what is full frame? No this is NOT a Troll
Chris H
What is "full frame"?
Think about it. There are many formats of film size from 8*10 field
cameras down to 110 film. Probably more if you include special purpose
film for X-rays, spies, other medical, instrumentation etc
There are also several formats of digital sensor size.
All these are their own frame size. The are all "full frame" within
their own design parameters.
So why would you want a Digital frame size to be the same as a
particular film size? Especially when all the lenses for the film
cameras will work on the digital ones but not the other way around?
As far as I can see this "full frame" for DSL's is just a marketing
gimmick feeding people's egos. The digital "frame" I have in my DSLR is
"full frame" in its own system.
However instinctively I feel there probably is an argument on technical
grounds for the frame 25MPG and up DSLR's who are chasing the medium
format market to use a larger sensor. But does it need to be the same
as the old 35mm film size? On that score the Medium format cameras do
have digital backs.
Do digital sensors have to be related to the old film sizes? If so why?
--
\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\
\/\/\/\/\ Chris Hills Staffs England /\/\/\/\/
\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/
GregS
>Hopefully this will not degenerate... (some hope :-)
>
>What is "full frame"?
>Think about it. There are many formats of film size from 8*10 field
>cameras down to 110 film. Probably more if you include special purpose
>film for X-rays, spies, other medical, instrumentation etc
>
>There are also several formats of digital sensor size.
>
>All these are their own frame size. The are all "full frame" within
>their own design parameters.
>
>So why would you want a Digital frame size to be the same as a
>particular film size? Especially when all the lenses for the film
>cameras will work on the digital ones but not the other way around?
>
>As far as I can see this "full frame" for DSL's is just a marketing
>gimmick feeding people's egos. The digital "frame" I have in my DSLR is
>"full frame" in its own system.
>
>However instinctively I feel there probably is an argument on technical
>grounds for the frame 25MPG and up DSLR's who are chasing the medium
>format market to use a larger sensor. But does it need to be the same
>as the old 35mm film size? On that score the Medium format cameras do
>have digital backs.
>
>Do digital sensors have to be related to the old film sizes? If so why?
This is what the old lens system uses, and all the new DSLR's,
else your wide angle goes to hell. Large sensors are better
today.
greg
David J Taylor
[]
> As far as I can see this "full frame" for DSL's is just a marketing
> gimmick feeding people's egos. The digital "frame" I have in my DSLR
> is "full frame" in its own system.
I prefer the DX size of DSLR as it provides me with lighter weight, more
compact and easier to carry lenses.
> Do digital sensors have to be related to the old film sizes? If so
> why?
In almost all compact cameras there is no relationship, and a lot of the
population are quite happy taking and enjoying their photos with such
cameras.
Cheers,
David
nospam
> As far as I can see this "full frame" for DSL's is just a marketing
> gimmick feeding people's egos. The digital "frame" I have in my DSLR is
> "full frame" in its own system.
you use olympus, right?
the term 'full frame' has meant a 35mm film sized frame, or 24 x 36mm
for a long time, well before digital. the term originated 50 years ago
when olympus came out with camera that had a frame size of 18mm x 24mm,
one half the size of a 35mm negative. olympus called it half frame and
referred to the standard 35mm camera as full frame. ironically, it's
usually the olympus 4/3rds users who argue the most that their system
should also be called full frame.
<http://www.olympus-global.com/en/corc/history/camera/pen.cfm>
> Do digital sensors have to be related to the old film sizes? If so why?
zillions of existing lenses cover full frame and a larger sensor will
have better image quality than a smaller sensor so why not take
advantage of it?
Robert Spanjaard
> Do digital sensors have to be related to the old film sizes? If so why?
There are a couple of advantages to the 36x24mm format, and to larger
sensors in particular:
- All lenses developed for analog cameras will still work at their full
potential.
- You get a shallower depth of field to play with.
- Larger sensors capture more light, which increases resolution and/or
decreases noise.
Ofcourse, the main disadvantages are cost, size and weight of the system.
It's not a marketing gimmick, bot it's not necessarily better either. The
choice depends on your needs/wishes.
--
Regards, Robert http://www.arumes.com
Chris H
Taylor <david-...@blueyonder.not-this-part.nor-this.co.uk.invalid>
writes
That was what I thought for 98% of the P&S users. I was just thinking
about why the fuss at the DSLR end of the market as the two technologies
(DSLR and 35mm film) are completely dissimilar.
What with Dxo (RAW processor) and Photoshop it seems irrelevant with
most of the pro-sumer and better DSLRs that the DX frame size is not the
same as the 35mm frame size.
The need for "full frame" DSLR's seemed to come down to the egos of the
pedants arguing. In reality the DSLR "frame" or sensor sizes are
completely separate to the 35mm film cameras other than the fact you
can usually use the 23mm lenses on the DSLR's
As far as I am concerned the DX format sensor in my DSLR is Full Frame
for that type of camera. Is there really any sensible reason why not?
Chris H
<nos...@nospam.invalid> writes
>In article <gYyOwpJz...@phaedsys.demon.co.uk>, Chris H
><ch...@phaedsys.org> wrote:
>
>> As far as I can see this "full frame" for DSL's is just a marketing
>> gimmick feeding people's egos. The digital "frame" I have in my DSLR is
>> "full frame" in its own system.
>
>you use olympus, right?
Wrong.
>the term 'full frame' has meant a 35mm film sized frame, or 24 x 36mm
>for a long time, well before digital.
For 35mm film. What about other larger or smaller formats?
> the term originated 50 years ago
>when olympus came out with camera that had a frame size of 18mm x 24mm,
>one half the size of a 35mm negative. olympus called it half frame and
>referred to the standard 35mm camera as full frame.
That was a film camera. Not a digital camera.
>ironically, it's
>usually the olympus 4/3rds users who argue the most that their system
>should also be called full frame.
>
><http://www.olympus-global.com/en/corc/history/camera/pen.cfm>
Not seen that. Not had an Olympus camera either.
>> Do digital sensors have to be related to the old film sizes? If so why?
>
>zillions of existing lenses cover full frame and a larger sensor will
>have better image quality than a smaller sensor so why not take
>advantage of it?
Fair enough but it does not answer my question. The "full frame"
referred to 35mm FILM cameras. Digital is completely different other
than the similarity in size and external appearance to 35mm cameras and
the fact that most can sue the lenses originally for 35mm film cameras
SO you have a Digital sensor frame size. It does not need to be
connected to the 35mm film size.
nospam
<ch...@phaedsys.org> wrote:
> Fair enough but it does not answer my question. The "full frame"
> referred to 35mm FILM cameras.
so what? 24x36mm is full frame. it doesn't matter if it's kodachrome,
velvia or cmos.
