definition of full frame

[divinemoment]

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?

Your assumption is valid and who knows, APS or 4/3 may become the standard for the next century. But by then probably another term instead of FF will be used. Maybe micro FF or something.

But for those insisting FF is not necessary 135 are deluding themselves and not keeping up with times of digital lingo/jargon associate simply with comparison against an established standard the world is talking about.

By all means you can call your P&S FF, people will just laugh off their toes until such time when the jargon is known otherwise.

 

[pchmj]

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:

Read some comments about 'O' and I didn't see 'O' using FF to market, that's why.

Unless someone clearly defines the term 'Full Frame' = 35mm and everyone agrees to it, there's no mistake in calling 4/3 system FF. As I point out earlier, 'O' clearly indicates on their website/lens/labels on box each individual 35mm equivalent for lens. If someone still mistake it as 35mm, then problem lies with this person already.

Though I'm a local I don't know which one is the real Katong laksa. Every stall state theirs is authentic: bsmilie:

 

[ManWearPants]

Why the bashing about 'O' brand? They did not claim their FF to be as good as 35mm FF.

Unless someone clearly defines the term 'Full Frame' = 35mm and everyone agrees to it, there's no mistake in calling 4/3 system FF.

I make it quite clear that this discussion is not about brands so hopefully we can leave the brands out of the equation else this discussion cannot progress peacefully and I will need to close the thread.

I am more keen on the other point you raised. Should we be calling other systems other than 135 full frame? Please keep to that and try not to incite brand wars. Thanks.

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:

I would assume when the nick is in red, they would be more responsible with their posts and have certain level of credibility. Hence they should be accurate and correct. I am sure you don't want your child's teacher to be watching kiddy porno.

 

[pchmj]

I make it quite clear that this discussion is not about brands so hopefully we can leave the brands out of the equation else this discussion cannot progress peacefully and I will need to close the thread.

I am more keen on the other point you raised. Should we be calling other systems other than 135 full frame? Please keep to that and try not to incite brand wars. Thanks.

Sure, I will. :cheers:

I'm new to photography and based on what I understand, the term 'crop' comes along when DSLR sensor is smaller than those in SLR, thus image will be cropped when lens from SLR era are used. It's already been discussed from earlier replies.

I'm fine to even call a compact full frame since there's physically no cropped image involved. Multiplication factor does seems more like an appropriate term to use, to compare with the standard 35mm.

 

[ManWearPants]

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.

Everyone knows katong laksa uses short stubby noodle and taken using spoon only. If you replace the noodle with longer ones, or add kway teow, or put in meat fishball, etc. Can it be still called Katong Laksa. This I think is a more appropriate analogy.

 

[agws1970]

Not to target anyone but the 135 format was the defacto standard for film slr. Therefore when the APS system came out for film, many also had the view that it was sub par. Ultimately its quick demise due to accessibility issues left many not knowing what is was. In essence that system was also full frame because everything was designed for it, its lenses did not work for any other format camera. (The first RD 175 from minolta was this size and FF therefore because it used APS lenses with an APS-C sized sensor.)
So the 135 is seen as a ISO standard for this form factor slr.
When digital slr came along, the first few were so expensive that they were targeted as Professional tools for Pro Photographers. These pros already had access to their range of lenses from 35mm days and thats why the mounts were retained. The first ones were crop factor 2X or even more but they were grudgingly accepted because of the speed of work that could be achieved. As technology advanced, the sensors got bigger because the pros were demanding more from the manufacturers and they complied.
When the manufacturers tried to make bigger sensors, they discovered that the silicon wafers that comprise the base of the sensors were harder and more costly to cast than APS sized ones, hence APS-C was born and we have this 1.6 crop sensor.
There was no intent to make anyone wonder what is full frame and what is crop. Just fork out money if you must have FF or compromise for the price of Crop. No manufacturer would call any crop sensor full frame and they don't. Why should we?
All cameras can be full frame if the lenses that they can use are only optimized with an image circle that only covers its sensor size natively.(i.e. not using non manufacturer adapters.) Otherwise just go out and shoot rather than wondering whether my camera is FF or Crop? It does not give you better pictures, only practice will.
My 5 cents.

 

[daredevil123]

Not to target anyone but the 135 format was the defacto standard for film slr. Therefore when the APS system came out for film, many also had the view that it was sub par. Ultimately its quick demise due to accessibility issues left many not knowing what is was. In essence that system was also full frame because everything was designed for it, its lenses did not work for any other format camera. (The first RD 175 from minolta was this size and FF therefore because it used APS lenses with an APS-C sized sensor.)
So the 135 is seen as a ISO standard for this form factor slr.
When digital slr came along, the first few were so expensive that they were targeted as Professional tools for Pro Photographers. These pros already had access to their range of lenses from 35mm days and thats why the mounts were retained. The first ones were crop factor 2X or even more but they were grudgingly accepted because of the speed of work that could be achieved. As technology advanced, the sensors got bigger because the pros were demanding more from the manufacturers and they complied.
When the manufacturers tried to make bigger sensors, they discovered that the silicon wafers that comprise the base of the sensors were harder and more costly to cast than APS sized ones, hence APS-C was born and we have this 1.6 crop sensor.
There was no intent to make anyone wonder what is full frame and what is crop. Just fork out money if you must have FF or compromise for the price of Crop. No manufacturer would call any crop sensor full frame and they don't. Why should we?
All cameras can be full frame if the lenses that they can use are only optimized with an image circle that only covers its sensor size natively.(i.e. not using non manufacturer adapters.) Otherwise just go out and shoot rather than wondering whether my camera is FF or Crop? It does not give you better pictures, only practice will.
My 5 cents.

