Re: How can Sigma make sure the FFF is the best success it can be?
Scottelly wrote:
DMillier wrote:
D Cox wrote:
DMillier wrote:
Scottelly wrote:
DMillier wrote:
Iain G Foulds wrote:
… Thinking that it is important to remember that “full frame” is a false label. It is not an objective measure of completeness- as if anything smaller is incomplete.
… It is simply an arbitrary dimension and ratio left-over from film days.
Kodak had something to say about that full frame label (which is just a marketing term that came into general use for no identifiable reason)
I hope you're joking here.
Why? I don't understand?
https://www.allaboutcircuits.com/technical-articles/types-of-ccd-image-sensors-interline-transfer-frame-transfer-full-frame-ccd/
I remember engaging with a Kodak 14n engineer called Martin Wood on the Kodak forum and he got quite irritated by the use of the term "full frame" used to indicate a sensor size.
back in the CCD era. CCDs were made in two readout styles. The expensive ones which did full frame readout and the cheaper ones that did interline readout. They used to get quite irked about the "full frame" term being repurposed to mean "35mm format" rather than full frame readout.
I hate it because formats such as m4/3 and 44x33mm which have their own dedicated lens mounts and lens ranges get wrongly called "crop" sensors, which they are not,
Yes they are. The Pentax 645 D, for example, with its 44mm x 33mm sensor, is not even close to 6 cm x 4.5 cm. The originak 645 film cameras though shot a frame of film that measured approximately 55mm x 45mm, right? That makes the digital camera a crop sensor camera. Some day we'll see a full-frame 645 camera. In fact, isn't the latest medium format camera from Phase One a full-frame 645 camera?
as if they were meant to be used with lenses intended for a larger format. It is intended to make the smaller formats seem inferior which I guess is the point if you are a vendor of 36x24mm sensors.
The only useful use of the term (or the "cropped" term) is for aps-c DSLRs when using 35mm "full frame" format lenses. m4/3 has never been sold to be used with 35mm format lenses (even though you can just about adapt anything these days) and has never been a crop of full frame. Calling is a 2x crop is an insult.
LOL, but compared to full-frame the m4/3 sensors ARE approximately 2x crop sensors.
I think the point you are missing is that 36x24mm format is not any kind of of official reference size to which all other sensor sizes must be compared.
In the film era 135 format was not called "full frame" it was called "miniature format" by users of medium format and large format (Indeed, the medium format forum here often refer to full frame as "small format"). 135 format had taken over from instamatic formats by the end of the consumer film era as the most commonly used and that is its only claim to be a reference: familiarity.
My recollection is that we did use the term "Full Frame" when comparing 24x36mm to half frame. That would be in the 1960s.
The reason terms like FX, DX, APS-C, full frame, crop-sensor came into use is because 20 years ago interchangeable lens digital cameras borrowed legacy film era form factor SLRs as their base for shifting to digital and used them with smaller sensors. These used the same mounts as 35mm film cameras and the same lenses. Hence the sensor was "cropped" compared to the standard size film formats these systems were based on. Kind of made sense.
But as soon as dedicated camera systems came on the market with their own bodies and lenses and mounts that owed nothing to legacy film cameras, they could use any sensor size they wanted. The 4/3 system for example never used legacy 35mm mounts or lenses, it was built from the ground up a dedicated system around the 4/3" sensor size. It was and never has been a "crop" of anything. Calling 4/3 a crop sensor system is just marketing BS.
If you are going to insist that any sensor size that is smaller than another be considered a crop of another larger system, where do you stop? "Full frame" is clearly a crop of 44x33 which is a crop of the Phase One sensor etc etc etc.
It's a ridiculous nomenclature that isn't very helpful, but we are stuck with it because of history - manufacturers, journalists and consumers have just got used to using it. It presumably came into wide use originally in an attempt to be helpful: there were a plethora of different digital formats, very confusing to consumers who were familiar mainly with 35mm film format, so it kind of made sense to try and relate everything to the familiar format (focal lengths in particular) so was born the "equivalency" idea ) ie equivalent to 35mm format. But there was nothing behind this other than keeping consumers in their comfort zone.
