Ugly Hedgehog - Photography Forum
Home Active Topics Newest Pictures Search Login Register
Main Photography Discussion
My beef with FF
Page <<first <prev 6 of 11 next> last>>
Jan 12, 2018 09:35:16   #
TonyBot
 
BebuLamar wrote:
Using the word "Full Frame" to describe the 24x36mm format sucks! It was once known as 35mm "Double Frame".


... or, as some of us may remember, "miniature" format. (y'know, like when Kodachrome was ASA 10?)

Reply
Jan 12, 2018 09:39:14   #
f8lee Loc: New Mexico
 
Rongnongno wrote:
Read above. It is not. A FF camera is a camera that uses the whole sensor. ALL DO.


The FF concept was a marketing thing by the first DSLR manufacturers - it was their effort to make the angle of view differential conceptually easier to grasp by photographers who were used to 35MM film cameras systems offering multiple lenses. That was the reason the entire nomenclature was created...if it were the case that 2-1/4 square was the vastly dominant camera format for photo enthusiasts instead of 35MM film, then "everyone" would know that an 80MM focal length was a "normal" lens. And if at the inception of digital imaging the first cameras offered had sensors that were only 24x36MM in size then the manufacturers would have referred to those as "cropped" with a factor so a user could see that the 80MM normal lens on their Hassy would behave like a telephoto lens on their spanking new "cropped" DSLR.

Pros always knew that a 65MM lens was a wide angle on their 4x5 view camera but a telephoto on their half-frame Olympus Pen cameras, but amateurs accounted for far more sales in the nascent photography market back in the 70's and bought far more 35MM SLR cameras - the Canon-Nikon religious war has been going on for decades. It was the marketing wonks at Nikon and Canon who used these arbitrary designations of cropped frame versus full frame (referring to the ubiquitously used 35MM film format as the full frame thing) to make things easier for the amateur crowd. As a simplified rule of thumb it just made it simpler for the non-pros to see what new lenses they might want to buy, because most, in the backs of their heads, "knew" that an 80MM lens was a telephoto so a 50MM focal length lens on an DX camera would act as if it were a 75MM lens on a film camera.

It is a marketing thing. It is not technical. Rant all you want, but get over it.

Reply
Jan 12, 2018 09:46:00   #
BebuLamar
 
f8lee wrote:
The FF concept was a marketing thing by the first DSLR manufacturers - it was their effort to make the angle of view differential conceptually easier to grasp by photographers who were used to 35MM film cameras systems offering multiple lenses. That was the reason the entire nomenclature was created...if it were the case that 2-1/4 square was the vastly dominant camera format for photo enthusiasts instead of 35MM film, then "everyone" would know that an 80MM focal length was a "normal" lens. And if at the inception of digital imaging the first cameras offered had sensors that were only 24x36MM in size then the manufacturers would have referred to those as "cropped" with a factor so a user could see that the 80MM normal lens on their Hassy would behave like a telephoto lens on their spanking new "cropped" DSLR.

Pros always knew that a 65MM lens was a wide angle on their 4x5 view camera but a telephoto on their half-frame Olympus Pen cameras, but amateurs accounted for far more sales in the nascent photography market back in the 70's and bought far more 35MM SLR cameras - the Canon-Nikon religious war has been going on for decades. It was the marketing wonks at Nikon and Canon who used these arbitrary designations of cropped frame versus full frame (referring to the ubiquitously used 35MM film format as the full frame thing) to make things easier for the amateur crowd. As a simplified rule of thumb it just made it simpler for the non-pros to see what new lenses they might want to buy, because most, in the backs of their heads, "knew" that an 80MM lens was a telephoto so a 50MM focal length lens on an DX camera would act as if it were a 75MM lens on a film camera.

It is a marketing thing. It is not technical. Rant all you want, but get over it.
The FF concept was a marketing thing by the first ... (show quote)


The 35mm format was very popular in the film days and it's reasonable to expect people to have an idea of what kind of angle of view a lens of certain focal length would give. Today, about 20 years after digital cameras became popular so there are a lot of people who never use the 35mm camera before so they wouldn't know the effect of a certain lens focal length on a 35mm camera than any other formats.

