Full Frame (Page 5): Good to know. But that wasn't a volume produced consumer camera, was it? They couldn't have gotten the cost of the sensors from a retail customer. Do you not agree...

AndyH Loc: Massachusetts and New Hampshire

SteveR wrote:

Andy, Nikon's first DSLR, the D1, was a dx camera, not a full frame camera.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Nikon_D1

Good to know. But that wasn't a volume produced consumer camera, was it? They couldn't have gotten the cost of the sensors from a retail customer.
Do you not agree that the adoption of the full frame standard was because they already had designs and inventory.

And Bebulamar, yes I do recall that name for the original format.

Andy

SteveR Loc: Michigan

AndyH wrote:

Good to know. But that wasn't a volume produced consumer camera, was it? They couldn't have gotten the cost of the sensors from a retail customer.
Do you not agree that the adoption of the full frame standard was because they already had designs and inventory.

And Bebulamar, yes I do recall that name for the original format.

Andy

Nikon's first full frame camera, which they called fx was the D3 in 2007. The second was the D700 in 2008. Until then, everything was dx, or crop sensor.

Think about it. As far as Nikon goes we've only had full frame for 11 years. I didn't research other brands, but I would imagine Nikon would not have been far behind anybody.

flashgordonbrown Loc: Silverdale, WA

SteveR wrote:

4x5 or 8x10 are specialty cameras, whereas 35mm wa... (show quote)

Actually, 'single frame' or as it was also known, 'half frame', was the standard for commercial movies, thus the terms 'double frame' and 'full frame' for the 24x36 image size.

SteveR Loc: Michigan

flashgordonbrown wrote:

Actually, 'single frame' or as it was also known, 'half frame', was the standard for commercial movies, thus the terms 'double frame' and 'full frame' for the 24x36 image size.

Do a little more research.

gwilliams6

wdross wrote:

No, you do not really necessarily need a full fram... (show quote)

I agree here. I have both APS-C and fullframe mirrorless cameras from Sony, 24 megapixel APS-C A6500 ; and two fullframe mirrorless cameras, the 24 megapixel fullframe A7III, and the 42 megapixel fullframe A7RIII. My APS-C camera can produce stunning image quality for most display needs. The fullframe do have an advantage in low light, high ISO shooting with less noise. But you could go your entire photo life and be happy with a quality APS-C system or even micro 4/3rd system. here is just one of dozens of youtube videos about the differences, and the advantages and disadvantages of each format. . https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=8XE6G-2PRz4 Cheers

flashgordonbrown Loc: Silverdale, WA

SteveR wrote:

Do a little more research.

What do you dispute in what I posted? I speak from having extensive experience in the photo industry. While there were some commercial films shot on 70mm most were single, or half frame (same thing, just different terminology ). Full frame, or double frame (again, the same thing) is primarily the format that 35mm still cameras use, as standardized by early Leica cameras and subsequently adopted by the camera mfg industry.

chrisg-optical Loc: New York, NY

Bipod wrote:

Funny how what we used to call "miniature format" became "full frame". The power of marketing!

YES very clever marketing by the camera companies...by calling it "FULL frame" they are giving everyone the subconscious impression that they are missing out with a "CROP" sensor. FULL is a relative term....to a medium format shooter, 35mm is CROP! They should stop using the term "full frame" and instead refer to sensors by the size designation 35mm, APSC, APSH, M43, etc. Back in the film days many pros (studio, advertising, fashion) would not be caught dead using a 35mm camera as that was considered "too small"! 35mm was considered "good enough" for journalism (newspapers, news magazines), where compactness and agility mattered more. I always find the video by Zack Arias amusing...

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=PHYidejT3KY

SteveR Loc: Michigan

flashgordonbrown wrote:

What do you dispute in what I posted? I speak from having extensive experience in the photo industry. While there were some commercial films shot on 70mm most were single, or half frame (same thing, just different terminology ). Full frame, or double frame (again, the same thing) is primarily the format that 35mm still cameras use, as standardized by early Leica cameras and subsequently adopted by the camera mfg industry.

Why do I dispute what you posted? Read the following. I could find nothing for half frame and movies. It's not as though I didn't look. You're free to provide sources that would enlighten us otherwise. They weren't apparent in Google.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/35_mm_film

flashgordonbrown Loc: Silverdale, WA

SteveR wrote:

Why do I dispute what you posted? Read the following. I could find nothing for half frame and movies. It's not as though I didn't look. You're free to provide sources that would enlighten us otherwise. They weren't apparent in Google.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/35_mm_film

In the first paragraph of the Wikipedia article it clearly states that the standard size used by the motion picture industry was 'SINGLE FRAME'! Pay more attention to your source of information!

flashgordonbrown Loc: Silverdale, WA

flashgordonbrown wrote:

In the first paragraph of the Wikipedia article it clearly states that the standard size used by the motion picture industry was 'SINGLE FRAME'! Pay more attention to your source of information!

Also,as previously stated, 'single frame' and 'half frame' refer to the same format.

SteveR Loc: Michigan

flashgordonbrown wrote:

Actually, 'single frame' or as it was also known, 'half frame', was the standard for commercial movies, thus the terms 'double frame' and 'full frame' for the 24x36 image size.

So, what they did is put two images on each 24x36 frame?

jcboy3

SteveR wrote:

So, what they did is put two images on each 24x36 frame?

So you might want to read this:

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/135_film

Which clarifies how 35mm movie film running vertically got used for still photography by running it horizontally.

The common size of the image in 35mm film was 22mm x 16mm (the remainder was taken by the sprockets). Rotated 90 degrees allowed a larger area (in this case, 24mm x 36mm) to be used for still photography.

This was common knowledge among film photographers, back in the day.

Blaster34 Loc: Florida Treasure Coast

mhdt64 wrote:

As a complete beginner in the hobby and looking to buy a decent camera to take on vacation, I am not sure I understand the advantages of full frame. Do I really need a full frame camera?

Check with B&H, they may have some good deals on Sony A6300/6500 with appropriate lenses to go with them. Superb ASP-C Cameras and Sony makes the majority of sensors for Nikon, top notch. Fuji also makes an excellent ASPC camera and great lenses

AndyH Loc: Massachusetts and New Hampshire

jcboy3 wrote:

So you might want to read this:

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/135_film

Which clarifies how 35mm movie film running vertically got used for still photography by running it horizontally.

The common size of the image in 35mm film was 22mm x 16mm (the remainder was taken by the sprockets). Rotated 90 degrees allowed a larger area (in this case, 24mm x 36mm) to be used for still photography.

This was common knowledge among film photographers, back in the day.

The difference is the vertical image format for movies vs the horizontal format for stills.

Andy

flashgordonbrown Loc: Silverdale, WA

SteveR wrote:

So, what they did is put two images on each 24x36 frame?ati

As has been explained by several other posters, film was transported through the camera vertically, but thend frame was horizontal. Olympus made a line of half - frame still cameras where the film was transported horizontally, but the image was vertical The cameras were inovative for their time, and had the advantage of giving the user twice as many images on a roll offilm!