just for fun

Started 2 months ago | Discussions thread
Donald B
OP Donald B Forum Pro • Posts: 14,544
Re: just for fun
3

The Davinator wrote:

marcio_napoli wrote:

Quoting Tony: "The Fuji and the hasselblad have the same size sensor... I find it amusing that people call this medium format (about 33x44 mm)"

My job here is not to convince you otherwise.

By the words you've used, it's clear your idea of MF is set.

I'll just offer my rant, which nobody cares.

I've used the 44x33 and 49x36 sensors in CCD digital backs. To me, they're both digital medium format.

If I were to ask you, do you consider APS-C part of the 135 format family?

I believe it does, and 99% of photographers believe as well.

If you shoot APS-C, H, and FF, they're all within the 135 format, because lenses are shared in a common system, and the look of images, feature set, body size, ergonomics, etc, are all reasonably consistent accross the board.

So are we cool to say that APS is part of the 35 mm format?

In the same way, why wouldn't 44x33 be MF?

It's larger than 35mm, it shares lenses within the 645 format (in case of Hassy and P1 systems) and provide a look that compares very well with the larger MF sensors.

Despite old film definitions, you have a 44x33 camera.

Even if small by film MF standards, you've actually seen the sensor size.

It's massive.

Film equivalent or not, it's really massive and clearly bigger than 135 format.

IMO, all above are enough to classify it as DMF.

Best regards,
Marcio Napoli

The two flaws I see in this thread are as follows....thinking the Olympus gets anywhere near 100mp in information....and this other fellow on his crusade that the Fuji and Hassey aren't MF.

The first, thinking the Olympus gets anywhere near 100mp is factually false. As such, the OPs comparison holds no water.

The second, the definition of MF, is simply another user ID for a longtime troll. As I have the Fuji 50r, he went on a crusade claiming it wasn't MF simply as a way for him the poke fun at me...and of course fail miserably. As to the true definition...MF has always been formats larger than 35mm and smaller than 4x5. Using his failed logic, I could claim 645 or 6x6 is not really MF because 6x7 or 6x9 or 6x17 exists. There is no poor definition of MF to exploit...the definition has been clear and accepted for decades. The only people that refuse to accept it appear to be those that don't like their top perch of so called fullframe to be challenged.

Back to the OP, he started with a false assumption in his comparison and as such reached a false conclusion. If he wants to compare what 100mp really looks like, he won't get it with any Olympus.

You have simply gone straight to pixel peeping at 20 foot print. just stick to the 36inch print size for the moment and where you think the overlap in printed detail would be better on the 100 meg vers 20meg this thread has nothing to do with camera brand.

Don

-- hide signature --

Olympus EM5mk2 ,EM1mk2
http://www.dpreview.com/galleries/9412035244
past toys. k100d, k10d,k7,fz5,fz150,500uz,canon G9, Olympus xz1 em5mk1

Post (hide subjects) Posted by
MOD Smaug01
MOD Smaug01
Keyboard shortcuts:
FForum PPrevious NNext WNext unread UUpvote SSubscribe RReply QQuote BBookmark MMy threads
Color scheme? Blue / Yellow