burkphoto Loc: High Point, NC

That probably had something to do with their manufacturing process that made the slightly smaller sensor easier or more economical to produce.

One of the stupidest things the camera manufacturers EVER did was NOT designing a totally new system for digital, instead of kludging circuitry into their old 35mm SLR platforms.

The whole concept of "crop sensor" cameras came about because they couldn't make the sensor 24x36 mm at first. They had too many hurdles to overcome — heat, manufacturing technologies and yields, design, etc. Then, once they started making various size sensors, they had to continue making that size...

photoman022 Loc: Manchester CT USA

Yes, it's what I learned years and years ago. Plus the 35mm was a versatile format.

SharpShooter Loc: NorCal

SHE said, that until you get to 150mm, it's vitually useless anyway!! :lol: :lol:
Now, don't you have something to do, like ironing, or watching, As The World Turns ?!?! :lol:
SS

dennis2146 Loc: Eastern Idaho

With tongue firmly in cheek, I recall that lkimh was the designated name for a house but due to people constantly misspelling it the name, house, stuck. House was also easier to pronounce than lkimh.

I hope that confusion is cleared up. I know it goes back many years.

Dennis

Darkroom317 Loc: Mishawaka, IN

It is about the same size as the Advantix Photo System film that manufactures introduced in the 1990s. it was a failure but the size stuck around with digital. This is why it is called APS-C

OldEarl Loc: Northeast Kansas

About the time the digital cameras were coming out, the Great Yellow Father (currently on life support) was playing with another format called APS or Advantix. It was also at a time of some instability in the silver market. It does not surprise me that someone came out with a sensor of approximately the same size.

After full frame I expect to see larger sensors--note I said see. I doubt I will ever afford one. I saw a digital Hasselblad for approximately the same price I paid for a 3-bedroom on a half acre on 1976.

n3eg Loc: West coast USA

So would that make the four thirds standards group stupid for using the 110/16mm standard in the mid 2000s when digital photography was already established? Or would it make them visionaries for using a format compatible with 16mm film lenses? There are several semi-pro video cam makers who have now adopted the micro four thirds mount. It is also where consumer 4k video started. In my opinion, by using existing familiar formats, focal lengths, and equivalents, they provided a more seamless transition.

Unless you're talking about the physical design of cameras, in which case you need to look at the Minolta "Damage", Olympus Camedia, and Sony cameras from the early 2000s. What a nightmare. That was one thing, if not the only thing, that Kodak got right early on.

tomasrugha Loc: New York, NY

My history with frames and cameras. Started out with the standard kodak camera in my house during the 30s and 40s and early fifties. A cardboard frame with metal edges. It had a fixed lens with viewing through ground glass windows on the sides. Windows were approx. 2X3 proportion. My first camera was bought by my brother for my first class in photography taught by Ben Rose, in 1954 at Parson's School of Design. He insisted on these cameras: Rolliflex with Twin-Lens or less expensive Rollicord Twin-Lens or even less expensive Graphlex Twin-lens Made by the "press camera" large-format camera company. The Leica was the only 35 mm camera recommended. You must use one of these cameras and and he tested each and every lens in his studio to make sure they were perfect. The twin lens cameras used 2.25"X2.25" square film. I used this $125 graphlex camera until I bought a Canon 35mm camera and three lenses in 1989... 35 years of unusually sharp and always square pictures!
Now for 8 years I've used a Canon Sure Shot, digital camera. But for three years I use my iPOD camera! I guess it's 9x16 Golden rectangle proportion.

burkphoto Loc: High Point, NC

Yeah, I was at PMAI when Kodak and a consortium of camera manufacturers introduced APS. I even have a couple of APS Canon ELPHs. They were good for what they were, but digital buried APS within just five years.

burkphoto Loc: High Point, NC

I was not thinking of 4/3 or m43 at all when I wrote that, but rather, the earlier dSLR pioneers. My favorite format is m43, and I love the Lumix GH4 and the pro lenses from Leica and Panny. Much of the recent innovation in cameras has happened there.

Trabor

Actually the foot came before the inch, an inch is 1/12 of a foot, , why 1/12 ? that was decided 3000 yrs ago by the Babylonians, the foot is the average length of the foot of the first 100 men to come out of church on sunday morning
The Mile (coming from the latin Mille meaning 1000) is 1000 double paces of a Roman solder.
Everyone in England knew what a mille was since the romans put mile markers all over the country when they were in charge

5280 is just how it worked out when two unrelated standards collide

dar_clicks Loc: Utah

Excellent comments. The only thing I would add is that it is all too easy to forget what fierce competition there was between Leica and Contax (the Zeiss folks!) and when an improvement would come out in one it was right on the heals of an upgrade by the other, or just when it looked as though one was ahead, the other would come out with a better feature! It is too bad what the war did to those companies' ability to stay as viable in the camera "game" as they could have been otherwise.

burkphoto Loc: High Point, NC

So true. Repeated in Japan in the fifties.

LJR

In the 1960s Olympus made half frame cameras. I had one of their point and shoot cameras with a fixed lens (Pen F) with a meter sensor surrounding the lens, 72 exposures on a standard cassette of 35 mm. film. I used it daily on a 1969 month long Sierra Club trek in the Nepal Himalayas. My Nikkormat 35 mm. full frame SLR was too heavy to carry daily so it was relegated to the duffel bag carried by porters until about day 10 when I finally acclimated to the altitude. I made almost 1,000 exposures on Kadachrome 64 with the Olympus Pen F while on the trail. When having the Kodachrome processed it cost an additional $1 to have the 72 slides per roll mounted individually. I still have some of the half-frame slides (Kodachrome is very stable), some were scanned and now turn out good digital prints.

John_F Loc: Minneapolis, MN

1.6 is just 0.01... smaller than Euclid' Divine Section, usually named the Greek letter phi.