Reply
 
 
Jan 12, 2018 09:55:23   #
f8lee Loc: New Mexico
 
BebuLamar wrote:
The 35mm format was very popular in the film days and it's reasonable to expect people to have an idea of what kind of angle of view a lens of certain focal length would give. Today, about 20 years after digital cameras became popular so there are a lot of people who never use the 35mm camera before so they wouldn't know the effect of a certain lens focal length on a 35mm camera than any other formats.


Of course. And the vernacular continues after its useful life, but in truth since today since the manufacturers still offer cameras with different sensor sizes that can still make use of the same lenses, there is some value to it.

The perfect solution would be to speak of lenses in terms of their angle of view rather than focal length, so when you shop for a telephoto lens and ask for one with an angle of view of 15 degrees for your 35MM film camera (or FF today) the clerk would show you a 100MM focal length lens, but if you said you wanted a 15 degree angle of view lens for your 4x5 view camera he would show you a 450MM lens. But the time is long past that becoming a reality - the FX/DX etc moniker dumbs it down for people (who generally speaking need all the dumbing down they can get nowadays).

Reply
Jan 12, 2018 09:59:12   #
Screamin Scott Loc: Marshfield Wi, Baltimore Md, now Dallas Ga
 
More people can relate to "equivalent focal length" than the angle of view, thus it has value as you say.
f8lee wrote:
Of course. And the vernacular continues after its useful life, but in truth since today since the manufacturers still offer cameras with different sensor sizes that can still make use of the same lenses, there is some value to it.

The perfect solution would be to speak of lenses in terms of their angle of view rather than focal length, so when you shop for a telephoto lens and ask for one with an angle of view of 15 degrees for your 35MM film camera (or FF today) the clerk would show you a 100MM focal length lens, but if you said you wanted a 15 degree angle of view lens for your 4x5 view camera he would show you a 450MM lens. But the time is long past that becoming a reality - the FX/DX etc moniker dumbs it down for people (who generally speaking need all the dumbing down they can get nowadays).
Of course. And the vernacular continues after its ... (show quote)

Reply
Jan 12, 2018 10:03:48   #
RickL Loc: Vail, Az
 
Rongnongno wrote:
FF = Full frame. FF is NOT 24x36. In Nikon jargon 24x36 is FX. 'Cropped sensors' are DX cameras*.

FF confusion started long ago when folks compared not the sensor but the field of view and came with 'Oh! It is a cropped view of a regular 24x36 camera'.

Blame this on folks who did the explanation for not clearing up the conceptual mistake.

Every camera, regardless of what the heck it is, from an old cell phone to the most advanced medium format, is a FF camera. Meaning the full sensor array is used.

Unlike ACA and Obama care being the same (but perceived as different) FF and 24x36 are not the same at all (but perceived as identical).

Yet FF is used left and right, referring to the wrong thing 99% of the time.

----
Call me a fool for bringing this up time and time again but I just do not understand why folks are not getting it.


-----
* Among other smaller formats.
FF = Full frame. FF is NOT 24x36. In Nikon jargo... (show quote)


Ron, Good point

Rick

Reply
Jan 12, 2018 10:04:34   #
Bill_de Loc: US
 
f8lee wrote:
Of course. And the vernacular continues after its useful life, but in truth since today since the manufacturers still offer cameras with different sensor sizes that can still make use of the same lenses, there is some value to it.

The perfect solution would be to speak of lenses in terms of their angle of view rather than focal length, so when you shop for a telephoto lens and ask for one with an angle of view of 15 degrees for your 35MM film camera (or FF today) the clerk would show you a 100MM focal length lens, but if you said you wanted a 15 degree angle of view lens for your 4x5 view camera he would show you a 450MM lens. But the time is long past that becoming a reality - the FX/DX etc moniker dumbs it down for people (who generally speaking need all the dumbing down they can get nowadays).
Of course. And the vernacular continues after its ... (show quote)


You would be the only one in the conversation that understood what you said. In your first example the clerk would probably hand you a 15mm lens. They would have to understand fov for every size sensor and lens length available. You only have to know your own.

Of course stores could hire experts, at a cost to them and you. But what happened in the past too many folks who got the information from the knowledgeable sales person went home and ordered from a discounter.

---

Reply
 
 
Jan 12, 2018 10:15:16   #
d3200prime
 
Kmgw9v wrote:
Fool.


