My beef with FF
Jan 12, 2018 12:05:11 #
ecurb1105 wrote:
Right. Why aren't APS-C sensor cameras properly called half-frame cameras?
Because they are called APS-C cameras. It just is. Resistance is futile.
Jan 12, 2018 12:06:41 #
Larrymc wrote:
Well actually you just have a "beef" with the terminology of "FF", right?? Not the actual cameras with that designation?
Larry
Larry
Right. I do not know if manufacturers use FF. Nikon took care of not associating with FF. FX for them is 24x36. I have no clue as to what the other 'guys' do thought.
Jan 12, 2018 12:14:37 #
dsmeltz wrote:
Because they are called APS-C cameras. It just is. Resistance is futile.
Or as my sister used to say, "Because Mommy said so!".
--
Jan 12, 2018 12:21:25 #
dsmeltz wrote:
Because they are called APS-C cameras. It just is. Resistance is futile.
No, resistance is Ohm.
Jan 12, 2018 12:27:35 #
ecurb1105 wrote:
No, resistance is Ohm.
Resistance is not Ohm. It's measured in Ohm but it's not Ohm.
Jan 12, 2018 12:36:32 #
petercbrandt
Loc: New York City, Manhattan
I thought that upon the arrival in the digital age, the 35mm camera, as well the medium format 6cmx6cm (120) were the "standard" formats.
Then came smaller cameras with smaller sensors and the lens to make a normal view were now no longer 'normal' 50mm.
That way "Full Frame" made reference to the "standard" 35mm camera. Then new lenses (for smaller sensors) needed to be translated to the 'standard' .
We all wanted to know with APS, 4/3rd's....etc. what is the lens focal length, especially when zooms are attached...from where to where: 24mm to 400mm (standard) and one could understand the zoom range. This where Full Frame was useful; now old familiar numbers made sense.
That's my take on it !
Then came smaller cameras with smaller sensors and the lens to make a normal view were now no longer 'normal' 50mm.
That way "Full Frame" made reference to the "standard" 35mm camera. Then new lenses (for smaller sensors) needed to be translated to the 'standard' .
We all wanted to know with APS, 4/3rd's....etc. what is the lens focal length, especially when zooms are attached...from where to where: 24mm to 400mm (standard) and one could understand the zoom range. This where Full Frame was useful; now old familiar numbers made sense.
That's my take on it !
Jan 12, 2018 13:05:19 #
bedouin wrote:
How many angels can sit on the head of a pin?I say 4. Anybody want to say 5?
My Jesuit education provided these: As many as God deems necessary, or nobody cares because it's inconsequential. My vote is for inconsequential.
Jan 12, 2018 13:16:13 #
TMI - Sounds like you are looking to pick an argument. FF is, to me and most folk, a camera with a sensor the size of a 35mm slide. 'Nuff said.
Jan 12, 2018 13:19:50 #
Mr palmer
Loc: Currently: Colorado, USA, Terra, Sol
I like the idea of "Full Ketchup", can we try to standardize that term? Please? It would help bring a new generation of photographers into the light. I might even help us find world peace and balance the budget. But at least it would reduce some tensions, and that's never a bad thing.
Jan 12, 2018 14:04:33 #
alx
Loc: NJ
Mr palmer wrote:
I like the idea of "Full Ketchup", can we try to standardize that term? Please? It would help bring a new generation of photographers into the light. I might even help us find world peace and balance the budget. But at least it would reduce some tensions, and that's never a bad thing.
There is a problem with "Full Ketchup". Before long it will be shortened to FK. Then someone will inevitably say "I see F, you see..." Nope! That line killed Soupy Sales.
Jan 12, 2018 14:07:46 #
Rongnongno wrote:
Read above. It is not. A FF camera is a camera that uses the whole sensor. ALL DO.
Actually, many cameras do not use the entire sensor. A D810 has a 37mp sensor, but claims an effective 36.3 mp picture area.
And yes, Nikon does refer to their FX cameras as Full Frame. These are screen captures directly from the Nikon website.
Jan 12, 2018 14:15:37 #
I thought, a while ago, that Nikon thought 24 x 32 was the standard (full frame) size for 35mm film while Leica favored 24 x 36. I grew up with 2 1/4 x 3 1/4.
Jan 12, 2018 15:26:44 #
Rongnongno wrote:
FF = Full frame. FF is NOT 24x36. In Nikon jargo... (show quote)
If you bring it time and time again and nobody has changed whatever has to be changed to suit your tastes why don't you simply get over it and move on. I am still trying to figure what the hell you are talking about and then if I do, will anyone really care. Life is too short for stupid things such as this.
You are talking apples to oranges. My understanding of FF is that it is closer to the 35mm film. The sensor is bigger to accomplish that. That is my simplified version and it suits me.
Dennis
Jan 12, 2018 15:28:09 #
ricardo7 wrote:
What cameras use less than the whole sensor?
An FX Nikon in crop mode.
Jan 12, 2018 15:29:53 #
Norm Rosenberg wrote:
I thought, a while ago, that Nikon thought 24 x 32 was the standard (full frame) size for 35mm film while Leica favored 24 x 36. I grew up with 2 1/4 x 3 1/4.
Well yeah but that was back in 1948 and I wouldn't call it a while ago.
If you want to reply, then register here. Registration is free and your account is created instantly, so you can post right away.