frank99

Like others, I came from a large-format (9 x 18, 9 x 9, 8 x 10 and 4 x 5 inch) and medium-format (6 x 7 cm) background. I had little use for 35 mm film except for slides (and even there, I preferred large- and medium-format chrome film for client work). The reality, however, is that long before digital cameras came along the 35 mm film camera had become the de facto standard format for its overwhelming ubiquity. So when digital sensors were being developed and produced, they were considered relative to the 35 mm film format: a 24 x 36 mm (or very close to that, in some cases) sensor was called "full-frame" and smaller sensors came to be called "crop-frame". It's a naming convention, nothing more.

To the OP: you asked to be called a fool, and I don't think you are. But wouldn't you be happier and more productive spending your time taking pictures with your camera of choice? Railing against widely-accepted norms may somehow be satisfying to some folks, but ... get a life.

Wmetcalf Loc: Rogersville, Mo

Good point!!

Steve McG Loc: Lexington , MA

New to UHH, I realize.
First post on UHH, I know.
Been shooting for 35 years.

How about just capturing the best image you can with the equipment you have/ can afford/ are familiar with, and enjoy our endeavors?

burkphoto Loc: High Point, NC

From a semantics point of view, I totally agree with you! The history behind it is why "full frame" came to mean 36x24mm.

The first digital SLRs were Nikons and then Canons with Kodak sensors crammed into them, and a big box bolted onto the bottom to house the electronics and battery. The sensor was very small, had only about 1.2 MP, and there was an enormous crop factor. In fact, if you looked through the viewfinder of one of those $30,000 beasts, what you saw was a rectangle scribed on the center of the focusing screen that represented the area of the image that would be "cropped" out of the full 36x24mm film plane by the small sensor mounted there.

Later dSLRs eliminated the portion of the image that would *not* be recorded. Still later, the viewfinder magnification was increased...

Of course, as soon as those first dSLRs hit the market in the mid-1990s, the few agencies, magazines, and government offices that could afford them all started clamoring that "full frame" sensors were needed. No one liked the idea that their 50mm lens was "acting like" a 65mm, 75mm or 80mm lens, depending upon which dSLR you were using. We all HATED conversion math. Many of us had 30 years of SLR use under our belts, and old habits die hard.

Yes, in reality, every sensor IS a full frame sensor for the lenses designed to cover it. But when you put a lens designed to cover a larger format like FX on a smaller sensor like DX, that smaller sensor is PROPERLY called a crop sensor. Put a DX lens on a DX body, and it's suddenly a full frame sensor... except it's not 36x24mm!

Ahh, the word games we play...

bwana Loc: Bergen, Alberta, Canada

Full frame originate with 35mm film. Not much to do with using the whole sensor...

bwa

BebuLamar

And these are the real crop cameras. They cropped the image circle. They used the full size focusing screen with the crop mark, full size mirror and full size shutter.

burkphoto Loc: High Point, NC

Yeah... unfortunately the "crop camera" moniker carried forward, and "full frame" terminology went backward.

The early marketing of digital gear was clear as mud.

cambriaman Loc: Central CA Coast

Pardon me, but this thread is questionable since I think all the experienced digital shooters understand the point.

ecar Loc: Oregon, USA

The 35mm Film camera days are the Culprit! We're basing everything from the 35mm film days. The standard lens was the 50mm, usually what the camera came with stock. The Film sensor was 35mm. Who says DLSR's have to be based on all of this?

I remember back when I had the Canon AE-1. Film speed equaled the light absorption. 100, 400, and later the 200 compromise. (ISO now) And back then prime lenses were favored over zooms. My camera came with the 50mm lens, and I promptly purchased the 28mm, and loved it alot better!

110 film was the pocket Instamatic, and the 126 was the early roll film. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Film_format

I guess it all comes down to the "frame of reference" so we know what we're all talking about.

NoSocks Loc: quonochontaug, rhode island

I was always under the impression that " hyster" came from hysteria which is my wife's permanent state of mind. Hysterical.

NoSocks Loc: quonochontaug, rhode island

The one that irritates me is someone saying "this is different than that". One thing can't be different " than" another. Correctly, "this is different FROM that. Yes?

Peterff Loc: O'er The Hills and Far Away, in Themyscira.

Didn't that depend which country you came from?

Peterff Loc: O'er The Hills and Far Away, in Themyscira.

Huh! I though he was referring to various politicians. The majority of women that I know are very stable, and one or two are genii or geniuses! The genii are the most interesting ones! Hysterical, not so interesting, and it's not a state that's restricted to women.

As far as full frame is concerned, I agree with Ron from a strict definitional perspective, but in common usage the world seems to have settled upon 35mm film as the basis for the reference standard. Little opportunity to change it until the term is no longer meaningful to the majority of photographers, which for some will take a life altering event, like dying or using a smart phone!

nikonbrain Loc: Crystal River Florida

I'm afraid I must agree with you , some might say an 8 x 10 view camera is a full frame camera and using a 6x7 format back on it ,or a panorama back would be a cropped sensor . And your definition it would be valid and absolutely true .

burkphoto Loc: High Point, NC

Yes. That’s one of my pet peeves...

Something can be MORE different than something else is different. But one thing is always different FROM another thing.