FF Under Development

Winder · 10-29-2012, 06:47 PM

Originally posted by bossa

I don't think that Adam is an official Pentax representative is he? So until THEY announce a FF it doesn't count for mine.

I've all but given up on them anyway as you can see from my signature.

I see in your Sig you have the Sigma 50mm and 85mm for your Nikon D800. How well do they perform on a full sized sensor? I have them for Pentax and love them. I hope to use them on a Pentax FF one day soon.

Class A · 10-29-2012, 06:54 PM

FWIW, Adam says he has spoken to André Dierickx who has confirmed an FF model for the end of 2013.

Not sure why Adam is now communicating this although he "wasn't supposed to mention" it.

The release date seems a bit too early for me and I'll believe it when I see it, but what do I know.

bossa · 10-29-2012, 07:06 PM

Originally posted by Winder

I see in your Sig you have the Sigma 50mm and 85mm for your Nikon D800. How well do they perform on a full sized sensor? I have them for Pentax and love them. I hope to use them on a Pentax FF one day soon.

The 50 is better than the Nikon 50's apart from maybe the 50/1.8 but only if you want it sharper at more open apertures at the edge of the frame. I think the Sigma 85 is better than the Nikon counterparts. That lens is superb.

Alizarine · 10-29-2012, 07:15 PM

Originally posted by dane.dawg

If you guys saw the k-5ii review ,Adam states full frame is confirmed...

The question is "when"... and another hundred pages will come up for that =))

stevebrot · 10-29-2012, 07:48 PM

Originally posted by ogl

I'm against FF...FF is marketing trick.

Careful...your experience is showing...

Steve

(...been shooting "FF" for years and knows the difference...)

wanderography · 10-29-2012, 09:14 PM

I'm excited about the FF, and no FF is not a marketing trick. FF gives you the correct FoV for your lenses, FF makes your DoF scale on your lens relevant without being a math wiz. I like APS-C and FF (don't own a FF camera besides film), I think M43 is retarded and cant believe people actually spend the big bucks for zeiss and voigtlander lenses to put on em, APS-C cameras are just getting smaller and it seems M43 is getting bigger, makes no sense haha... I just don't see the hate for either sensor sizes, I think they are both relevant. But what I dont understand is how many people here are pros who make money off there images? That is the only reason to complain about image quality, if your a pro, other than that you should be happy with the output of any digital camera coming out during our present time. If it wasn't for the fact that I was going to school to learn the business aspects of photography I would never buy anything more than my Q and my MX, but I need to start collecting as many PRO lenses as I can right now and I use my K-01 to use them while I wait for FF so I don't have to just look at them. It's like photographers are like those car freaks, gotta have the fastest car but yet you never hit the track, whats the point of having maximum image quality if your not gonna sell those images for someone to print up huge and stick on there wall, I know none of you are slapping all your high res images on your wall in your house...

Winder · 10-30-2012, 09:46 AM

Originally posted by Class A

FWIW, Adam says he has spoken to André Dierickx who has confirmed an FF model for the end of 2013.

Not sure why Adam is now communicating this although he "wasn't supposed to mention" it.

The release date seems a bit too early for me and I'll believe it when I see it, but what do I know.

I think the end of 2013 is pretty accurate. Pentax still has work to do on several key technologies before they can put a competitive full frame on the market at a justifiable price.

C-AF with a competitive sensor array is needed. Pentax is still a couple of generations behind.
Flash system that is comparable to Nikon. Yes, Pentax is serviceable, but Nikon's is much less work to get results.
HD Video is still a weak spot for Pentax for those who need it.
Lenses to support a full frame body.

I would guess we will see several key support technologies released in the K-3 APS-C and Pentax can work the bugs out so they can be implemented in the K-1.

Of course the K-5 could evolve into the K-5III. The K-3 could be a full frame like the D600/D800 and the K-1 could be a later "pro" body like a D4.

Last edited by Winder; 10-30-2012 at 10:26 AM.

RBellavance · 10-30-2012, 10:05 AM

Originally posted by bmonki

FF gives you the correct FoV for your lenses

There is no such thing as "the correct" field of view for a lens.

A full-frame camera gives you the FoVs you were used to when you shot film, true. That does not make these FoVs any more "correct" than those given by an APS-C camera.

As a matter of fact, having never shot film, the "correct" FoV for my lenses are the ones APS-C gives. Moving to full-frame would be an adaptation for me.

wanderography · 10-30-2012, 02:36 PM

Originally posted by RBellavance

There is no such thing as "the correct" field of view for a lens.

A full-frame camera gives you the FoVs you were used to when you shot film, true. That does not make these FoVs any more "correct" than those given by an APS-C camera.

As a matter of fact, having never shot film, the "correct" FoV for my lenses are the ones APS-C gives. Moving to full-frame would be an adaptation for me.