No, Rongnongno is no fool. However, he is devilishly clever at starting a great deal of discussion. I have been following him for sometime now and one thing is crystal clear. The only fools are the ones that respond to his worthless ramblings.

Reply
Jan 12, 2018 10:16:37   #
Shutterbug57
 
d3200prime wrote:
The only fools are the ones that respond to his worthless ramblings.


And yet, here we are.

Reply
Jan 12, 2018 10:19:04   #
TheShoe Loc: Lacey, WA
 
Maybe all digital cameras are Cropped in the sense that no sensor captures the entire field of light that reaches the plane of the sensor. Whenever you fit a rectangle inside a circle, there will be left-over (cropped) light that is not captured by the sensor. Perhaps we need a Nomenclature Committee to come up with new terminology that is unambiguous. Or maybe we could keep the existing terminology with the understanding that FF means a sensor that measures 24x36 and CF refers to any smaller size.

Reply
Jan 12, 2018 10:21:44   #
dsmeltz Loc: Philadelphia
 
It is a term of art in digital photography with a generally accepted meaning.

Get over it.

I had to get over "between" being used for more than two; "impact" becoming a verb; don't get me started on "affect" and "effect" and ohh so many more instances of degradation of the language.

Reply
 
 
Jan 12, 2018 10:35:56   #
Bill_de Loc: US
 
dsmeltz wrote:
It is a term of art in digital photography with a generally accepted meaning.

Get over it.

I had to get over "between" being used for more than two; "impact" becoming a verb; don't get me started on "affect" and "effect" and ohh so many more instances of degradation of the language.


Do get started. You will be adding some interest to the thread.

---

Reply
Jan 12, 2018 10:42:50   #
dsmeltz Loc: Philadelphia
 
Bill_de wrote:
Do get started. You will be adding some interest to the thread.

---


Sorry,

It... it's ju...just too... pai...ainf...fulllll!

Reply
Jan 12, 2018 10:49:24   #
bpulv Loc: Buena Park, CA
 
Rongnongno wrote:
FF = Full frame. FF is NOT 24x36. In Nikon jargon 24x36 is FX. 'Cropped sensors' are DX cameras*.

FF confusion started long ago when folks compared not the sensor but the field of view and came with 'Oh! It is a cropped view of a regular 24x36 camera'.

Blame this on folks who did the explanation for not clearing up the conceptual mistake.

Every camera, regardless of what the heck it is, from an old cell phone to the most advanced medium format, is a FF camera. Meaning the full sensor array is used.

Unlike ACA and Obama care being the same (but perceived as different) FF and 24x36 are not the same at all (but perceived as identical).

Yet FF is used left and right, referring to the wrong thing 99% of the time.

----
Call me a fool for bringing this up time and time again but I just do not understand why folks are not getting it.


-----
* Among other smaller formats.
FF = Full frame. FF is NOT 24x36. In Nikon jargo... (show quote)


FF SHOULD NOT BE CALLED "Full Frame" in the first place! When Oskar Barnack at Leitz built the first prototype Leica (UR-Leica) around 1913, he used 35mm motion picture film by tuning the 18x24mm frame on its side and doubling the length to 18x24mm. In actually, we should really call the standard 35mm still frame "Double Frame," or something like that rather than "Full Frame."

Reply
Jan 12, 2018 10:53:22   #
dsmeltz Loc: Philadelphia
 
bpulv wrote:
FF SHOULD NOT BE CALLED "Full Frame" in the first place! When Oskar Barnack at Leitz built the first prototype Leica (UR-Leica) around 1913, he used 35mm motion picture film by tuning the 18x24mm frame on its side and doubling the length to 18x24mm. In actually, we should really call the standard 35mm still frame "Double Frame," or something like that rather than "Full Frame."


But he didn't. And FF now means what it means. That is how language evolves. Complaining about it is like complaining about how a wave rolls in. A wave just rolls in. It just does. And that is OK unless you try to deny that it does and foolishly build your house on sand and then expect the Federal government to bail your a** out....

Opps, that kind of got away from me...

Reply
Page <<first <prev 6 of 11 next> last>>
If you want to reply, then register here. Registration is free and your account is created instantly, so you can post right away.
Main Photography Discussion
UglyHedgehog.com - Forum
Copyright 2011-2024 Ugly Hedgehog, Inc.