> Digital is completely different other
> than the similarity in size and external appearance to 35mm cameras and
> the fact that most can sue the lenses originally for 35mm film cameras
and that's fairly substantial.
> SO you have a Digital sensor frame size. It does not need to be
> connected to the 35mm film size.
many digital cameras have very different sensor sizes than film,
including most p&s and certainly cellphone cameras.
Jürgen Exner
>Hopefully this will not degenerate... (some hope :-)
>
>What is "full frame"?
>Think about it. There are many formats of film size from 8*10 field
>cameras down to 110 film. Probably more if you include special purpose
>film for X-rays, spies, other medical, instrumentation etc
All correct. But by general convention and consensus the 24 в 36mm is
considered 'the' full frame format because it is by far the most
commonly film format.
>So why would you want a Digital frame size to be the same as a
>particular film size?
Because then you can make best use of existing equipment like existing
lenses.
>Especially when all the lenses for the film
>cameras will work on the digital ones but not the other way around?
Huuuu? What gave you that idea? First of all there are no special
"digital lenses". All of them are purely analog in the first place, so
the term 'digital' is a non-starter. And although apparently some
manufacturers have optimized some lenses for digital photography like
special rear coating to reduce back reflection or more perpendicular
illumination of the sensor, there is nothing in there stopping you from
using those lenses on a traditional film camera.
>Do digital sensors have to be related to the old film sizes? If so why?
Technically: no!
Practically: yes.
jue
Derge
> Hopefully this will not degenerate... (some hope :-)
Hahaha. Good luck.
>
> What is "full frame"?
> Think about it. There are many formats of film size from 8*10 field
> cameras down to 110 film. Probably more if you include special purpose
> film for X-rays, spies, other medical, instrumentation etc.
I know this is rhetorical, but I'm going to answer it anyway: It's a
photosensitive substrate measuring 36mm by 24mm.
>
> There are also several formats of digital sensor size.
>
> All these are their own frame size. The are all "full frame" within
> their own design parameters.
Yes, it's a misnomer, but that's irrelevant. In contemporary parlance,
everyone knows what "full frame" means, and it doesn't mean that.
>
> So why would you want a Digital frame size to be the same as a
> particular film size? Especially when all the lenses for the film
> cameras will work on the digital ones but not the other way around?
Because the format was popular and some of that inertia has carried
over into the digital age. Let's be clear about one thing from the get-
go: Settling upon any frame size is a tangle of interrelated
compromises. Large format photography will probably always be a niche
market, because for most people, most of the time, the increase in DOF
control and absolute IQ is just not worth what they give up in
flexibility. By the same token, the failure of APS film probably can't
be accounted for by lousy marketing alone. For some reason, people
really liked the 35mm format. It goes without saying that legacy 35mm
lenses outnumber DX or EF-S or "digital" or what-have-you lenses, even
today.
> However instinctively I feel there probably is an argument on technical
> grounds for the frame 25MPG and up DSLR's who are chasing the medium
> format market to use a larger sensor. But does it need to be the same
> as the old 35mm film size? On that score the Medium format cameras do
> have digital backs.
>
> Do digital sensors have to be related to the old film sizes? If so why?
>
Any argument you could make in defense of "full frame" sensors on
technical grounds would apply equally to any sensor size: The
relationships between noise and DOF work in both directions. There
isn't any reason they need to operate in discrete steps, except that
camera manufacturers need to choose *some* size for their sensors,
obviously, or else they wouldn't be able to fabricate them. What
exactly are you objecting to here? What do you propose as an
alternative?
David J Taylor
[]
> The need for "full frame" DSLR's seemed to come down to the egos of
> the pedants arguing. In reality the DSLR "frame" or sensor sizes are
> completely separate to the 35mm film cameras other than the fact you
> can usually use the 23mm lenses on the DSLR's
I wouldn't have said "egos" or even "pedants". There are some advantages
and some disadvantages to the bigger sensor, so it's useful to have a
quick way of distinguishing them.
> As far as I am concerned the DX format sensor in my DSLR is Full Frame
> for that type of camera. Is there really any sensible reason why not?
I suspect that history and current usage dictates that 36x24mm = "Full
Frame", but for your camera, and mine, "full frame" just means not
cropping. Note the initial capitals!
Indeed, there are some DSLRs and some Compact cameras which do offer
"reduced frame" as a way of cropping (for using DX lenses or gaining
apparent focal length). Some Nikon DSLRs and some Panasonic compacts do
this.
Cheers,
David
David J. Littleboy
"Chris H" <ch...@phaedsys.org> wrote:
>
> What with Dxo (RAW processor) and Photoshop it seems irrelevant with
> most of the pro-sumer and better DSLRs that the DX frame size is not the
> same as the 35mm frame size.
It is quite relevant if you care about producing medium format quality
prints.
There is a difference in image quality that is significant for the people
who need it or want it. For 12x18" and larger prints, 21MP in FF is real
nice. If you don't need the print size, you can use a smaller format.
> The need for "full frame" DSLR's seemed to come down to the egos of the
> pedants arguing.
No, it's the image quality, stupid.
And, sorry, but here _you_ are the one making a pedantic argument. The
linguistic term "full frame" has a well defined meaning (the size of a full
24x36mm 35mm frame), and you are trying to break it up and insist it be used
by your definition to mean any format. That's silly, simply because the term
wouldn't mean anything then.
--
David J. Littleboy
Tokyo, Japan
Deep Reset
"Jürgen Exner" <jurg...@hotmail.com> wrote in message
news:lv6pu4herl4apfgjc...@4ax.com...
> Chris H <ch...@phaedsys.org> wrote:
>>Hopefully this will not degenerate... (some hope :-)
>>
>>What is "full frame"?
>>Think about it. There are many formats of film size from 8*10 field
>>cameras down to 110 film. Probably more if you include special purpose
>>film for X-rays, spies, other medical, instrumentation etc
>
> considered 'the' full frame format because it is by far the most
> commonly film format.
>
>>So why would you want a Digital frame size to be the same as a
>>particular film size?
>
> Because then you can make best use of existing equipment like existing
> lenses.
>
>>Especially when all the lenses for the film
>>cameras will work on the digital ones but not the other way around?
>
> Huuuu? What gave you that idea? First of all there are no special
> "digital lenses". All of them are purely analog in the first place, so
> the term 'digital' is a non-starter. And although apparently some
> manufacturers have optimized some lenses for digital photography like
> special rear coating to reduce back reflection or more perpendicular
> illumination of the sensor, there is nothing in there stopping you from
> using those lenses on a traditional film camera.
