My beef with FF
Jan 11, 2018 16:14:02 #
Jan 11, 2018 16:54:26 #
MichaelH
Loc: NorCal via Lansing, MI
Rongnongno wrote:
FF = Full frame. FF is NOT 24x36. In Nikon jargo... (show quote)
And I would venture to say that the same argument could be used to deny the legitimacy of the use of the terminology "crop sensor". "Cropped" from what size? FX (23.9X36, 23.9X35.9 or 24X35.9) or Gene's example of 11x14 (inches) where a true 24x36 sensor would represent a cropped sensor. And there are many examples of cameras that can be set to not use the full sensor. An FX camera in DX mode, an M43 sensor camera not using 4x3 aspect ratio among others.
In order to alleviate the "confusion" would you propose we all memorize the size of all of the different sensors and in Imperial units or Metric? I think I prefer the shorthand where when one says Full Frame we all "know" what is meant.
Jan 11, 2018 17:07:44 #
BebuLamar wrote:
Did you check with SS about this? Well in this case I don't think he would know but I agree with you. I hate the fact that many treat the 24x36mm format as a standard all others are measured by like stating focal length in 35mm equivalent. Why didn't anyone state focal length in 110, 126 equivalent?
Because there were more good cameras produced and used in 35 mm than those others (and most 110 etc were aimed at the average "snap shooter") for several decades and 35 mm became the norm for which most lenses were produced and from which other film sizes were measured. Unless you were one of those "medium format" or "large format" users but by the 50s those were definetlly a minority among pros everywhere but in the studio and some specialty uses. Esp press/wannabe press photographers. It is just a lot easier to chase sirens etc with a 35, even when you add a bag of lenses and accessories. Also the film was cheaper because of the huge amount produced for the movie industry.
Digital was being marketed to a lot of 35 mm users so stating things in terms of 35 mm also became the norm.
Jan 11, 2018 17:34:51 #
Jan 11, 2018 17:47:56 #
Rongnongno wrote:
Read above. It is not. A FF camera is a camera that uses the whole sensor. ALL DO.
Who decided that is the proper terminology. Maybe what you are talking about should be called WS since, as you said, it uses the whole sensor. You didn't say it uses the full sensor. Are you trying to confuse everybody?
Isn't it important to use terminology that the majority of people understand, so we can communicate with less confusion.?
--
Jan 11, 2018 17:49:48 #
RONGNONGNO:
As usual you are Sooooooo -- RIGHT
That is -- Technicality Right -- 35mm format is at best a small format -- So you say & I fully agree --- why in the hell call it "FULL FRAME"
BUT --- If I'm counting correctly this is your 2nd or is it even your 3rd post on this fascinating sub-small-frame topic??
WHY SO LOUD ????
As usual you are Sooooooo -- RIGHT
That is -- Technicality Right -- 35mm format is at best a small format -- So you say & I fully agree --- why in the hell call it "FULL FRAME"
BUT --- If I'm counting correctly this is your 2nd or is it even your 3rd post on this fascinating sub-small-frame topic??
WHY SO LOUD ????
Jan 11, 2018 18:47:21 #
As much as I hate it, it's called Full Frame because the crop sensors came first, and later on sensors expanded to take in the full image circle of 35mm lenses. Which means to me that micro four thirds is the full frame of the 110 film format, since I use those same 110 camera lenses on it.
Jan 11, 2018 19:27:23 #
IDguy
Loc: Idaho
Rongnongno wrote:
FF = Full frame. FF is NOT 24x36. In Nikon jargo... (show quote)
Take a comfortable seat, close your eyes, and breathe deeply. This too will soon pass.
Jan 11, 2018 19:30:29 #
IDguy
Loc: Idaho
ricardo7 wrote:
What cameras use less than the whole sensor?
Actually many. Perhaps even most.
The ones I have offer alternative image aspect ratios and sizes which use less than all the MP on the sensor.
Jan 11, 2018 19:54:23 #
ricardo7
Loc: Washington, DC - Santiago, Chile
IDguy wrote:
Actually many. Perhaps even most.
The ones I have offer alternative image aspect ratios and sizes which use less than all the MP on the sensor.
The ones I have offer alternative image aspect ratios and sizes which use less than all the MP on the sensor.
Point taken.
Jan 11, 2018 22:04:49 #
Jan 12, 2018 06:36:14 #
Rongnongno wrote:
Read above. It is not. A FF camera is a camera that uses the whole sensor. ALL DO.
Jan 12, 2018 06:46:36 #
Jan 12, 2018 06:52:26 #
ricardo7 wrote:
What cameras use less than the whole sensor?
My D810 is capable of reducing the amount of the sensor that the image is projected onto. It has three alternatives: 1:1, 1:1.2 and 1:1.5. So to answer your question plainly - the D810 can use less than the whole sensor.
Jan 12, 2018 07:01:37 #
billnikon
Loc: Pennsylvania/Ohio/Florida/Maui/Oregon/Vermont
Rongnongno wrote:
FF = Full frame. FF is NOT 24x36. In Nikon jargo... (show quote)
My joy in photography comes from seeing the final image. I am happy to report that anything else is just BLA BLA BLA to me. But I did enjoy reading your post.
If you want to reply, then register here. Registration is free and your account is created instantly, so you can post right away.