:thumbsup::thumbsup::thumbsup:

 

[Atarandas]

Not to target anyone but the 135 format was the defacto standard for film slr. Therefore when the APS system came out for film, many also had the view that it was sub par. Ultimately its quick demise due to accessibility issues left many not knowing what is was. In essence that system was also full frame because everything was designed for it, its lenses did not work for any other format camera. (The first RD 175 from minolta was this size and FF therefore because it used APS lenses with an APS-C sized sensor.)
So the 135 is seen as a ISO standard for this form factor slr.
When digital slr came along, the first few were so expensive that they were targeted as Professional tools for Pro Photographers. These pros already had access to their range of lenses from 35mm days and thats why the mounts were retained. The first ones were crop factor 2X or even more but they were grudgingly accepted because of the speed of work that could be achieved. As technology advanced, the sensors got bigger because the pros were demanding more from the manufacturers and they complied.
When the manufacturers tried to make bigger sensors, they discovered that the silicon wafers that comprise the base of the sensors were harder and more costly to cast than APS sized ones, hence APS-C was born and we have this 1.6 crop sensor.
There was no intent to make anyone wonder what is full frame and what is crop. Just fork out money if you must have FF or compromise for the price of Crop. No manufacturer would call any crop sensor full frame and they don't. Why should we?
All cameras can be full frame if the lenses that they can use are only optimized with an image circle that only covers its sensor size natively.(i.e. not using non manufacturer adapters.) Otherwise just go out and shoot rather than wondering whether my camera is FF or Crop? It does not give you better pictures, only practice will.
My 5 cents.

:thumbsup:Well summarized ! So conclusion is masses have been misguided about the definition ? Then again which what the purpose of this thread is, really to clear doubts and general stereotype

 

[ManWearPants]

There was no intent to make anyone wonder what is full frame and what is crop. Just fork out money if you must have FF or compromise for the price of Crop. No manufacturer would call any crop sensor full frame and they don't. Why should we?

All cameras can be full frame if the lenses that they can use are only optimized with an image circle that only covers its sensor size natively.(i.e. not using non manufacturer adapters.) Otherwise just go out and shoot rather than wondering whether my camera is FF or Crop? It does not give you better pictures, only practice will.
My 5 cents.

ok. thanks for bring 175 format into the picture. It is like knowing if a pitbull is a purebred or a mongrel. While a dog is a dog, there are also differentiation to what type of dog it is.

This thread may not change the way some will think of full frame as lens being designed to cover the full image circle of the sensor or that of 135 standard where the focal length of lenses to sensor is 1:1 ratio. Whichever school of thoughts, it is inevitable this subject will create differing opinions. By understanding, not necessarily agreeing, and accepting the differences. We should be better off.

This thread is like an orgasm. After you made your point, you feel better. But it doesn't change anything

 

[agws1970]

ok. thanks for bring 175 format into the picture. It is like knowing if a pitbull is a purebred or a mongrel. While a dog is a dog, there are also differentiation to what type of dog it is.

This thread may not change the way some will think of full frame as lens being designed to cover the full image circle of the sensor or that of 135 standard where the focal length of lenses to sensor is 1:1 ratio. Whichever school of thoughts, it is inevitable this subject will create differing opinions. By understanding, not necessarily agreeing, and accepting the differences. We should be better off.

This thread is like an orgasm. After you made your point, you feel better. But it doesn't change anything

Unlike this thread, The big O will bring results 9 months down the line. Hehe.

 

[ManWearPants]

Unlike this thread, The big O will bring results 9 months down the line. Hehe.

It's the same isn't it? If one is not careful, he will end up with a full frame camera

 

[spheredome]

A slight correction I would like to add. Only if the lens manufactured for 35mm and not any lens.

