Retina wrote:
If there was not such a legacy of 35mm film camera usage, the terms Crop Factor or Full Frame equivalency would obviously not be around. Instead, some might keep a little chart of sensor size vs focal length for equivalent fields of view for each sensor size. Most people, if not everyone, would just get used to what various focal length lenses did on whatever camera we were using at the time.
"Full frame" is marketing-speak for what everyone used to call miniature format.
Maybe a Honda Civic is now a "full sized car". It is if that will sell more Hondas!
Fortunately, truth isn't detemined by advertising or popular usage. Because of physical
laws, different formats are optimal for different purposes. So onne needs to have the
right tool for the job. Different people need different size cameras just as they need
different sized cars--there is no "one size fits all".
The situation exists because it is very expensive to fabricate larger digital sensors.
Before, manufacuters didn't care whether customers bought large format, medium
format, or minature format cameras. Now large format is film-only (large format digital
sensor ICs do not exist), and meidum format image sensors are a very expensive part.
So it is in the manufactuer's interest to use the smallest sensor it can convince you
to buy. So "minature format" becaome "full frame".
Now some sellers are starting to refer to APS-C as "medium format digital".
This is how marketing works. I make a lot more money if i can sell you "orange
drink" for the same price as orange juice. But the FTC doesn't regulate cameras
to the same degree that it regulates food product labeling and advertising.
Most consumers are so clueless, they don't even know they are being manipulated
by advertisers.