Reading mode: Light Dark

Us vs. Them re:Full Frame Equivalence...

Go to last post
M

Mike_PEAT

Veteran Member
Messages
13,344
Solutions
16
Reaction score
4,558
Location
Toronto, CA
I don't like to comment in these equivalency threads, I certainly don't like starting new ones, but someone asked a question in one that I'd like to comment on that was in a filled thread. From:
http://forums.dpreview.com/forums/read.asp?forum=1041&message=41723312
millsart said:
Why do some m4/3 shooters have such a "us against the world attitude" when its merely a camera ??
Click to expand...
The problem is with full frame and APS shooters (and I've seen this as far back as when the E-1 came out). The users of those cameras are full of misinformation or lack of knowledge. They think full frame is the be all and end all of photography (only because that's all they probably have ever used).

They think that in order to take pictures full frame and APS are the only viable formats (they probably never even heard of anything larger).

Calling 135/35mm format "full frame" and anything smaller "is a crop format" is misinformation in itself; (Micro) Four Thirds is also a full frame format (when using a FourThirds lens on a FourThirds there is no crop). And what do you call formats that are larger than "full frame"...do they have negative crops?

If people actually learned something about photography (including FourThirds) and wanted to talk intelligently, there wouldn't be these arguments. I've worked with microfilm formats, and sheet film up to 24"x30", and I've shot 35mm film for decades...yet I chose this format at this time in my life.

The trouble is most of the non-FourThirds users who participate in these debates do it for fun...they say something outlandish and then watch as the thread erupts.

The others out there think we are STUPID for choosing FourThirds and need to be converted, like the missionaries converting the heathens.

Debates like this have been going on forever, PC vs Mac, Dodge vs Ford vs GM, Protestants vs Catholics. It's human nature.
 
To post a link to this article - explains everything anyone could possibly want to know about this (practically irrelevant) subject.

Sensor Equivalence: Size Does Matter. Or Does It?

Read more: http://the.me/sensor-equivalence-size-does-matter-or-does-it/#ixzz1xDNXR9Uw

I'm sure that will be an end to it ;)

On the other hand, I do wonder whether it becomes a challenge to 'max out' any thread to 150 posts which has "equivalence" in the title... let's see.

Cheers

Brian
--
Join our free worldwide support network here :
http://www.ukphotosafari.org/join-the-ukpsg/
UK, Peak District Local Olympus Safari Group : http://snipurl.com/bqtd7-ukpsg
Keep up with me here : http://twitter.com/alert_bri
 
Brian Mosley said:
On the other hand, I do wonder whether it becomes a challenge to 'max out' any thread to 150 posts which has "equivalence" in the title... let's see.
Click to expand...
we both know the answer I suspect,,

the thing is people start threads like this, basically saying nothing of importance.

Then they disappear from view while they iron their underwear or something, as the psychopaths from the FF museum have a field day at our expense

--
Riley

any similarity to persons living or dead is coincidental and unintended
support 1022 Sunday Scapes'
 
For me, when I lived in Canada at the time they changed to the metric system, many, including myself, had a difficult time adjusting. Whenever you encountered a speed limit sign, one would try to convert in the mind what the equivalent speed was in MPH. It was the same with linear dimensions and liquid and solid volumes. All until one got used to the newer system. I come from the days of 35mm film, and I still like to make an equivalency adjustment in my mind based on the 35mm system, or FF as we call it today. I know that in time I will stop doing that when I become more familiar with the system I am using (MFT), but until that time I will continue this mind game.

Ask one of our Canadian friends who went through the metric horrors at the beginning.
 
Lights match,

Screams "What about shallow depth of field!",

Runs away.
 
I do agree with you that its technically a bit silly to call any given format a crop, when for its native lenses the full frame is covered.

I think back when we had the first DSLR's and there were no DX or APS-C etc lenses designed, merely glass made for the 135 format, the crop factor was meaningful.

I remember being so frustrated with my Canon 10D, my first digital slr because my main lens at the time, the 28-70 f2.8L was about 45mm equiv FoV and I hardly could afford a 16-35mm f2.8 just to get back some decent wide angle.

That was then, this is now, and if you for example shoot a APS-C dslr, there are now plenty of DX format lenses made just for that sensor size. Get a 17-55 f2.8 for example and your back to your coverage of your 28-70.