Apart from the dark bits around the edge of the frame?
Have you actually tried putting an APS-C lens on a 35mm camera?
Not pretty.
nospam
<Deep...@hotmail.com> wrote:
> > Huuuu? What gave you that idea? First of all there are no special
> > "digital lenses". All of them are purely analog in the first place, so
> > the term 'digital' is a non-starter. And although apparently some
> > manufacturers have optimized some lenses for digital photography like
> > special rear coating to reduce back reflection or more perpendicular
> > illumination of the sensor, there is nothing in there stopping you from
> > using those lenses on a traditional film camera.
>
> Apart from the dark bits around the edge of the frame?
he wasn't referring specifically to dx lenses.
> Have you actually tried putting an APS-C lens on a 35mm camera?
>
> Not pretty.
depending on the lens, it may cover the full frame at some focal
lengths.
Charles
"Chris H" <ch...@phaedsys.org> wrote in message
news:gYyOwpJz...@phaedsys.demon.co.uk...
> Hopefully this will not degenerate... (some hope :-)
>
> What is "full frame"?
An "old" standard based on 35mm film, which is fading toward extinction (the
film itself is, but not the size). There are lots of lenses out there that
were designed for 35mm, so the standard and the term "full frame" will
outlive it roots.
Railroad track spacing can be traced back to Roman times. It's the way
technology progresses.
Robert Coe
wrote:
All this is a manufactured debate over terminology, not over actual equipment,
except in one respect: the once plausible argument that lenses designed for a
"35mm" film camera would work equally well on a "full frame" digital. But
changes in metering and autofocus technology, as well as the introduction of
image stabilization, have marginalized the utility of those old lenses.
So as a practical matter, I think the debate now is indeed about terminology
only, and "full frame" means whatever the term's users say it does. I think we
should graciously accept Chris's assertion that his original post wasn't a
troll. But the next time somebody brings the issue up in that form, it
probably will be.
Bob
Me
>
>> The need for "full frame" DSLR's seemed to come down to the egos of the
>> pedants arguing.
>
> No, it's the image quality, stupid.
>
It's the "potential" image quality, and relative to a user's needs.
I've just had the pleasure of using a Canon 5dII with 17-40l and 16-35l
Mk II (as well as longer f/l "l") lenses over the past week, alongside
my old "crop sensor" camera with dirt-cheap Sigma 10-20.
It's possible that there's some slight advantage centre-frame in detail
from the 12mp vs 21mp. But edge performance of both the 16-35 and 17-40
was worse (lenses set 18mm on Fx, 12mm on Dx). The 17-40 was better for
edge performance than the 16-35, even though half the price - that
surprised me. A disclaimer that I'd used the 17-40 on my 5d Mk I, and
come to the conclusion then that there was no advantage over 12mp Dx at
base ISO.
With 24-105 and 70-200, I could see some small improvement in resolution
over 12mp Dx, at printed crops equivalent to about 24x16 inch prints.
Smaller than that, and there's really no point to FX or 20+ mp /for my
needs/ - and I don't believe that my needs are unusual, even for
"serious" photography.
ray
> Hopefully this will not degenerate... (some hope :-)
>
Hmmmmm. If it walks like a duck, talks like a duck, looks like a duck and
smells like a duck - it could be a duck.
whinee
embedded in pea brains of those who do not understand what they are talking
about.
Allen
movie frame was 18x24 mm. In the 1930s and probably later there were
several single-frame (18X24 mm) still cameras made, most famously (or
perhaps infamously) the Univex Mercury. One problem, in addition to the
decreased image quality, was that the camera had to be held vertically
to make a horizontal shot. This is History of Photography 101 lecture
for 4-20-09.
Allen
Bob Larter
Fuck off, troll.
--
W
. | ,. w , "Some people are alive only because
\|/ \|/ it is illegal to kill them." Perna condita delenda est
---^----^---------------------------------------------------------------
Jack Torrence
> In message <200420090843000310%nos...@nospam.invalid>, nospam
>
> referred to 35mm FILM cameras. Digital is completely different other
> than the similarity in size and external appearance to 35mm cameras and
> the fact that most can sue the lenses originally for 35mm film cameras
>
> SO you have a Digital sensor frame size. It does not need to be
> connected to the 35mm film size.
No. but at the current time it is. So live with it!
Jürgen Exner
>>>Especially when all the lenses for the film
>>>cameras will work on the digital ones but not the other way around?
>>
>> Huuuu? What gave you that idea? First of all there are no special
>> "digital lenses". All of them are purely analog in the first place, so
>> the term 'digital' is a non-starter. And although apparently some
>> manufacturers have optimized some lenses for digital photography like
>> special rear coating to reduce back reflection or more perpendicular
>> illumination of the sensor, there is nothing in there stopping you from
>> using those lenses on a traditional film camera.
>
>Apart from the dark bits around the edge of the frame?
>Have you actually tried putting an APS-C lens on a 35mm camera?
As you said yourself, that would be an DX lens or APS-C lens or whatever
you want to call it. And as you pointed out yourself it has to do with
the size of the image cirlce but nothing, absolutely nothing, with
digital versus film.
jue
Chris H
<charles...@comcast.net> writes
>
>"Chris H" <ch...@phaedsys.org> wrote in message
>news:gYyOwpJz...@phaedsys.demon.co.uk...
>> Hopefully this will not degenerate... (some hope :-)
>>
>> What is "full frame"?
>
>An "old" standard based on 35mm film, which is fading toward extinction (the
>film itself is, but not the size).
Now THAT will start the usual trolling as to whether 35mm fill cameras
are dead, live or expanding greatly because film sales have doubled from
2 to 4 rolls a week globally :-)))
> There are lots of lenses out there that
>were designed for 35mm, so the standard and the term "full frame" will
>outlive it roots.
>
>Railroad track spacing can be traced back to Roman times. It's the way
>technology progresses.
Hence it's effect on the size of the space shuttle boosters. I agree,
the term "full frame" is now marketing and does not really have any
relevance as it did. I suppose "full frame" is as good as DX+ or DX2 as
a name as much as "home made" (in our factory :-) or "original" etc
Chris H
<b...@1776.COM> writes
>So as a practical matter, I think the debate now is indeed about terminology
>only, and "full frame" means whatever the term's users say it does. I think we
>should graciously accept Chris's assertion that his original post wasn't a
>troll. But the next time somebody brings the issue up in that form, it
>probably will be.
Thanks. It was thinking about it and came to the conclusion that as the
only connection between a DSLR and a 35mm SLR was the size and external
appearance or both. As noted elsewhere therer are P&S and phone cameras
for which iti is all irrelevant (MP is king :-) So the "full frame" for
a DSLR is independent for a "full frame" for a film camera.
