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

DMillier wrote:

This started with Iain complaining about the term "full frame" which is really arbitrary

True.

and meaningless

Not true.  Full frame refers to a 24 x 36mm sensor. It is an arbitrary but helpful basis to characterize lenses, as long as the reader understands equivalence.

and I agree with him.

I added the secondary complaint about the term "cropped sensor". For the reasons I already explained (DX sensors are smaller sensors using bigger lenses and so legitimate, from the ground up 4/3 sensors have never been "cropped" anything). m4/3 users have complained about this usage for years. It attempts to demean sensors smaller than 135.

There is a separate usage of the "crop" term - "crop factor". I actually complain about both these terms but (being generous) I can see that "crop factor" has some kind of meaning if one assumes that every photographer in the world understands that 35mm is some kind of universal standard and that it is easier to compare a native format to 35mm than it is to learn all those numbers for every different format (Ausjena's point, in effect).

But I still dislike the usage and particularly dislike the special place it assigns to 35mm. This didn't happen in the film era. It's a dumbing down usage for the most part.

Meanwhile, I have to live in the real world and accept my camera has a 0.79x crop sensor (how ridiculous does that sound, how can you have a negative crop). if we are going to do this murder to the language, why don't we call it what it is "equivalence to 35mm" or some better phrase. "Crop" became an archaic term around 2003 when the 1Ds and 14n appeared and DX cameras got their own dedicated bodies and lens sets.