Bugfan Loc: Toronto, Canada

Back in the seventies when 35 mm started to blossom there was only one other competing standard when it comes to quality films and it was called medium format. Before digital 35 mm remained a key standard.

Once digital came onto its own APS-C became a standard too since most of the DSLR cameras had that kind of sensor. But now there was a problem. I started doing film back in 1970. After a period of time, about ten years, I got to the point where I intuitively knew what angle of view I could get from the different focal lengths. So buying a new lens became easy.

My first DSLR was a pain. I was constantly struggling with arithmetic to figure out what kind of an angle of view I could get from different focal lengths. My whole being was centred around 35 mm. When Nikon finally came out with a full frame camera (ie 35 mm) I finally reverted to the past. Like before I now knew exactly what the effect of any focal length is on my pictures. I also know exactly what lens to reach for depending on the subject.

I'm not unique, everyone who grew up with film has my problem too. So that's why lenses are constantly given 35 mm equivalents, so that people like me can relate to the lens performance.

As to 126 and 110, those were formats for consumers and they did not have the same following as 35 mm so they never earned a standard. 126 might have become a standard if it had taken off like 35 mm did and if it offered interchangeable lenses for its cameras. But it didn't. As to 110, that rapidly became a format or a standard that produced light compact cameras. But it did not compete with 35 mm and there were no interchangeable lenses. It was only served by point and shoot cameras.

rehess Loc: South Bend, Indiana, USA

A name is a means of identification - it doesn't need a meaning. You might as well ask why "120" and "620" film are the same size, but the spools differ.

Waltm Loc: Fredericksburg, VA

This all takes me back to my slide rule days of approximation.

bcrawf

What I notice about your post is that you only say what is NOT. How about saying what a FF camera is, as the term is used (and don't say all cameras are FF because whatever their format, they use the "full" sensor of whatever size they have. (It is like saying all cameras are digital because the user's digits are what operates them.)

JohnFrim Loc: Somewhere in the Great White North.

WOW!!! Eleven pages now of nitpicking on terminology, and for what purpose??? And I, the fool, read every single post! While some posters presented outright false information and others expressed the sentiment, "Facts/truth aside, here's what I think and that's good enough for me," there were a few responses that were illuminating, and I thank those posters for the information. I loved the old ad for the Olympus Pen-F.

Several posts veered off in directions that had very little to do with the topic (hysterectomies; English grammar; etc) or simply vented pet peeves. A recent comment by rehess ("A name is a means of identification - it doesn't need a meaning") prompted me to substantiate that premise with one of my favourite examples of how "terminology should not always be taken literally." It is off-topic from FF and photography but demonstrates how people sometimes (and falsely) think there is more meaning to a term than in actuality.

Many years ago Canada switched from Imperial to Metric units of measurement, so expressions of "fuel economy" for cars went from miles-per-gallon (mpg) to litres-per-hundred-kilometers (L/100k). A friend of mine said he just would not be able to wrap his head around the new units, so I challenged his understanding of the terms. While he knew that 40 mpg for a sedan was really good compared to a gas-guzzling SUV that only got 15 mpg, I told him I didn't believe he actually considered how many 1-gallon milk jugs of gasoline it would take to drive to a specific destination that was "X" miles away (or more correctly, did he actually visualize distances/destinations that were drivable on a gallon of fuel with the two vehicles). All he was really doing was putting numbers on a scale where a high number is good and a low number is bad. Of course, he was able to "calibrate" that scale in his mind by association with different vehicle types. In the Metric System one rates vehicles in terms of fuel consumption, not distance travelled, relative to the common denominator; thus, a low number is better than a higher number. All that is needed is a mental recalibration to know that 5.9 is really good compared to 15.7 (L/100k for the sedan vs the SUV). Hence, my premise that terminology (FF, cropped) is often more useful as a comparison than as a fact (i.e., is FF 24 x 36 or 24 x 32? Does the camera use all of the pixels of the sensor (NO) or are there some around the periphery that are not used for the image (YES)? [In which case Ron was technically wrong when he stated every camera is FF because the full sensor array is used.]).

Now here is a useful factoid for car enthusiasts comparing fuel economy/efficiency between unit systems: since mpg and L/100k are effectively reciprocal expressions, conversion between them is really easy. Simply divide 235.2 (for USG; 282.5 for Imperial gallons) by one spec to get the other.

JPL

You are probably right but I like the usual FF definition better than something else that might be closer to the truth

Full frame was invented early in the digital age as a reference to the 24x36 film format. That was the format of choice for all serious photography in the years before digital turned this business upside down. Since then everything bigger than 24x36 is referred to as medium format and everything smaller as cropped. I think this a good system to categorize digital formats.

blackest Loc: Ireland

I wonder why no DsLR manufacturer went with the portrait frame like olympus did with film, it would likely have been well received by the fashion industry at least.

Rongnongno Loc: FL

Because folks see wide horizontal and not narrow vertical?

DTran

I think most cell phones are vertical.

Rongnongno Loc: FL

That is because they are handheld with one hand.

When a cell phone or tablet is held with both hands it is held horizontally, more to grasp and view.

It is a simple ergonomic observation.

Rongnongno Loc: FL

That is because they are handheld with one hand.

When a cell phone or tablet is held with both hands it is held horizontally, more to grasp and view.

It is a simple ergonomic observation.

DTran

In researching to buy my first digital camera I ran across the term full frame. I've using film for almost 40 years and I didn't know about full frame until now I found out full frame is a digital camera that has the sensor the same size as a 35mm film frame. Learn something new.

alx Loc: NJ

Perhaps we have stumbled on the essence of what differentiates a picture taker from a photographer here.

Just like a soldier in the field who pokes his weapon up over a wall and just shoots at random is unlikely to find the target.

It is the sharpshooter who holds the sight up to his eye, pulls the weapon close to his body to steady his aim and gently squeezes off the shot holding his breath to focus on the subject.

That's the photographer.

alx

wj cody Loc: springfield illinois

i don't understand, you eat beef with ff? is ff a sauce or something? how did i get here?