definition of full frame
- Thread starter ManWearPants
- Start date
- Status
I can see where this is going...
it's not about the size but how you use it :bsmilie::sweat:
so their processors take the image and process in-camera until it has FF qualities?
nah.. it is just the crazy japanese engineer trying to make everything smaller, imagine they have the same 12M pixels squeeze into 1/4 of the size.. then some lens that almost like microscope lens to create super sharp image on the tiny sensor.. Just a bunch on crazy japanese.
Similar as the automobile.. 2.5 liters engine to produce 1000 bhp after mod.. they are just crazy.....
SLR has been such a long history that we weren't even born. They have only one size , ie 35mm. (36X24mm). So that becomes ingrained in photography as a yardstick measurement. Medium format is not popular as compared to 35mm.
As digital sensor vary in sizes, it simply peg against the standard measurement of 35mm film since it was the adopted standard for decades and people borned before the digital camera are already so familiar with 35mm, esp in the focal length aspect.
People want to associate what is the difference as compare to film size. Hence, “pro” camera using 36x24mm sensor also known as FF. So who are these people that started calling FF. I have no idea but i think if you care to google you'd able to find the answer.
P&S sensor has 1/1.6” or 1/2.5” sensor and many sizes in between. What the heck are all this? Its so mind bogging calling it in fraction. Manufacturer want to confuse you because it is so small that they are shy to tell you the sensor is 5mm x 3mm. If they can't convince, they rather confuse you.
So all this FF or 1/1.8” are simply identity of sensor size in digital lingo. To me, a 4/3 is not FF simply because the sensor size is not matched up to 36x24mm. It has no other meanings whatsoever. Not "technically", not "approximately" or anything else.
But I clinched when a saleman can't even know what is crop factor and worst, he will ask what's that? You heard that before?
As digital sensor vary in sizes, it simply peg against the standard measurement of 35mm film since it was the adopted standard for decades and people borned before the digital camera are already so familiar with 35mm, esp in the focal length aspect.
People want to associate what is the difference as compare to film size. Hence, “pro” camera using 36x24mm sensor also known as FF. So who are these people that started calling FF. I have no idea but i think if you care to google you'd able to find the answer.
P&S sensor has 1/1.6” or 1/2.5” sensor and many sizes in between. What the heck are all this? Its so mind bogging calling it in fraction. Manufacturer want to confuse you because it is so small that they are shy to tell you the sensor is 5mm x 3mm. If they can't convince, they rather confuse you.
So all this FF or 1/1.8” are simply identity of sensor size in digital lingo. To me, a 4/3 is not FF simply because the sensor size is not matched up to 36x24mm. It has no other meanings whatsoever. Not "technically", not "approximately" or anything else.
But I clinched when a saleman can't even know what is crop factor and worst, he will ask what's that? You heard that before?
Last edited:
ok. to keep this thread going, we refrain from comparing brands. Just comment objectively on whether those cropped size sensors should be called fullframe in their own rights.
I think it is okay to call whatever format whatever they want - it's all about marketing after all, even if it means hijacking a popular term and redefine it to make something look good.
My objection is rather with the often misquoted "equivalent" values, for example, a 4/3 or m4/3 35-100mm F/2 being said to be "70-200mm F/2" equivalent. More often, it's said to be "70-200" equivalent, with added emphasis that it's an F/2 lens.
Leave the physical values as they are and stop misleading people, or adopt a system of complete equivalent values: FL = FL * crop, FNum = FNum * crop, ISO = ISO * crop * crop.
Eg., D7000 @ ISO 100, 35mm, F/1.8 approximates D700 @ ISO 200, 50mm, F/2.8
Based on these equivalent values, we can talk about image quality, etc.. One will see that some cameras thought to have "poor high ISO performance" are rather strong in the equivalent terms.
Last edited:
The word equivalent is not misquoted. It often refer to FL comparison with 35mm. That's about all. As you have rightly pointed out, a 100mm FL in 4/3 is equivalent to 200mm in 35 film. Just like 304.8mm is equal to 12 in. Its just another way of putting it.
Of course one would agree the f2 in a compact cannot be "equal" to f2 in FF. Can't think of one has used it in that kind of analogy. Don't get confused, generalised or add something more to it than the intended above meaning.
well.. strictly speaking a lens with 100mm Focal length in 135 system is still 100mm Focal length inn 4/3. Focal length doesn't change. The only thing changing is FOV.
so F2 in a compact can never be equal to F2 in FF. why? because actual size of an aperture is a fraction of the focal length. And we all know how "long" the focal length (not FOV) is in a compact.
Full frame or FF is as it is, full frame, regardless of how small or big the frame is. However, 135 is a standard where all photographic equipment is measured against, the de facto standard, so to speak. So if your sensor size is 36mm x 24 mm, than you comply with the 135 standard and therefore a 50mm lens is 50mm. Anything else that's measured against this can only be expressed in ratio. So 135 is 1:1. There rest will be different.
To me its like using different measurement scales. Some likes to use Feet , Metres , Inches as reference measurements. For all measurement basis you use , 1 unit , will always be 1 unit.
If you deem FT as your proper basis , then you are right to say 1 unit , refers to 1 FT.
In all due respect, since 135 is already the industry standard to measure sensor sizes, I think we should not add any further confusion to deviate from common understanding.
Whats factual and technical should remain as it is.
Why the bashing about 'O' brand? They did not claim their FF to be as good as 35mm FF. The only way they market their FF is that their camera and lens are smaller than competitors. Reasonable IQ which is sufficient for the general public in a smaller package. That's what I interpret.
On their lens, they state both actual focal length as well as 35mm equivalent. So no way they mislead consumers.
On their lens, they state both actual focal length as well as 35mm equivalent. So no way they mislead consumers.
me newbie. interesting subject become so deep .. first few thread i can swallow after that i dont understand. so many technical term in photography. Need some panadol to release my headache. Hopefully i can understand all this after few years down the road.:embrass:
4/3 is a different standard in which a 25mm lens is closest to the human vision of view, just like 50mm on the 135 standard. Because of its history, the 135 is still considered the key standard in photography. One day, if 4/3 and m4/3 becomes more popular and the key driver to this industry, then everything else may be pecked to this standard. If you have been in photography for long enough, then you will understand differences like Din and ASA until such standards were standardised to ISO. Will 4/3 become the de facto standard in future in the DSLR industry, will remain to be seen. But who knows, maybe, 4/3 is the way to go if it can prove that the total system package in terms of size, weight, cost and IQ can beat the 135 standard. Who doesn't want something of equal or better IQ that's smaller, lighter and cheaper?
Bro...no disrespect here...but nic in red means carry more weight meh? Sheech. That means the rest of us in black talking rubbish. :bsmilie:
Fully agree. Standards change over time and are never cast in stone , after all , standards are set by man.The concept of Fullframe might not take 135 as the standard anymore in the future. It might even go the PNS way.
Really no intentions to bash any one here, just of the view that we should not introduce too many different definitions of "Full Frame". Which may lead to confusion among consumers who are not that knowgeable on the lingo.
Its like Katong Laksa, so many Katong Laksa and many other type of laksa, which one is the real authentic laksa ? I guess unless we eat there often, we might know which shop is the authentic one if not , someone new to Singapore, would have no idea if they just look for katong laksa.
You can argue , who cares if its Katong or not , as long its good Laksa ? Which I fully agree as well. Then again, we need to still come to terms that , there is a certain style that makes Katong Laksa, Katong Laksa.
Anyway peace to all . :cheers:, just here to join in a discussion, not to hurt or bash anyone or thing :sweat:
- Status
Similar threads