That all said though, and this really proves the point I'm making, is why would we only see a thread topic like this here, in the m4/3 forum ??

How come we don't see Sony NEX users arguing how their system is a "full frame"

Or how come we don't see Nikon 1 users claiming that they too have a "full frame"

Any point and shoot users, from any given brand could claim they shoot a "full frame"

People shooting MFDB's could say they shoot the "real" full frame, unless of course a 4x5 LF shooter chimes in LOL

I've shot my Fuji X100 for a long time and spent a lot of time on X100 forums and NEVER once heard anyone argue that it shouldn't be called a 35mm equiv or a crop camera etc. NEVER ONCE

Its only on this m4/3 forum where this talk takes place.

Over on the Fred Miranda Alt Forum there has been a thread of 30+ pages about the EM-5 and its gotten a ton of interest from shooters of all different backgrounds, NEX guys, D800 guys, 5D guys, Leica guys, you name it. A bunch of really talented people have bought one and are happily using it along side their other gear.

At DPR though, and no where else, do we have the rallying cry of "its not a crop, its full frame (in regards to its lenses)"

That is what makes no sense to me about this place

Again, yes technically its a correct argument, but why do only m4/3 shooters seem to care ?

Why does a m4/3 shooter fell they have something to prove, or that they have to stand up for their system more than any other format ?

Why are Nikon 1 guys waving the same "we are full frame too" banner around ??
Mike_PEAT said:
Mike_PEAT said:
Calling 135/35mm format "full frame" and anything smaller "is a crop format" is misinformation in itself; (Micro) Four Thirds is also a full frame format (when using a FourThirds lens on a FourThirds there is no crop). And what do you call formats that are larger than "full frame"...do they have negative crops?
Click to expand...
Click to expand...
 
I think it makes full sense that with your 35mm background, you still sort of thing in those terms. I also think it makes full sense that if you were to shoot with m4/3 and only m4/3, you probably would start to think more in m4/3 terms.

Just as once you went metric, you started thinking less and less of imperial measurements.

HOWEVER, lets say your a chef, living in Canada and working across the border in the States. Your home life is all metric, but then your work life in the States has you dealing with mostly imperial measurements.

That is the reality for many people, because they have multiple systems. I've got my m/43 gear for mainly my casual use, my FF DSLR's for work purposes, and also some crop DSLR's because I simply can't afford to own all FF gear lol

So for someone like me, who not only grew up with the 135 format, but who on a daily basis encounters 3+ different formats, I can't see myself ever stopping thinking in the 35mm terms
Bangers and Mash said:
For me, when I lived in Canada at the time they changed to the metric system, many, including myself, had a difficult time adjusting. Whenever you encountered a speed limit sign, one would try to convert in the mind what the equivalent speed was in MPH. It was the same with linear dimensions and liquid and solid volumes. All until one got used to the newer system. I come from the days of 35mm film, and I still like to make an equivalency adjustment in my mind based on the 35mm system, or FF as we call it today. I know that in time I will stop doing that when I become more familiar with the system I am using (MFT), but until that time I will continue this mind game.

Ask one of our Canadian friends who went through the metric horrors at the beginning.
Click to expand...
--
http://www.millsartphotography.com
 
The history of the development of FT and APS-C set the scene for these sorts of discussions. FourThirds was a brand new format while the brands you mention first created DSLRs that used 135 lenses on cropped sensors. There's something psychological there, as if there's this goal of going to 135 and your lenses remain compatible, whereas FT lenses are stuck in their "cropped" format.

Later, when lenses came out designed for APS-C you already have audiences conditioned to appreciate the format from their use of 135 lenses. FT was a big bang while APS-C slid in easily. Olympus would have done the same thing had the OM cameras still shared modern market share but as they did not, the big bang approach provided a fresh start but with all the acceptance complications that accompany it.

So basically, arguments regarding the "cropped" sensor historically started in FT and continue from inertia.
 
Mike_PEAT said:
Calling 135/35mm format "full frame" and anything smaller "is a crop format" is misinformation in itself; (Micro) Four Thirds is also a full frame format (when using a FourThirds lens on a FourThirds there is no crop). And what do you call formats that are larger than "full frame"...do they have negative crops?
Click to expand...
They have crop factors less than 1. I'll do the math for you:

24x30" sheet film is 60910x762mm. To find the crop factor relative to 35mm, you need to plug numbers for each into the pythagorean theorem.
diagonal of 35mm film = sqrt(36^2+24^2) = 43.27mm
diagonal of 24x30 sheet film = sqrt(610^2+762^2) = 976mm.
Now here's what you to find the crop factor of 24x30 relative to 35mm:
43.27mm/976mm=0.0443.

The necessary focal length to provide an angle of view on 24x30" sheet film equivalent to that of a 50mm lens on 35mm would be 1,130mm.

Crop factor is useful to compare formats and figure out what lens you need to get a certain look. Unless you just throw a lens on your camera willy-nilly without any regard for the focal length?
--
http://www.photoklarno.com
 
millsart said:
I think it makes full sense that with your 35mm background, you still sort of thing in those terms. I also think it makes full sense that if you were to shoot with m4/3 and only m4/3, you probably would start to think more in m4/3 terms.

Just as once you went metric, you started thinking less and less of imperial measurements.

HOWEVER, lets say your a chef, living in Canada and working across the border in the States. Your home life is all metric, but then your work life in the States has you dealing with mostly imperial measurements.

That is the reality for many people, because they have multiple systems. I've got my m/43 gear for mainly my casual use, my FF DSLR's for work purposes, and also some crop DSLR's because I simply can't afford to own all FF gear lol

So for someone like me, who not only grew up with the 135 format, but who on a daily basis encounters 3+ different formats, I can't see myself ever stopping thinking in the 35mm terms
Click to expand...
I totally agree with you. It's very difficult to make a full adjustment, and I certainly understand your situation. When I started shooting 35mm film, I had nothing else to compare it with. I'm quite sure that it if I started out using a MFT system, I would have no problems based on not having another system to compare it with, but when you use a system for so many years and then switch over it becomes a challange that others don't perhaps have and have a hard time understanding why individuals like ourselves try to make those adjustments. It's understandable, but some might or perhaps will understand when years down the road they try to adapt to another system, might encounter similar difficulties. I know that in time if I keep using the system I am using now I will begin to forget about the older 35mm days and carry on with little or no difficulties.
millsart said:
Bangers and Mash said:
For me, when I lived in Canada at the time they changed to the metric system, many, including myself, had a difficult time adjusting. Whenever you encountered a speed limit sign, one would try to convert in the mind what the equivalent speed was in MPH. It was the same with linear dimensions and liquid and solid volumes. All until one got used to the newer system. I come from the days of 35mm film, and I still like to make an equivalency adjustment in my mind based on the 35mm system, or FF as we call it today. I know that in time I will stop doing that when I become more familiar with the system I am using (MFT), but until that time I will continue this mind game.

Ask one of our Canadian friends who went through the metric horrors at the beginning.
Click to expand...
--
http://www.millsartphotography.com
Click to expand...
 
Don't forget as well, that even if you shoot m4/3 and only m4/3 (which these days is making plenty of sense for a lot of people. I for one wouldn't own my Nikon's if I didn't shoot for a living) that your still going to encounter lots of other shooters, friends etc who might ask about lens.

As I said in other friend, I was at an arts fest this weekend with my EM-5 and 12mm f2.0. Another shooter I know (Canon FF, just fyi) saw it and at first thought it was an original OM. A system he shot and loved years ago. I explained its a new digital model with some cosmetic styling based upon that camera but otherwise its basically not related.

He then asked about the lens, impressed at the compact size and seemingly nice metal build quality, asking if it was a RF lenses, as it does have that look and how wide it was.

I could of said "12mm" and expected him to know m4/3's sensor size and what that FoV would equate to, but as he didn't know the EM-5, he probably doesn't know much about m4/3 in general.

I instead said its a 12mm, which is equiv (yes that dreaded word) to 24mm in FF terms.

He said "oh, cool, I love my 24mm 1.4, wish it was as small as that one"

No disrespect to the m4/3 system, no argument that FF is better etc. just one photographer explaining gear in a way another would know.

Had I just said "its a 12mm" he could of guessed maybe the camera was 1.5x crop and thought it was an 18mm, or maybe he would of thought I mean in FF terms and it was ultra wide.

He might of been thinking it was this amazing ultra wide 12mm lens,rivaling Voightlanders 12mm ultra wide for the Leica M mount

Plenty of confusion possible.

