Full-framer logic

Keith57 wrote:

ekaton wrote:

Help, I am confused. I use FF, aps-c, mft. I like all of them, for different reasons. And shamefully I must admit to even use a one incher. And now I read all these thoughtful educated threads about "mine is bigger than yours", "this is why size does not matter", or "smaller, indeed is better", and the best: "Equivalence this, equivalence that......., why F2 is not F2 and 50mm not 50mm", "dof, stops, iso cheaters,". Help, I am confused. Did I loose my identity as a photog, not knowing which size and why?

Who can help me.:-O

Agreed!

This is all nonsense, better just to go out and make photos

Agreed. Massively. The measurebaters seem to usually fit a certain profile.

Edit: measurebaters goes both ways

In my world m4/3 is full frame in that the lenses are matched to the sensor size.

Ok........

We should use 35mm as a sensor size instead of FF all the time.

The only problem with that is using 35mm without adding "lens" or "sensor" every time can cause confusion in discussions. It doesn't cause as much confusion in this forum because because 35mm lenses are less common than APSC and FF. Maybe we could create Full Frame Sensor. That acronym will cause a bit of confusion too........

-- hide signature --

http://www.fachwen.org

I seriously do not understand the little man syndRome dislike of the term full frame. It harks to the early days of digital and "crop" sensors. It stuck. Good luck changing the world. If I got bent out of shape over people incorrectly using Kleenex, "hot" water heater and other terms incorrectly it would be a short miserable life