My beef with FF (Page 10): It is perhaps a 'very unique' perspective, like being only slightly pregnant... Maybe we could agree that Ron is correct in this instance, but that it...

Peterff Loc: O'er The Hills and Far Away, in Themyscira.

burkphoto wrote:

Yes. That’s one of my pet peeves...

Something can be MORE different than something else is different. But one thing is always different FROM another thing.

It is perhaps a 'very unique' perspective, like being only slightly pregnant...

Maybe we could agree that Ron is correct in this instance, but that it wouldn't make any difference. C'est la guerre!"

NoSocks Loc: quonochontaug, rhode island

burkphoto wrote:

Yes. That’s one of my pet peeves...

Something can be MORE different than something else is different. But one thing is always different FROM another thing.

Thank you.

stepha11 Loc: Trail British Coluimbia

I do love silly games, logical silliness, and (sometimes) silly discussions when at least there is a sensible beginning. Thank you all for an enjoyable experience!

mflowe Loc: Port Deposit, MD

Rongnongno wrote:

FF = Full frame. FF is NOT 24x36. In Nikon jargo... (show quote)

Architect1776 Loc: In my mind

Rongnongno wrote:

FF = Full frame. FF is NOT 24x36. In Nikon jargo... (show quote)

FF is the reference point for a size.
Our current FF was actually called a double frame.

"Thomas Edison designed his movie cameras to make images 24mm wide by 18mm high and had Kodak manufacture a super flexible film 35mm wide with sprocket holes on both sides. The earliest still cameras designed to take 35mm movie film looked similar to movie cameras... with the film travelling vertically from spools at the top and bottom of the camera.
Eventually manufacturers began to put the spools on the sides of the camera and have the film travel horizontally. These cameras made vertically oriented images (called portrait format). To make the scene landscape format instead of portrait format, they doubled the size of the film gate to 36mm. Full frame 35mm cameras were originally called "double frame" cameras and half frame cameras were originally called "single frame" cameras."

But by today's standard the FF is the reference point to size, not how much sensor is used.

Chappy1101 Loc: Glenview, IL

Rongnongno wrote:

FF = Full frame. FF is NOT 24x36. In Nikon jargo... (show quote)

Don't know where you got your statistic of 99% on the usage of FF term to equate to 35mm film size, but if that stat is true or even close, and since your definition of FF seems to be your own, then by consensus FF = 24x36. By your own admission 99% of folks understand what it means. So why challenge it?

Architect1776 Loc: In my mind

Chappy1101 wrote:

Don't know where you got your statistic of 99% on the usage of FF term to equate to 35mm film size, but if that stat is true or even close, and since your definition of FF seems to be your own, then by consensus FF = 24x36. By your own admission 99% of folks understand what it means. So why challenge it?

PS, Nikon and Sony do not even make a FF sensor As far as I know only Canon has a true 24x36 sensor.

jackinkc Loc: Kansas City

ecar wrote:

The 35mm Film camera days are the Culprit! We're ... (show quote)

Have you ever measured the diagonal of a 35mm negative? By the way, a 50mm lens gives a “normal” view with a 35mm camera. Here’s a test - look through a viewfinder on a 35mm camera with a 50 mounted. Select an object several feet away and then view it with your free eye then with the viewfinder. You should not see a difference in size.

burkphoto Loc: High Point, NC

Peterff wrote:

It is perhaps a 'very unique' perspective, like being only slightly pregnant...

Maybe we could agree that Ron is correct in this instance, but that it wouldn't make any difference. C'est la guerre!"

Mais oui!

BebuLamar

jackinkc wrote:

Have you ever measured the diagonal of a 35mm negative? By the way, a 50mm lens gives a “normal” view with a 35mm camera. Here’s a test - look through a viewfinder on a 35mm camera with a 50 mounted. Select an object several feet away and then view it with your free eye then with the viewfinder. You should not see a difference in size.

You do see a difference in size because it depends on the viewfinder magnification. Only viewfinder with magnification of 1X would have the same size image (when a 50mm is used) as seen with naked eyes. Most cameras have viewfinder magnification less than 1X.

ecar Loc: Oregon, USA

jackinkc wrote:

Have you ever measured the diagonal of a 35mm negative? By the way, a 50mm lens gives a “normal” view with a 35mm camera. Here’s a test - look through a viewfinder on a 35mm camera with a 50 mounted. Select an object several feet away and then view it with your free eye then with the viewfinder. You should not see a difference in size.

I never bothered to measure a 35mm negative. Didn't matter to me. I just bought the film & put it in my camera. And I knew when "FF Full Frame" was mentioned, they meant 35mm film equivalent, even though a better way of saying 35mm equivalent probably should of been used.

And yes, the 50mm lens was the "normal" view, that's why the camera's came stock with that lens. I always liked the 28mm alot better.

Dossile

A digital full frame camera is smaller than a medium format camera. Doesn’t make sense if you think about it. It is a definition that currently isn’t logical, but it is how the terminology developed from the size of film. The same is true of digital formats. The terms aren’t logical, but I understand what people are talking about.

Architect1776 Loc: In my mind

Dossile wrote:

A digital full frame camera is smaller than a medium format camera. Doesn’t make sense if you think about it. It is a definition that currently isn’t logical, but it is how the terminology developed from the size of film. The same is true of digital formats. The terms aren’t logical, but I understand what people are talking about.

alx Loc: NJ

The idea of Nikon and "Full Frame" goes way back before the age of Digital. Originally it referred to the fact that looking through the viewfinder of the Nikon F series showed the Full Frame of what would be recorded on the film. At one point, Consumer Reports dinged the F2 for this because it didn't give the photographer (snap shooter) the right impression of what they'd get back from the lab after it was mass printed or stuck in a slide mount.

Nikon pros loved the fact that they actually could see and take advantage of that FF image to know exactly what would be on the film.

I for one had the film carriers in my Durst enlarger ground down by a machinist so that I could take advantage of every bit of the film image. (I was not alone in this practice.) Unless it was for portrait or people shots where an 8x10 was expected, I generally printed more like 7.5x10 to capture the actual framing from the film, 8x10 being an artificial and arbitrary standard in terms of 35mm photography. Note that if we are talking view cameras, it is a different story.

alx

copladocus

This is akin to my personal favorites like people calling ammunition magazines "clips" or fragments from shells or grenades "shrapnel." Same with calling any facial tissue "Kleenex." So I get your point and stand read to be chastised as I leave the computer to play with my Canon 6D with the bigger-sized sensor.. cheers, T.