As you say I think it comes down to marketing and the psychological link
between 35mm Cameras and the "35mm" DSLRs as opposed to the "Medium
Format" digital cameras.
I suppose "full frame" is as good as any other name. To be fair Nikon
do refer to it as FX I think over time it probably will be DX and FX
when Nik-anon pull out the next generation of sensors that are bigger...
so MX and "medium-Format"?
IT will be interesting to have physically similar with different sensors
going DX, Full frame, Medium format , the medium coming after the "full
frame" . Perhaps by that time there will be so few who remember the film
cameras that it will just be DX, FX and MX.
Then people will assume the size is just based on an alphabetical
progression.
Personally I am happy with my DX DSLRs and DX lenses with a 12Mp sensor
I can see not reason to go "full frame" The pictures I can produce are
as good as anything I could do with other "miniature" cameras as a
professional studio photographer I know used to know refer to 35mm
cameras.
I can see that the 25MP FX cameras are taking on the lower end Medium
format cameras for studio work. But here the nomenclature blurs as you
are using "full frame" (FX) DSLRs in a space where there are "medium"
format cameras (both Digital and film.) As I said above I think
eventually the next sensor size will be MX and go against the "Medium"
format cameras.
So what size do people call the digital backs for Medium format cameras
now?
BTW I am please to see that thus far it has (almost) been a sensible
discussion without it getting too silly.
bugbear
> "Chris H" <ch...@phaedsys.org> wrote:
>> What with Dxo (RAW processor) and Photoshop it seems irrelevant with
>> most of the pro-sumer and better DSLRs that the DX frame size is not the
>> same as the 35mm frame size.
>
> It is quite relevant if you care about producing medium format quality
> prints.
>
> There is a difference in image quality that is significant for the people
> who need it or want it. For 12x18" and larger prints, 21MP in FF is real
> nice. If you don't need the print size, you can use a smaller format.
>
>> The need for "full frame" DSLR's seemed to come down to the egos of the
>> pedants arguing.
>
> No, it's the image quality, stupid.
I think it's backwards compatibility with 35mm (film) lenses.
If it was (all) about image quality, we'd have bigger
sensors than so-called-full-frame.
BugBear
Derge
>
> I think it's backwards compatibility with 35mm (film) lenses.
>
> If it was (all) about image quality, we'd have bigger
> sensors than so-called-full-frame.
>
> BugBear
Well we do, of course, but they're *really* expensive. Cost is the
other part of the equation.
Chris Malcolm
> "Deep Reset" <Deep...@hotmail.com> wrote:
>>"Jurgen Exner" <jurg...@hotmail.com> wrote in message
It's also really annoying that we specify lens focal lengths in terms
derived from Napoleon's mistaken estimate of the distance from the
North pole to Paris. I think what Chris H has stumbled upon is one of
the really annoying things about language :-)
--
Chris Malcolm
Chris H
<c...@holyrood.ed.ac.uk> writes
>Jurgen Exner <jurg...@hotmail.com> wrote:
>> "Deep Reset" <Deep...@hotmail.com> wrote:
>>>"Jurgen Exner" <jurg...@hotmail.com> wrote in message
>>>> Chris H <ch...@phaedsys.org> wrote:
>>>>>Especially when all the lenses for the film
>>>>>cameras will work on the digital ones but not the other way around?
>>>>
>>>> Huuuu? What gave you that idea? First of all there are no special
>>>> "digital lenses".
There are lenses designed to be use specifically with digital cameras.
>>>> All of them are purely analog in the first place, so
>>>> the term 'digital' is a non-starter. And although apparently some
>>>> manufacturers have optimized some lenses for digital photography like
>>>> special rear coating to reduce back reflection or more perpendicular
>>>> illumination of the sensor, there is nothing in there stopping you from
>>>> using those lenses on a traditional film camera.
>>>
>>>Apart from the dark bits around the edge of the frame?
>>>Have you actually tried putting an APS-C lens on a 35mm camera?
>
>> As you said yourself, that would be an DX lens or APS-C lens or whatever
>> you want to call it. And as you pointed out yourself it has to do with
>> the size of the image cirlce but nothing, absolutely nothing, with
>> digital versus film.
I was hoping that this thread would not descend into this sort of
stupidity
>It's also really annoying that we specify lens focal lengths in terms
>derived from Napoleon's mistaken estimate of the distance from the
>North pole to Paris. I think what Chris H has stumbled upon is one of
>the really annoying things about language :-)
I think so. Language and marketing. There is no real need to relate the
digital sensor size to that of one of the many film sizes.
I am quite happy with my DX format digital camera. I can see for various
technical reasons why a larger sensor would be advantageous than the
digital "full fame" APS-C sensor :-) but why call it after an obsolete
size from a different technology (probably should not have said
"obsolete" :-)
As I said Nikon have DX and FX digital. Formats. Give it a few more
years and apart from a very few still using 35mm cameras (who will not
accept "full frame" when applied to digital anyway) I think we will
loose the "full frame" when applied to Digital cameras.
You will have DX, FX and MX (?) when the need a size larger than the FX
arrives. In 15-20 years time the vast majority will assume it was just
an alphabetic progression. Nothing to do with film frame sizes.
As now we have "everyone" with P&S I suspect virtually all the
population who don't have a film camera or DSLR will have little or no
idea about wet film any more. My kid's in their 20's certainly don't
(OK I know there is some one out there with a 10-20 year old who still
develops all their own film at home)
So I think it is time to loose this ridiculous idea of "full frame" for
Digital cameras. They are DX and FX (or whatever the Canon, Olympus,
Sony etc equivalent is) The APS-C format is effectively "full Frame"
for Digital cameras.
whisky-dave
"Chris H" <ch...@phaedsys.org> wrote in message
news:gYyOwpJz...@phaedsys.demon.co.uk...
> Hopefully this will not degenerate... (some hope :-)
>
> What is "full frame"?
36X24mm .
> Think about it. There are many formats of film size from 8*10 field
> cameras down to 110 film.
Yep, and they have sizes too.
Originally my father used to process glass negs whole plate, half plate
etc...
where a plate wasn't defined by the size of your meal, but by the glass
negative area
that the image occupied.
>Probably more if you include special purpose
> film for X-rays, spies, other medical, instrumentation etc.
I guess they had their sizes too.
> There are also several formats of digital sensor size.
>
> All these are their own frame size. The are all "full frame" within
> their own design parameters.
