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

ausJena wrote:

DMillier wrote:

This started with Iain complaining about the term "full frame" which is really arbitrary and meaningless and I agree with him.

It's common photography jargon. It's arbitrary, sure, but so for example definition of one meter or one kilogram. Being arbitrary does not make it meaningless - it clearly has a well defined (though not exact) meaning - an image sensor that has aproximately size of 36mm by 24mm.

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.

I disagree with the demeaning. I certainly don't try to rubbish smaller formats if I call them cropped... it's even hard for me to understand why anyone would, though I must admit there are folks who get kicks out of stranger things

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.

Well, in film era people (using interchangeable lens camseras) in general knew what they're doing, at least to a degree, at least those who had to use multiple formats, so crop factor wasn't that much of an issue. I doubt many "full frame" users of those days were too bothered about using what was also called a "miniature format" due to it's rather small size compared to medium/large formats

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)....

It indeed sounds a bit ridiculous. Maybe "crop factor" should be replaced with something referring to "standard size sensor" or "unit sensor", or perhaps "normal sensor". I think we need to start a committee to sit on this subject

I think DPR have already done this. Didn't they explain how they were redefining the Vidicon format nomenclature. Trouble is I didn't like their redefinition either

It's only words, so as long as people are clued up on what people mean by them it shouldn't matter - but people being people, there are too many people (who for some reason) exploit the "full frame" and "cropped" terminology to imply that 135 is naturally the best format and smaller formats are inferior.  I think the loose language provides them that opportunity.

As someone who uses cameras from a 1" bridge cameras to "full frame plus" or "miniMF" or whatever we should call the small medium format, I don't see any of them as superior or inferior to be looked down upon or looked up to (the silly reverence for medium format some have!), just different cameras best suited for certain tasks.

According to the attitude of some people on the internet, my GFX is awesomely superior, I should throw away my inferior smaller formats. But in the real world, it is the GFX which will become a specialist camera and m4/3 that will remain my primary walk around camera. Hanging a GFX50s around your neck for hours on end loaded up with giant MF lenses is no fun at all. Horses for courses and each used for what it best fits, and let's rid the language of terms intended to impose a superiority/inferiority pecking order on camera types.

Who wants to be chair?