 the viewfinder area, and 1/4 the light (two full stops).
Now, I'm only an optical engineer, so I might not have a firm grasp on this, but it seems to me that Peter's complaint about focusing the camera in a place that was, to quote him, "it was really dark", cannot be addressed by making the viewfinder a couple of stops dimmer.
--
Rahon Klavanian 1912-2008.
Armenian genocide survivor, amazing cook, scrabble master, and loving grandmother. You will be missed.
Ciao! Joseph
http://www.swissarmyfork.com
stephenmelvin
Senior Member
And for about 1000x as many people, it's something that DP Review's forum software would reject.
the problem the earily cameras were based on the former 35mm film sisez. and the cheaper cameras use mirrors instead of prisms. The speed of the lenses does limit the light but using a clear field and center ground glass like the original Leicaflex should give you a brilliant view. Also relocating the d--mn flash out of the finder which is restricting the prism size will also be a big help.
bosjohn aka John Shick [email protected]
Imagine anyone wanting to maximize the potential of their systems ! A hoot, as you say.
Yup. Nothing to do with greater enlargability, dynamic range, bigger viewfinders.
The answer to that should be obvious. 35mm represents a compromise between image quality and kit size. If millions of 35mm users already "stopped there" they're not going to go any further with their digital cameras.
Like the Leica S2 ? Bet those FF owners are kicking themselves now !
In film days, 35mm owners drooled over medium format ... wishing they could afford the gear, the film, the processing; wishing they'd be willing to carry it, to live with its limitations. Now FF offers a similar jump in image quality without those sacrifices. A real hoot.
- Dennis
Gallery at http://kingofthebeasts.smugmug.com
APS-C is just another size. FF happens to be the largest size supported by the systems used by millions of photographers. Not magic, but significant.
- Dennis
Gallery at http://kingofthebeasts.smugmug.com
--yub thats true but I am hoping that a latter day Miatani will come along and re invent the om1 digital with a sensor even bigger than 24 by 36mm and that fabulous finder then I will be happy hmmm m well maybe not happy I never am but not what would be a camera
bosjohn aka John Shick [email protected]
mfbernstein
Veteran Member
Sorry to jump into this discussion late, but I was somewhat curious about this last comment - the original 50-200mm f/2.8-3.5 is also a film design?
The other thing I'm curious about is performance - most of these lenses (14-35/2, 35-100/2, 300/2.8) are generally considered to have excellent performance on 4/3. Would it be safe to assume that the original film designs would have performed equal well on FF digital, assuming similar pixel pitch and aspect ratio?
I take it you're not similarly impressed with the 12-60mm f/2.8-4.0?
Thanks as always for the informative and insightful commentary,
--
MFBernstein
'Wilderness is not a luxury but a necessity of the human spirit.' - Ed Abbey
PeterLeyssens
Senior Member
Hi Stephen,
Peter.
--
gallery at http://picasaweb.google.com/peterleyssens
What's wrong with Massey Ferguson ? They make very good machines !
Peter.
--
gallery at http://picasaweb.google.com/peterleyssens
PeterLeyssens
Senior Member
Hi Joseph,
Peter.
--
gallery at http://picasaweb.google.com/peterleyssens
Let me first add to this that the "just another size" impacts several of the most important usability features of a camera. The viewfinder being the main one: the ground glass will be the size of the sensor, so it will be tiny in FourThirds cameras, like my E-420.
Exactly. My experience with the E-420 is that it's a lovely camera when used in the way it is intended: autofocus, trust the light meter (with histogram based trial and error if necessary) and use the viewfinder for composition. That's not how I usually work: coming from an OM-3, I am used to defining the exposure using the multi-spot meter and, if necessary, calculating the diaphragm stop by using the distance scale on the lens. The viewfinder is central in all that. That's why, when a friend asked me to document his wedding, I used my OM-3, not my E-420.
Peter.
--
gallery at http://picasaweb.google.com/peterleyssens
David Hughes124436
Veteran Member
Hi,
When I started years ago, Rolleiflex cameras were regarded as miniature cameras and real photographers carried great big lumps of stuff called "hand cameras". Grayflex is a name that comes back, 5 x 4 from memory.
Regards, David
When I started years ago, Rolleiflex cameras were regarded as miniature cameras and real photographers carried great big lumps of stuff called "hand cameras". Grayflex is a name that comes back, 5 x 4 from memory.
Regards, David
Actually, it sounds plausible. My 1973 copy of Aaron Sussman's "The Amateur Photographer's Handbook" frequently referred to 35mm cameras as "miniature cameras", with the implication that medium format was the smallest thing that wasn't "miniature".
Maybe the line was just slightly under "quarter plate". If 3.25x4.25 was a "quarter plate", those 2.5 inch (620, 120, etc) roll film Kodaks probably weren't ever considered "miniature".
--
Rahon Klavanian 1912-2008.
Armenian genocide survivor, amazing cook, scrabble master, and loving grandmother. You will be missed.
Ciao! Joseph
http://www.swissarmyfork.com
David Hughes124436
Veteran Member
Hi,
I merely started this thread as I was surprised that 43" x 35" was still made and used and, as I said, I thought the largest size film made was 30" x 40"
I was interested as I own elderly cameras that take odd size cut film and would like to use them from time to time. 5" x 4" being a little too small and I wondered if I could scrounge some of the large stuff to cut and make (say) the old 116 size roll film.
As usual the thread seems to have drifted into other areas...
Regards, David
I merely started this thread as I was surprised that 43" x 35" was still made and used and, as I said, I thought the largest size film made was 30" x 40"
I was interested as I own elderly cameras that take odd size cut film and would like to use them from time to time. 5" x 4" being a little too small and I wondered if I could scrounge some of the large stuff to cut and make (say) the old 116 size roll film.
As usual the thread seems to have drifted into other areas...
Regards, David
--My point seems to have got lost. FF is better than not ff but and even larger sensor is better yet. In film days its the film that dictated the size and shape of the cameras in general as they all had to use the same film in the format for which they are designed. That the 24 by 36mm film format was king has as much to do with history as it does any particular advantage of the size. . Leitz and the other pioneers of miniature photography decided to use the movie film because thats what was available , Film manufactures made film in this size and it became the standard of the industry for many years not because it was so terrific but because it was what the film makers were making, And as a matter of fact the thirty five mm movie film as the story goes came about when the early movie makers in hollywood asked kodak to make perforated film for their cameras. When Kodak ask what size the as the story goes they said "oh about half the size of your camera film" which was at the time seventy mm or so. Thus the legendary 35mm film format has a rather prosaic origin based on what was available to the makers at the time . Now manufactures are no longer bound to make their cameras take the exact same size film as the others. the imaging surface can be any size and shape the maker deems works best. We are no longer bound by 2x3 aspect ratios or 24x 36 mm sensors. For instance it is much easier to design a better lens for a camera with say a 2x2.5 aspect ratio as the image circle can be smaller. And while I recognize that the reason ff is so valued I still maintain its a throwback to film and history and we can and probably should rethink it.
bosjohn aka John Shick [email protected]
Similar threads
Keyboard shortcuts
- f
- Forum