DPReview.com is closing April 10th - Find out more

Actual FOV 23 f2 not 35mm equivalent?

Started May 8, 2018 | Discussions thread
robert1955 Veteran Member • Posts: 7,302
Re: Actual FOV 23 f2 not 35mm equivalent?

CeeDave wrote:

-- hide signature --

I mostly agree with amd, but I think “full frame” (FF) is a useless term, it’s just not descriptive. I think 35mm or 135 (the format name) is better.

No it is not the format name. The format name is 35mm. '135' was the name Kodak introduced for the cartridge they put 35mm film into. As most of us no longer use cartridges [or correctly understand the term 135] it is best forgotten.

FF is parochial.

As long as you understand what it means [and what not] it is a useful reference point. That may change over time, but almost all who came from film used or at least knew the 35mm format

While I’m at it, I think it’d be better if aov were stated as multiples of sensor diagonal, so on 135 a 21-84 zoom would be 0.5-2, as would a 14-56 on APS-C. But, correct, it’s not going to happen.

Fortunately not, as using only the diagonal hides the fact that some sensors are 3:2 and others 4:3 aspect ratio. There are even [heresy] some cameras with a sensor that has truly multiple aspect ratios

Another rant, these sizes like 1/2.3” are not very helpful. Just give the sensor dimensions (or diagonal) in millimeters.

As above, width and heigth. I think most of these sensors are 4:3, but I'm not sure

Post (hide subjects) Posted by
amd
amd
amd
Keyboard shortcuts:
FForum PPrevious NNext WNext unread UUpvote SSubscribe RReply QQuote BBookmark MMy threads
Color scheme? Blue / Yellow