But not full frame for the pghotgraphic market which I think was pretty
established
as a full frame being 36X24mm, olympus did a half frame camera which meant
you could shoot 72 frames on a 36 exp. roll of film.
> So why would you want a Digital frame size to be the same as a
> particular film size?
because if yuor photo is going to be full frame it'd be nice if the sensor
occupied
the full image area.
> Especially when all the lenses for the film
> cameras will work on the digital ones but not the other way around?
Why would this be relivetn I';m sure you could get super 8 lens working too
if you could be bother or other projection lenses.
>
> As far as I can see this "full frame" for DSL's is just a marketing
> gimmick feeding people's egos. The digital "frame" I have in my DSLR is
> "full frame" in its own system.
It was a comparision, but the fiorst sensors coulded really be made
ecomonical
if they were to measure 24X36mm.
> However instinctively I feel there probably is an argument on technical
> grounds for the frame 25MPG and up DSLR's who are chasing the medium
> format market to use a larger sensor.
SLRs were in the past trying to capture the medium format market from the
TLRs
and the quarter/half plate pro markets.
Why do you think phiotgraphers had whole plate cameras when they could have
used
TLRs then SLRs then compacts the P&S then 110 then those horide disc
cameras.
It was a drive my manufactures to sell more of their cameras.
> But does it need to be the same
> as the old 35mm film size?
No, but good for comparison.
Does a loaf of bread have to be about a foot long ?
Why not re-define the loaf of bread as 1 inch long.
what difference does it make, none, all you'd do is buy say 144 loaves of
bread
where previously you'd had brought 1 loaf.
>On that score the Medium format cameras do
> have digital backs.
But what size is medium format, meduim as in the ability to contact they
dead ;-)
I remmebr in teh early 70s I question what the term a standard lens meant.
The typicall focal lenths of standard lens were 50mm, 55mm and some 58mm.
So what was standard about them, I was told because they approximated
the field of view of the human eye.
> Do digital sensors have to be related to the old film sizes? If so why?
Well no, they don;t but we've seen the problems even today the lens focal
length
is given the equavalnet in 35mm (full frame size) which wouldn;t have been
necessary
if they'd started making DSLRs full frame in the first place, but I'm
guessing it was
the cost that they were made smaller.
whisky-dave
>
> SO you have a Digital sensor frame size. It does not need to be
> connected to the 35mm film size.
I guess it doesn't but I'd like a pint of milk to be the same
quantity as a pint of beer. It's doesn;t have to be, I could go in a pub and
order a
pint of beer that is only 2/3rds a pint iof milk it doesn;t matter,
I'll just order 33% more pints[1]
Would it matter if your 4 seated car could only seat 3 people ?
The 4 seater could refer to 3 people and a cat, after all I never said
seating space for 4 people I said 4 seats. :-)
We also know how a 'shot' of whisky can be different depending on which
country
yuo are in, but it's nice to have standard points of reference.
[1] probably pay 50% for the privilege ;-)
Don Stauffer
>
> This is what the old lens system uses, and all the new DSLR's,
> else your wide angle goes to hell. Large sensors are better
> today.
>
> greg
In the past, too. It is hard to beat sensor real estate. Bigger is
better, all else being equal- except when there are important size or
weight constraints in camera.
C J Campbell
>
> Do digital sensors have to be related to the old film sizes? If so why?
Only if you want to use the same lenses the same way as you did before.
Since 35 mm film was so popular, the vast majority of photographers
were used to working with the field of view, perspective and depth of
field they got with lenses on 35 mm film. Even expressing lenses in
terms of "35 mm equivalent" on sensors of other sizes does not produce
the same results.
Otherwise, larger sensors tend to give you more resolution and less
noise. In film, larger formats just gave you more resolution and noise
stayed the same. That is all the difference there is.
--
Waddling Eagle
World Famous Flight Instructor
J. Clarke
> "Chris H" <ch...@phaedsys.org> wrote in message
> news:CZdWAOLP...@phaedsys.demon.co.uk...
>
>>
>> SO you have a Digital sensor frame size. It does not need to be
>> connected to the 35mm film size.
>
> I guess it doesn't but I'd like a pint of milk to be the same
> quantity as a pint of beer. It's doesn;t have to be, I could go in a
> pub and order a
> pint of beer that is only 2/3rds a pint iof milk it doesn;t matter,
> I'll just order 33% more pints[1]
>
> Would it matter if your 4 seated car could only seat 3 people ?
> The 4 seater could refer to 3 people and a cat, after all I never said
> seating space for 4 people I said 4 seats. :-)
You've ridden in the back of a Jaguar XK-E 2+2 have you? Although three
people and a cat would be stretching it--two people and two cats perhaps, if
the cats were very good friends . . .
David J. Littleboy
"C J Campbell" <christophercam...@hotmail.com> wrote:
>
> Otherwise, larger sensors tend to give you more resolution and less noise.
> In film, larger formats just gave you more resolution and noise stayed the
> same. That is all the difference there is.
Larger format film has less noise than a smaller format film. Look at a
16x20 from 6x7 and a 16x20 from 35mm.
Jürgen Exner
>In message <755nqnF...@mid.individual.net>, Chris Malcolm
><c...@holyrood.ed.ac.uk> writes
>>Jurgen Exner <jurg...@hotmail.com> wrote:
>>> "Deep Reset" <Deep...@hotmail.com> wrote:
>>>>"Jurgen Exner" <jurg...@hotmail.com> wrote in message
>>>>> Chris H <ch...@phaedsys.org> wrote:
>>>>>>Especially when all the lenses for the film
>>>>>>cameras will work on the digital ones but not the other way around?
>>>>>
>>>>> Huuuu? What gave you that idea? First of all there are no special
>>>>> "digital lenses".
>
>There are lenses designed to be use specifically with digital cameras.
So I heard, with reduced back reflection and the light being directed
more parallel to the axis of the lens, such that the lens is more
suitable for electronic sensors.
[...]
>>>>Apart from the dark bits around the edge of the frame?
>>>>Have you actually tried putting an APS-C lens on a 35mm camera?
>>
>>> As you said yourself, that would be an DX lens or APS-C lens or whatever
>>> you want to call it. And as you pointed out yourself it has to do with
>>> the size of the image cirlce but nothing, absolutely nothing, with
>>> digital versus film.
>
>I was hoping that this thread would not descend into this sort of
>stupidity
Has little to do with stupidity but much more with ambiguious
terminology. If you mean DX, then maybe you could say DX instead of
using 'digital'?
A Nikon D3 is certainly a digital camera, right? According to your
terminology it cannot use digital lenses, which sounds very wrong to me.