Really, these days, we should go back to calling "full frame" sensors "35mm sensors" or "135 format", and abandon the misleading "full frame" term.
Bear in mind that half frame cameras take 35mm film. The photos are 18x24mm.
But that terminology makes sense, technically. Same as 645, 6x6, 6x7, 6x8, 6x9 etc all using 120 film.
It makes no sense at all to call m4/3 a crop sensor. It's never been a crop of anything. Is a 1" sensor or a 2/3" sensor a crop sensor?
Yes, in fact, it is. When Nikon made their Nikon 1 system they called the sensor a 2.7x crop sensor, even though it was also called a 1" sensor. They made an adapter for those cameras to use the full-frame and APS-C lenses on them, even though they made a system of small lenses for those little cameras too.
It only makes sense to compare the sensor size to the most common format, which for years was 35mm.
Using the same reasoning they should be, but they aren't called that because they have no legacy format to be a crop of.
Yes, they do . . . 35mm.
At the same time we should stop using the even more ridiculous archaic Vidicon tube sensor sizes as well. m4/3 uses 4/3" sensors which are 17x13mm - which happens to be the same as a 110 instamatic film frame. It has nothing that is 1 and 1/3 inches.
All languages are based on history.
Don
Yes, and all languages change and evolve constantly, especially with new generations. What is interesting is how some usage gets "stuck", even when inappropriate.
You would confuse your customers so much that they just wouldn't buy anything.
It is interesting that the habit has formed of translating everything into 135 format equivalencies.
It only makes sense. That's the most common modern format that can be used as a reference. Ir there's some better format to use, please tell me what it is.
That leads to people saying things like "this lens is a 150mm f/5.6" for a lens that isn't 150mm focal length or f/5.6. There are people today saying a m4/3 f/2 lens is actually a f/4 lens as if they believe that only 35mm format characteristics are real. And of course they are only talking about depth of field characteristics when they do this.
That's because they're clueless. There will always be clueless people out there who confuse the ignorant masses.
The only justification they have for doing this is they can't be bothered to learn all the settings and characteristics of the individual formats. Can you imagine old medium format masters of the past looking at 35mm users and saying "Ah, it may say f/4 on my lens, but really that means f/1.8"....
To me, Scott, everything you have argued is simply about how you prefer to see things, (and perhaps how you grew up with things) rather than any kind of universal law.
When I was a film photographer, I knew a standard lens for 35mm film was around 50mm focal length. I also knew that a standard lens for medium format was around 75-90mm depending on format and that the standard lens for my 5x4 was around 150mm.
I memorised those focal lengths through practice (and the values for wide angles and tele lenses). At no point did I need to translate everything into 35mm terms or think of other formats as "crops" (plus or minus) of 35mm. Everything was its own unique format with its own unique characteristics. Converting to 35mm equivalences would have been a ridiculous and unnecessary step.
And there is no reason at all, why people today should relate everything to 35mm. Hell, most younger people today never used film, don't know what 35mm format was and certainly haven't memorised all the focal lengths. The reason we do this now is because when consumer DSLRs first became available, they used 35mm format lenses on 35mm format style bodies but with smaller sensors. It started as a means of making sense of this temporary situation and now got completely out of hand and usefulness. That's it.
There is a serious problem with adopting this approach as well. Rather than reducing confusion, it increases it. There are so many threads on DPR going back literally decades where people argue furiously what crop factors mean and there are many people who literally think the lens focal length changes on different formats "Oh yes, a 50mm lens becomes a 75mm lens when used on APS-C". Instead of understanding that a 50mm lens used on a APS-C sensor is still a 50mm lens but now provides a similar angle of view of a 50mm lens on full frame, they get all muddled and confused. Equally they get muddled about the depth of field characteristics vs the lens brightness characteristics of using oversized lens on smaller formats.
All this stuff would go away if people simply learnt the wide/standard/tele focal lengths of their chosen format rather than perform the mental gymnastics of trying to convert everything into 35mm equivalences (getting it wrong half the time).
