k2edm Loc: FN32AD

that is what i was trying to say......got derailed somewhere.. probably bad yeild caused manuf to go for smaller "neg" ..... ed

Bill P

I'm still here for entertainment. I'm hoping to see the foolishness go all the way past 20 pages.

MauiMoto Loc: Hawaii

I thought the size of an engine was total displacement, given in cc or ci. Horsepower has nothing to do with size as far as naming goes. Did you mean that a modern 2.0l produces as much horsepower as a 5.0l did fifty years ago?

SuperflyTNT Loc: Manassas VA

Abo

No worries Yoda...

But don't you mean;

To become informed, look up the subject, an interested person can?

Abo

Stylistically the Tucker looks to be well ahead of the "3" others. Bit like a Studebaker.

And the flat 6 mid engine layout is outstanding... I would not be surprised at
all if Ford Chrysler and GM were instrumental in its death... the Engineers of
the "big three" would have known that the design of the Tucker put them in the "stone age"
and if the Tucker was produced at a competitive cost it would have obliterated their cars
of that year.

Thanks for the link... very interesting.

Photocraig

DSLR's were introduced in physical packages that resembled 35mm SLR's. EXCEPT, the Sensor was smaller than the nearly ubiquitous in that form factor 35mm frame. After selling several generations of "cropped" or smaller APS-C sized sensor DSLR's Canon figured out how to get a 35mm sensor into the DSLR familiar form factor. The MAIN reason it causes confusion is in the past, separate film formats had separate and usually (but not always) different lens mounts, and therefore, the confusion never got a chance to start. With the DSLR introduction, the legacy manufacturers, Canon, Nikon, etc. needed to make their existing lens inventory available to mount on the new DSLR's. Same lens, same focal length, e.g. 50mm, different Field of view, and a tighter (cropped) image.

In effect, for a photographer holding a DSLR with an APS-C sensor, was impressed with the 12 MPIX Larger 35mm sized sensor of the 5D. It is a popular camera today. So, 'FULL FRAME" meant that here's a 35mm sized DSLR that actually HAS a 35mm sized sensor. That translated into two things. Image quality which has been beaten to death, but not oblivion in these pages. And, the image circle projected by a lens will be "cropped" to the smaller APS-C size. This causes the focal length to 'appear" to be longer, by a factor of 1.3, 1.5, 1.6. 2 or whatever specifically applies to the camera in hand.

Consequently, for a veteran 35mm photographer who can visualize the framing (field of view) of a given lens, say 50mm, when placed on a camera with a different sensor (or even film size) that visualization changes. Simple Optics. But to the grip it and rip it photog, it can cause confusion.

Will it change? NOPE! Will it die out along with the geezers who remember film, probably.

Does it matter, not to geezer me. Can you learn to live with it? I suggest you find better things to worry about and learn your 1.5 or 1.6 times table.
C

rehess Loc: South Bend, Indiana, USA

The only picture I’ve seen is one I took myself - they have one at the Henry Ford Museum in Dearborn MI.

AndyH Loc: Massachusetts and New Hampshire

That’s a good explanation of why the term came back into currency. But the “full frame” vs. “half frame” nomenclature has a long history, as several of us have shown.

Like others, I don’t care what they call it today. I know what it means, and how to envision focal length on a crop sensor model.

It is purely a matter of semantics.

Andy

rehess Loc: South Bend, Indiana, USA