By simply stating not only what it technically is, but also what it would be in terms of FoV in a format we both knew, he knew exactly what it meant.

Thats why I think even if one shoots only m4/3, as long as they interact with people with other systems we are still going to need to talk about equiv
Bangers and Mash said:
I totally agree with you. It's very difficult to make a full adjustment, and I certainly understand your situation. When I started shooting 35mm film, I had nothing else to compare it with. I'm quite sure that it if I started out using a MFT system, I would have no problems based on not having another system to compare it with, but when you use a system for so many years and then switch over it becomes a challange that others don't perhaps have and have a hard time understanding why individuals like ourselves try to make those adjustments. It's understandable, but some might or perhaps will understand when years down the road they try to adapt to another system, might encounter similar difficulties. I know that in time if I keep using the system I am using now I will begin to forget about the older 35mm days and carry on with little or no difficulties.
Click to expand...
 
Nice link - I wish it went further up the food chain though to MF and beyond.

I've never been sure why the 35mm FF folks seem to pretend their size is the best size.

All camera systems have compromises the photographer is aware of and adapts too.

Brian - my Em5 is in UPS's hands :) I'm very excited (and bummed no 25 1.4's seem to be available)
--
John Mason - Lafayette, IN

http://www.fototime.com/inv/407B931C53A9D9D
 
Like that term.

Even though I just upgraded my Canon FF body. I do agree that FF is already becoming a niche like MF already is. Still, I like mine for certain purposes. C-AF on my grandkid's soccer match for instance.

My EM5 is on the way so my E5's use is precarious in the future. I've got a hiking trip in a week for a week in the smokies. I know I'm going to much rather carry the em5 with the 12 rather than the 5d2 with any lens on it.
--
John Mason - Lafayette, IN

http://www.fototime.com/inv/407B931C53A9D9D
 
John Mason said:
Nice link - I wish it went further up the food chain though to MF and beyond.

I've never been sure why the 35mm FF folks seem to pretend their size is the best size.

All camera systems have compromises the photographer is aware of and adapts too.

Brian - my Em5 is in UPS's hands :) I'm very excited (and bummed no 25 1.4's seem to be available)
Click to expand...
Excited for you John! I'm hoping to get mine in the next couple of weeks. What's this about 25mm f1.4 not being available?

I would normally look to Mathers of Lancashire as a great supplier for Lumix lenses, but even they are out of stock :(

Cheers

Brian
--
Join our free worldwide support network here :
http://www.ukphotosafari.org/join-the-ukpsg/
UK, Peak District Local Olympus Safari Group : http://snipurl.com/bqtd7-ukpsg
Keep up with me here : http://twitter.com/alert_bri
 
I've got a 4x5 Toyo field camera, and with its shifts and tilts, you can get the effect of pretty small DoF, though the lens (at least that I own) aren't all that fast.

Not going to see something like a 150mm f1.2 for a large format camera after all, just wouldn't be practical to mount or hike with etc

Additionally, most people seem to want shallow DoF for things like sports action, portraits and such.

I use a 400mm f2.8 lens during daytime football games at times, even though I could just as well use my 80-400 zoom since there is good light, because I want the player to really pop from the image.

Assuming one could get a lens that is equivalently faster it would still be pretty impractical to try to get a shot framing and focused of a diving catch in a football game.

Granted sports where shot with LF cameras ages ago, but they were always zone focused and have deep DoF you'll notice
Mike_PEAT said:
chiane said:
Screams "What about shallow depth of field!",
Click to expand...
If I was doing a shoot and I wanted shallow depth of field, I'd shoot with 2-1/4, 4x5, or 8x10...I wouldn't use 135/35mm.
Click to expand...
 
that's funny i went from an E-1 to a Nikon D200, and looking back at forum 1022 the ignorance of other systems there was rife, ultimately i'm glad i made the move.
--
the night is dark.....and full of terriers
 
You must log in or register to reply here.

Keyboard shortcuts

f
Forum
m
My threads
Mobile site
About
Editorial content
Cameras & Lenses
Community
All content, design, and layout are Copyright © 1998–2025 Digital Photography Review All Rights Reserved.
Reproduction in whole or part in any form or medium without specific written permission is prohibited.
When you use DPReview links to buy products, the site may earn a commission.
©GPS Media - Guides, Products, Services.
Back
Top