And yes, if there was a film camera for a 16x24mm film, then you could
use those 'digital' (=DX) lenses on that film camera without any
problem. It's just that nobody makes such a camera because a) the
Advanced Photo System has already been a failure before and b) customers
are unlikely to flock back to film.
>I am quite happy with my DX format digital camera.
Different story. So am I, BTW. But is has nothing to do with 'digital'
versus 'film' lenses.
jue
tn...@mucks.net
>Do digital sensors have to be related to the old film sizes? If so why?
Because there are so many digital sensor sizes available it only makes
sense to have a way to convert that cameras attributes to a single
system for comparison purposes.
35 mm has become that common denominator because of its wide spread
use during the transition to digital.
Neil Harrington
> Hopefully this will not degenerate... (some hope :-)
>
> What is "full frame"?
> cameras down to 110 film.
And even smaller than that, e.g. the old Minox ultraminiature that used
9.5mm film.
> Probably more if you include special purpose
> film for X-rays, spies, other medical, instrumentation etc
>
> There are also several formats of digital sensor size.
>
> All these are their own frame size. The are all "full frame" within
> their own design parameters.
Right. That is why I have always objected to the term "crop factor," which I
think is a silly one. Nothing is being *cropped* just because the sensor is
smaller.
>
> So why would you want a Digital frame size to be the same as a
> particular film size? Especially when all the lenses for the film
> cameras will work on the digital ones but not the other way around?
>
> As far as I can see this "full frame" for DSL's is just a marketing
> gimmick feeding people's egos. The digital "frame" I have in my DSLR is
> "full frame" in its own system.
I agree. But I don't think it's "just a marketing gimmick." The 24 x 36 mm
format has been the standard for a large majority of photographers for many
years, and the "equivalent" focal lengths given for lenses on digital
cameras have been a conventional and useful way of comparing actual f.l. and
coverage to that familiar 35mm standard. All "full frame" means to me as a
practical matter is that since the sensor is 24 x 36 no such conversion is
necessary. I regard this as of small importance.
Personally I have no interest in "full frame" digital cameras and/or the
higher resolution that they may accomplish. For my purposes the DX format
seems just perfect, for several reasons. I don't really understand why so
many seem to regard "full frame" as a sort of Holy Grail.
>
> However instinctively I feel there probably is an argument on technical
> grounds for the frame 25MPG and up DSLR's who are chasing the medium
> format market to use a larger sensor. But does it need to be the same
> as the old 35mm film size? On that score the Medium format cameras do
> have digital backs.
>
> Do digital sensors have to be related to the old film sizes? If so why?
Only for reasons of "equivalence" in lens coverage, as far as I can see. I
don't think this is likely to change. It is useful when speaking of focal
lengths to have some familiar standard for visualizing what a particular
f.l. means in terms of coverage, and 35mm is that standard. It's as good a
one as any and will probably remain so long after the last roll of 35mm film
has been made.
We have other standards which make much less sense, for example the
manufacturers' continuing to give compact-camera sensor sizes in terms of
video tube diameter, which has no relevance whatever to compact cameras.
Neil Harrington
"David J Taylor"
<david-...@blueyonder.not-this-part.nor-this.co.uk.invalid> wrote in
message news:Ep1Hl.16631$OO7....@text.news.virginmedia.com...
> Chris H wrote:
> []
>> The need for "full frame" DSLR's seemed to come down to the egos of
>> completely separate to the 35mm film cameras other than the fact you
>> can usually use the 23mm lenses on the DSLR's
>
> I wouldn't have said "egos" or even "pedants". There are some advantages
> and some disadvantages to the bigger sensor, so it's useful to have a
> quick way of distinguishing them.
>
>> As far as I am concerned the DX format sensor in my DSLR is Full Frame
>> for that type of camera. Is there really any sensible reason why not?
>
> I suspect that history and current usage dictates that 36x24mm = "Full
> Frame", but for your camera, and mine, "full frame" just means not
> cropping. Note the initial capitals!
>
> Indeed, there are some DSLRs and some Compact cameras which do offer
> "reduced frame" as a way of cropping (for using DX lenses or gaining
> apparent focal length). Some Nikon DSLRs and some Panasonic compacts do
> this.
Of course virtually *all* compact cameras do this, when digital zoom is
used. Some Coolpix models have an interesting feature that allows digital
zoom to be limited to the resolution selected, such that definition is never
less than that resolution. This actually makes the always-sneered-at digital
zoom useful, within obvious limits. For example, I usually have my 10- and
12-megapixel Coolpixes set to 5M anyway, so this feature gives me some nice
extra reach at no cost in definition.
Neil Harrington
"nospam" <nos...@nospam.invalid> wrote in message
news:200420090843000310%nos...@nospam.invalid...
> In article <gYyOwpJz...@phaedsys.demon.co.uk>, Chris H
> <ch...@phaedsys.org> wrote:
>
>> As far as I can see this "full frame" for DSL's is just a marketing
>> gimmick feeding people's egos. The digital "frame" I have in my DSLR is
>> "full frame" in its own system.
>
>
> the term 'full frame' has meant a 35mm film sized frame, or 24 x 36mm
> for a long time, well before digital. the term originated 50 years ago
> when olympus came out with camera that had a frame size of 18mm x 24mm,
> one half the size of a 35mm negative. olympus called it half frame and
> referred to the standard 35mm camera as full frame. [ . . . ]
Actually there has always been a certain amount of confusion about these
terms.
Thirty-five-millimeter film was first made in the late 1890s I believe, for
use in motion picture cameras. That film, running vertically through the
camera, had a frame size of about 18 x 24 mm. The first 35mm still cameras
(about 1913) used the same film and about the same frame size, still moving
vertically in the camera. When Barnack made the first Leica about a decade
later, he used the same film but moving horizontally in the camera, and with
double the original frame height (now the width).
For that reason, the original 18 x 24 was called single frame and 24 x 36
was called double frame. Later, in 35mm still-camera use, single frame was
called "half frame" (used in cameras like the Mercury of the 1940s, and
later, various Olympus Pens and others) and double frame was called "full
frame" to distinguish it from the half-frame cameras. Since all these terms
were used at the same time, it could be a bit confusing.
Kennedy McEwen
<ch...@phaedsys.org> writes
>There is no real need to relate the
>digital sensor size to that of one of the many film sizes.
>
That is the way it is, it is a reference to a known standard - live with
it, whether you like it or not.