Not to target anyone but the 135 format was the defacto standard for film slr. Therefore when the APS system came out for film, many also had the view that it was sub par. Ultimately its quick demise due to accessibility issues left many not knowing what is was. In essence that system was also full frame because everything was designed for it, its lenses did not work for any other format camera. (The first RD 175 from minolta was this size and FF therefore because it used APS lenses with an APS-C sized sensor.)
So the 135 is seen as a ISO standard for this form factor slr.
When digital slr came along, the first few were so expensive that they were targeted as Professional tools for Pro Photographers. These pros already had access to their range of lenses from 35mm days and thats why the mounts were retained. The first ones were crop factor 2X or even more but they were grudgingly accepted because of the speed of work that could be achieved. As technology advanced, the sensors got bigger because the pros were demanding more from the manufacturers and they complied.
When the manufacturers tried to make bigger sensors, they discovered that the silicon wafers that comprise the base of the sensors were harder and more costly to cast than APS sized ones, hence APS-C was born and we have this 1.6 crop sensor.
There was no intent to make anyone wonder what is full frame and what is crop. Just fork out money if you must have FF or compromise for the price of Crop. No manufacturer would call any crop sensor full frame and they don't. Why should we?
All cameras can be full frame if the lenses that they can use are only optimized with an image circle that only covers its sensor size natively.(i.e. not using non manufacturer adapters.) Otherwise just go out and shoot rather than wondering whether my camera is FF or Crop? It does not give you better pictures, only practice will.
My 5 cents.

 

[Rashkae]

It's very simple, folks.

FF is for Canon and FX is for Nikon.

Anything else, we can just nod our heads, "ya .. olympus full-frame, sony full-frame, samsung full-frame etc"

Do you even know what you're talking about?

Sony makes full-frame 35mm sensors. They made them for the D3X, and the A850 and the A900.

So go ahead, keep nodding your head, create that rattling sound

 

[bloodsucker]

full frame is associated with camera sensor equivalent of 35mm film frame size.

if people choose to believe that full frame is equivalent with other size whether smaller or bigger then it's their business.

if you are taking picture with full frame camera and a stranger claim your camera has an aps-c sensor, would you bother to explain it to them?

 

[torak]

Full frame is a sort of standard to define sensor size among DSLR users.

Ask a Canon, a Nikon, and Sony, or even Pentax (even though they dont hv FF DSLRs) and they will understand that a full frame sensor means its a sensor that is similar in size to the 35mm film, and that an APS-C sensor is a smaller sensor having 1.5/1.6x crop.

I think this definition is well understood by every system, even the least popular brands like Samsung, Sigma and Fuji markets their DSLR in this way.

Seems like one brand likes to market their smaller than APS-C sensor as a full frame, for whatever reason they can come up with.

If we go by the logic of that particular brand, then might as well say that a compact camera's sensor is a full frame sensor too, since their sensor designed to cover the full frame of their lens?

 

[Anthony Lee]

A slight correction I would like to add. Only if the lens manufactured for 35mm and not any lens.

35mm is the width of a roll of 35mm film. The 135 film standard refers to a film image size of 36mm x 24mm. Also note that 35mm film can also be used in range finders and half frame format cameras, not only 135 standard SLR cameras.

MWP: If "Full Frame" is a generic term for a DSLR sensor that complies with the 135 film format, then there will be no more question. Otherwise, anyone can choose to use it however one chooses. I see no point in continuing this discussion because there will be no conclusion.

 

[NazgulKing]

Personally, I have always disliked the use of f-stop because it distorts some of the hard physics behind it. The fact remains is that a smaller sensor needs less total light to illuminate it, compared to a larger sensor. So the amount of light a lens that has f-stop of 2 for a larger sensor will collect will obviously be more than a lens designed for a smaller sensor.

And a point of note: The first still camera that used the 35mm film standard wasn't a SLR. Those didn't exist in the early 20th century. 35mm was used for cinema cameras, and was popularized by Oskar Barnack's Leica camera.

 

[nikkie]

every reference to size of sensor in still photography is made to the ISO reference. For SLR and DSLRs, the word 'full frame' means the film 135 format (24x36mm).
It was invented/standardized by Kodak in 1934. Before that, all cameras were mostly our present day referenced medium or large format.
So in comparison when 135 format came into the market, it became the 'small format' and was not considered suitable for professional use.

 

[NazgulKing]

every reference to size of sensor in still photography is made to the ISO reference. For SLR and DSLRs, the word 'full frame' means the film 135 format (24x36mm).
It was invented/standardized by Kodak in 1934. Before that, all cameras were mostly our present day referenced medium or large format.
So in comparison when 135 format came into the market, it became the 'small format' and was not considered suitable for professional use.

Film cameras have been using 24x36mm 35mm film even before Kodak came out with the standard.

 

[tonylim]

Full frame is a sort of standard to define sensor size among DSLR users.

Ask a Canon, a Nikon, and Sony, or even Pentax (even though they dont hv FF DSLRs) and they will understand that a full frame sensor means its a sensor that is similar in size to the 35mm film, and that an APS-C sensor is a smaller sensor having 1.5/1.6x crop.

I think this definition is well understood by every system, even the least popular brands like Samsung, Sigma and Fuji markets their DSLR in this way.

Seems like one brand likes to market their smaller than APS-C sensor as a full frame, for whatever reason they can come up with.

If we go by the logic of that particular brand, then might as well say that a compact camera's sensor is a full frame sensor too, since their sensor designed to cover the full frame of their lens?

Well said.:thumbsup: