How can Sigma make sure the FFF is the best success it can be? Locked

DMillier wrote:

Scottelly wrote:

DMillier wrote:

Scottelly wrote:

D Cox 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.

It made sense when half frame film cameras were popular. Now that half frame is for some reason called APS-C it makes less sense.

If you don't like it, why not type "24x36mm" ?

And as for 4/3 --- 4/3 of what ?

Don

After posting more than 32,000 times I would think you'd have learned that micro-4/3 stands for a 2x crop factor sensor with a 4x3 format, rather than 3x2, like APS-C and full-frame cameras have. Of course, full-frame refers to a frame of 35mm film, but the sensors are actually approximately 36mm.

My understanding as a former Oly E10 owner, then early adopter of 4/3 DSLRs is the 4/3 nomenclature stands for two separate things:

The 4:3 aspect ratio

The 4/3" sensor size.

4/3 cameras and m4/3 cameras use the same sensor size which is the 4/3" sensor (17x13mm) which is made as a 4:3 aspect ratio.

4/3 is a complete (so called) open standard in its own right. The "2x crop factor" bit was never part of the 4/3 standard, just a largely pejorative term made up by other people.

But it makes sense, because so many 4/3 and m4/3 users adapt "full-frame" lenses to be used on their 2x crop factor camera.

Huh??? I use 645 lenses on my Sony. Is that justification for calling 135 format a crop of 645? How about if I adapt 5x4 view camera lenses to my GFX? Does that make GFX a crop of 5x4? This is convoluted and unnecessary.

You're welcome to do so, but for people to understand you they need a similar frame of reference. No pun intended. The fact is it has to do with popularity. Full-frame works because it has become popular. Very few people know what various focal lengths would give them on a 645 camera. That's why 645 has not become the standard frame of reference, like full-frame has.

A sensor size is a crop sensor if, and only if, it was designed to be fitted into a camera body of a larger format (and use the lenses of that larger format).

Really? I guess not.

This was the case with the DX sensor size which was originally fitted to bodies based on 35mm film bodies and used lenses for 35mm film. Example: Nikon D100 used a DX sensor in a body derived from the F80 film SLR. Interestingly, the Kodak 14n "full frame" camera also used a modified F80 body. Here we have DX and 36x24mm sensors in the same basic 35mm film body, both using F mount film lenses, so it is not unreasonable to call the D100 a crop sensor camera.

Sorry, but even Nikon, the company that made the Nikon 1 system, called their Nikon 1 cameras 2.7x crop.

As soon as a sensor size has a dedicated lens system with coverage designed exclusively for that sensor area, it's no longer a crop sensor. GFX meets that criteria, 4/3 and m4/3 also.

So what about all the APS-C lenses out there? Wouldn't you call that "a dedicated lens system with coverage designed exclusively for that sensor area" then? Why call APS-C cameras 1.5x crop now?

In many cases the evolution of design has meant that lines of DSLRs that started out 35mm cameras fitted with DX crop sensors, soon got their own dedicated downsized DX size body and gained dedicated DX coverage lenses.Eg the Canon 350D and later are not 35mm film style bodies even if they look like it, everything in them has been shrunken to fit the smaller sensor.

I still have my D100, but if I use it exclusively with dedicated DX format lenses, I could argue that the system has evolved from a crop sensor system using legacy 35mm glass to a fully dedicated DX system. I quite like the idea that my 2002 D100 is no longer a crop sensor camera but a system in its own right!

Wow! Good for you!

LOL