Oh, and it isn't just film that is used as a reference. All of those
sensors in P&S cameras, 1/1.63", 1/1.8", 1/2.33", 1/2.5" etc. are all
based on the odd definition of a 16mm inch! That non-standard inch
comes from basing the format on vidicon tube sensors, where a 1"
diameter glass tube typically had a usable image diagonal of
approximately 16mm. At no time was this ever compliant with the normal
definition of an inch, but it lives on in imaging because lenses
designed for those 1", 3/4" and 1/2" vidicons and derivatives were all
used with cameras equipped with CCD and CMOS sensors. The nomenclature
remained consistent for compatibility reasons, even though the glass
walls of the tube had long since become history. Just the same with
"full frame" film, cameras and lenses.
>
>So I think it is time to loose this ridiculous idea of "full frame" for
>Digital cameras.
What you "think" is irrelevant, being merely one of 6,770,000,000, and
less if we include your reasoning, which amounts to making every
reference meaningless.
>They are DX and FX (or whatever the Canon, Olympus,
>Sony etc equivalent is) The APS-C format is effectively "full Frame"
>for Digital cameras.
>
No it isn't, because "full frame" is an established term - whether you
like it or not, does not change that.
Your DX camera is based almost entirely on the 24x36mm format - only the
sensor and mirror are shrunk, the lens flange diameter and working
distance and almost everything else about it is inherited from its
24x36mm film ancestors. As such, you carry essentially a 24x36mm
instrument which only has the capability of providing a 24x16mm image,
which is clearly less than the capabilities of the rest of the camera
system and many of the lenses it supports. Hence, DX can never be
considered "full frame". There is a better argument for 4/3rds use of
the term, since none of the 4/3 cameras inherit 24x36mm capabilities.
Before heading off to tilt at the windmill of "Full Frame" Mr Quixote,
there are a few giants closer to your ivory tower that need to be slain
first. A 16mm inch won't please your wife!
--
Kennedy
Yes, Socrates himself is particularly missed;
A lovely little thinker, but a bugger when he's pissed.
Python Philosophers (replace 'nospam' with 'kennedym' when replying)
Jürgen Exner
>And yes, if there was a film camera for a 16x24mm film, then you could
>use those 'digital' (=DX) lenses on that film camera without any
>problem. It's just that nobody makes such a camera because a) the
>Advanced Photo System has already been a failure before and b) customers
>are unlikely to flock back to film.
Actually, after some thinking, the Nikon Proena system could use F-mount
lenses. So if you happen to have an old Pronea camera, then you could
use a 'digital' lens on that camera just fine without problems.
Maybe it is really better to call them correctly DX lenses and not
digital lenses.
jue
rwalker
<bugbear@trim_papermule.co.uk_trim> wrote:
snip
>
>I think it's backwards compatibility with 35mm (film) lenses.
>
>If it was (all) about image quality, we'd have bigger
>sensors than so-called-full-frame.
>
> BugBear
Exactly. When I think "full frame" I think 6 x 7 cm.
Chris H
<rwa...@despammed.com> writes
:-)
That was my point. It is relative. So the DX size sensor is "full frame"
for DSLR's and all this rubbish about going "full [35mm]frame" is just
marketing.
Chris H
<r...@nospam.demon.co.uk> writes
>In article <mKbvkHPX...@phaedsys.demon.co.uk>, Chris H
><ch...@phaedsys.org> writes
>
>>There is no real need to relate the
>>digital sensor size to that of one of the many film sizes.
>>
>That is the way it is, it is a reference to a known standard - live
>with it, whether you like it or not.
So it seems. Though as I said in other places I wonder how much longer
it will last as over the last decade the 35mm camera usage has shrunk
dramatically. In another decade, bar the enthusiasts no one is going to
remember 35mm cameras
>>So I think it is time to loose this ridiculous idea of "full frame" for
>>Digital cameras.
>
>What you "think" is irrelevant, being merely one of 6,770,000,000, and
>less if we include your reasoning, which amounts to making every
>reference meaningless.
Sadly you are almost correct. The world is ignoring a prophet though my
Mother thinks my opinion is important even if my kids don't :-)
>>They are DX and FX (or whatever the Canon, Olympus,
>>Sony etc equivalent is) The APS-C format is effectively "full Frame"
>>for Digital cameras.
>>
>No it isn't, because "full frame" is an established term - whether you
>like it or not, does not change that.
True. A lone voice of sanity in the wilderness :- )
>Before heading off to tilt at the windmill of "Full Frame" Mr Quixote,
>there are a few giants closer to your ivory tower that need to be slain
>first. A 16mm inch won't please your wife!
:-))))) Though no need to worry just yet as my Birthday is not for a few
months ......
bugbear
Well, "full plate" is 6 1/2" x 8 1/2".
BugBear
Chris H
<bugbear@trim_papermule.co.uk_trim> writes
Sorry that is full PLATE not full FRAME :-))))
The point still holds there is no reason why anyone should use "full
frame" for FX digital sensors rather than DX sensors.
So how about:-
DX for standard digital
FX for the next size up similar to the old 35mm size
MX for the frame sizes similar to the Medium format cameras
PX for the very large "plate" size sensors?
Not a "full frame" in sight :-)
J. Clarke
> In message <BPqdnZSz4P-kfHPU...@posted.plusnet>, bugbear
> <bugbear@trim_papermule.co.uk_trim> writes
>> rwalker wrote:
>>> On Tue, 21 Apr 2009 09:34:55 +0100, bugbear
>>> <bugbear@trim_papermule.co.uk_trim> wrote:
>>> snip
>>>
>>>> I think it's backwards compatibility with 35mm (film) lenses.
>>>>
>>>> If it was (all) about image quality, we'd have bigger
>>>> sensors than so-called-full-frame.
>>>>
>>>> BugBear
>>> Exactly. When I think "full frame" I think 6 x 7 cm.
>>
>> Well, "full plate" is 6 1/2" x 8 1/2".
>
> Sorry that is full PLATE not full FRAME :-))))
>
> The point still holds there is no reason why anyone should use "full
> frame" for FX digital sensors rather than DX sensors.
That ship has sailed. Accept it and move on.
> So how about:-
> DX for standard digital
> FX for the next size up similar to the old 35mm size
> MX for the frame sizes similar to the Medium format cameras
> PX for the very large "plate" size sensors?
>
> Not a "full frame" in sight :-)
Have all manufacturers adopted that nomenclature? Will they?
nospam
<ch...@phaedsys.org> wrote:
> >Exactly. When I think "full frame" I think 6 x 7 cm.
>
> That was my point. It is relative. So the DX size sensor is "full frame"
> for DSLR's and all this rubbish about going "full [35mm]frame" is just
> marketing.
then a compact p&s is full frame. and cellphone cameras are full
frame. the word loses meaning.
Chris H
<nos...@nospam.invalid> writes
Quite so.
Neil Ellwood
You mean 10 X 12 inches.
--
Neil
reverse ra and delete l
Linux user 335851
Kennedy McEwen
<cral.el...@btopenworld.com> writes
>On Wed, 22 Apr 2009 10:19:53 +0100, bugbear wrote:
>
>> rwalker wrote:
>>> On Tue, 21 Apr 2009 09:34:55 +0100, bugbear
>>> <bugbear@trim_papermule.co.uk_trim> wrote:
>>>
>>> snip
>>>
>>>> I think it's backwards compatibility with 35mm (film) lenses.
>>>>
>>>> If it was (all) about image quality, we'd have bigger sensors than
>>>> so-called-full-frame.
>>>>
>>>> BugBear
>>>
>>> Exactly. When I think "full frame" I think 6 x 7 cm.
>>
>> Well, "full plate" is 6 1/2" x 8 1/2".
>
>
http://www.edinphoto.org.uk/1_early/1_early_photography_-_sizes.htm
http://home.clara.net/brianp/photo.html
http://cwfp.biz/platesizes.php
JoelH
> particular film size? Especially when all the lenses for the film
> cameras will work on the digital ones but not the other way around?
Mostly for comparison.
I don't think there's anything intrinsically better about "full-frame"
(which, as you correctly point out, just means "the old SLR size
you're used to"). I already own a handful of lenses, and it's useful
for me to know how they will behave on a new camera. (This is the
same reason lenses are advertised with "35mm equivilent focal
lengths." I know what 100mm was under the old system. I have to
think about it for a while with the newer, smaller sensors.)
On the other hand, a picture can be cropped after it's taken, but it
can't be widened. So getting as wide an angle as possible is
sometimes desirable, and full-frame offers a wider angle with the same
lens than most dSLR's.
Paul Furman
>
> "J�rgen Exner" <jurg...@hotmail.com> wrote in message
> news:lv6pu4herl4apfgjc...@4ax.com...
>> Chris H <ch...@phaedsys.org> wrote:
>>> Hopefully this will not degenerate... (some hope :-)
>>>
>>> What is "full frame"?
>>> Think about it. There are many formats of film size from 8*10 field
>>> film for X-rays, spies, other medical, instrumentation etc
>>
>> considered 'the' full frame format because it is by far the most
>> commonly film format.
>>
>>> So why would you want a Digital frame size to be the same as a
>>> particular film size?
>>
>> lenses.
>>
>>> Especially when all the lenses for the film
>>> cameras will work on the digital ones but not the other way around?
>>
>> the term 'digital' is a non-starter. And although apparently some
>> manufacturers have optimized some lenses for digital photography like
>> special rear coating to reduce back reflection or more perpendicular
>> illumination of the sensor, there is nothing in there stopping you from
>> using those lenses on a traditional film camera.
>
>
> Have you actually tried putting an APS-C lens on a 35mm camera?
Can't be done with Canon because they use a shorter flange distance. No
real loss, Nikon allows this and it is rarely useful.
> Not pretty.
>
--
Paul Furman
www.edgehill.net
www.baynatives.com
all google groups messages filtered due to spam
Paul Furman
> Chris H wrote
>> Especially when all the lenses for the film
>> cameras will work on the digital ones but not the other way around?
>
> Why would this be relivetn I';m sure you could get super 8 lens working too
> if you could be bother or other projection lenses.
The analogy is that you could get a large format lens working on a web cam.
Paul Furman
> Chris H wrote
>> All these are their own frame size. The are all "full frame" within
>> their own design parameters.
>
> Right. That is why I have always objected to the term "crop factor," which I
> think is a silly one. Nothing is being *cropped* just because the sensor is
> smaller.
The old lenses image circles get cropped.
This is a good thing if you want reach.
> Personally I have no interest in "full frame" digital cameras and/or the
> higher resolution that they may accomplish. For my purposes the DX format
> seems just perfect, for several reasons. I don't really understand why so
> many seem to regard "full frame" as a sort of Holy Grail.
FX is at a disadvantage when you want reach.
Paul Furman
> Hopefully this will not degenerate... (some hope :-)
>
> What is "full frame"?
> Think about it. There are many formats of film size from 8*10 field
> cameras down to 110 film. Probably more if you include special purpose
> film for X-rays, spies, other medical, instrumentation etc
>
>
> their own design parameters.
>
> cameras will work on the digital ones but not the other way around?
>
> gimmick feeding people's egos. The digital "frame" I have in my DSLR is
> "full frame" in its own system.
>
> grounds for the frame 25MPG and up DSLR's who are chasing the medium
> format market to use a larger sensor. But does it need to be the same
> as the old 35mm film size? On that score the Medium format cameras do
> have digital backs.
>
> Do digital sensors have to be related to the old film sizes? If so why?
'DX' means digital crop factor, so that's not what you want ;-)
'FX' means full crop factor (no crop multiplier).
'36mm DSLR' would be a sensible name, then use '24mm DSLR' for DX.
Actually it would be smarter to refer to the diagonal to accommodate
different aspect ratios and to make clear what a normal lens is for that
format.
There are technical differences in the different formats - advantages &
disadvantages - so it's not an ego thing, there are real reasons. The
reasons to choose a smaller format are reduced cost/size and increased
telephoto reach at the cost of extreme wide angle, light loss and to
some degree resolving power though that's minor, noise is the larger
factor. Today's DSLRs are very low noise though so it's hardly suffering
to go DX but there is a gain going FX for low light work and large
prints. Faster wide angle lenses are available for FX, not at the
extreme edge but like and old manual 28mm f/2 FX lens, you just can't
get an 18mm f/2 lens for DX but the old FX/28/2 is quite affordable &
common. Fairly minor difference but real. OTOH extremely long telephotos
are a lot cheaper on DX.
For an optical TTL viewfinder, FX gives you more detail to frame and
focus with.
YDOD
"Paul Furman" <paul-@-edgehill.net> wrote in message
news:kH8Nl.32817$ZP4....@nlpi067.nbdc.sbc.com...
Also note that available cameras with smaller sensors produce pictures which
have a greater depth of field. Therefore there tends to be more artistic
control over the picture with a camera which has a larger sensor. This is at
the cost of heavier, larger and more expensive lens and cameras of course.
John Turco
<edited for brevity>
> The linguistic term "full frame" has a well defined meaning (the size of a full
> 24x36mm 35mm frame), and you are trying to break it up and insist it be used
> by your definition to mean any format. That's silly, simply because the term
> wouldn't mean anything then.
Hello, David:
Are there any truly "odd ball" sizes of image sensors, that don't conform to
traditional film formats, at all?
Cordially,
John Turco <jt...@concentric.net>