Technically your correct, but if your using your human eyeball to look, your incorrect. We can all do math equations all we want, if the FoV was as we see it no matter what, the 5.5 crop factor on the Q wouldn't be that big of deal and no one would be complaining for an official K to Q mount adapter, so your argument is just a statement to justify the fact that you have never shot anything larger than an APS-C. Like I said are you a pro? do you make money? than it doesn't matter, but having the correct FoV does matter for a professional, I want to make a business doing food and restaurant photography which will require me to have a wide angle tilt shift lens, show me a wide angle tilt and shift lens for APS-C. There is room for both sensor sizes, but your having to "adapt" is you being more or less just a beginner in photography if you have never shot anything other than APS-c, so your comments are not valid on the discussion of a professional camera...

redrockcoulee · 10-30-2012, 03:24 PM - **1 Like**

bmonki

All the pro photographers from the past that shot multiple formats of LF might disagree with you as well. A 210 on my 4X5 is different from the same lens on my 5X7 and I do not think either is incorrect any more than the 50 on my K-r or MZ5n. And the 50 on my MF is certainly different then either of them (granted it is made for a different format).

What I am trying to say is although I see arguments for the need of full frame I do not agree with the one that it allows the lens to be what it should be. The lens is what it is for the manner you use it. In my former job we used both FF and DX Nikon lenses on high speed cameras (Phantoms) and either of the two types were cropped, it did not matter, one needed a certain focal length and you used the lens you had.

I have shot from 110 to 5X7 and have been employed as a photographer but my opinion is no more valid than is RBellavance, he simply stated how he views the correct focal length and he did use quotes. I would think that a 35 would be what he thinks of when he thinks normal focal length whereas you might think 50 however neither is correct until you mention the film or sensor size. My 35 is a DA lens so it is a normal lens as it was made for APS-C but it is wide angle when I use it on my film camera. The lens is still the same focal length and neither or should I say both are correct depending on what I am shooting it on.

And no I do not hang my wife's 60 by 85 inch prints on the wall as do not have a wall big enough

From film MF not digital.

vonBaloney · 10-30-2012, 03:26 PM

Originally posted by bmonki

Technically your correct, but if your using your human eyeball to look, your incorrect. We can all do math equations all we want, if the FoV was as we see it no matter what, the 5.5 crop factor on the Q wouldn't be that big of deal and no one would be complaining for an official K to Q mount adapter, so your argument is just a statement to justify the fact that you have never shot anything larger than an APS-C. Like I said are you a pro? do you make money? than it doesn't matter, but having the correct FoV does matter for a professional, I want to make a business doing food and restaurant photography which will require me to have a wide angle tilt shift lens, show me a wide angle tilt and shift lens for APS-C. There is room for both sensor sizes, but your having to "adapt" is you being more or less just a beginner in photography if you have never shot anything other than APS-c, so your comments are not valid on the discussion of a professional camera...

How does your need for a wide-angle tilt-shift lens make one FOV more correct than another? The 35mm "full-frame" size is an arbitrary size, just as is APS-C and 4x5 and 6x7 and every other size. Just because something has been around longer doesn't make it inherently more "correct" than any other format. You can point to certain advantages for particular applications for full-frame, but the reverse is also true.

Cannikin · 10-30-2012, 03:57 PM - **1 Like**

Originally posted by bmonki

Technically your correct, but if your using your human eyeball to look, your incorrect. We can all do math equations all we want, if the FoV was as we see it no matter what, the 5.5 crop factor on the Q wouldn't be that big of deal and no one would be complaining for an official K to Q mount adapter, so your argument is just a statement to justify the fact that you have never shot anything larger than an APS-C.

This rambling made absolutely no sense whatsoever.

"35mm" is a completely arbitrary designation based on historical business/technical reasons. It was derived from older 70mm film stock, which Thomas Edison's lab decided to cut in half to approximately 35mm wide to adapt to his kinetoscope, add perforations for film feeding, and ended up with a frame size of 24x18mm (35mm cinema film). Later, still photographers took this same 35mm film stock, rotated the orientation (such that the 24mm horizontal dimension became the vertical) and doubled the width (18x2=36), giving you the 36x24mm that we now call "35mm" or "full frame". The reason it became popular is because it was significantly smaller, and thus more convenient, than large and medium format film, which are significantly older and stayed more popular than 35mm until 50 or so years ago. Since then 35mm has been the most popular format, and most photographers remember it the best, thus becoming the "standard". Nowhere in the entire history was any connection made to a human eye, with the arguable exception of the archaic measurement of viewfinder magnification, which by the way is also not tied to any format, but rather indirectly by way of an arbitrary 50mm "standard" lens.

Further, there is zero correlation between a human eye to any size of sensor or any other flat plane medium. The human retina is spherical not a flat plane, and the image it and the lens produces is physically and geometrically impossible to replicate using a flat plane medium (no more than the Earth can be displayed on a flat map without distortion). Rectilinear flat plane projection's (gnomonic projection) mathematical/geometric concepts of the focal length/FOV relationship have no equivalence to the human eye.

wanderography · 10-30-2012, 05:06 PM

Originally posted by Cannikin

This rambling made absolutely no sense whatsoever.

"35mm" is a completely arbitrary designation based on historical business/technical reasons. It was derived from older 70mm film stock, which Thomas Edison's lab decided to cut in half to approximately 35mm wide to adapt to his kinetoscope, add perforations for film feeding, and ended up with a frame size of 24x18mm (35mm cinema film). Later, still photographers took this same 35mm film stock, rotated the orientation (such that the 24mm horizontal dimension became the vertical) and doubled the width (18x2=36), giving you the 36x24mm that we now call "35mm" or "full frame". The reason it became popular is because it was significantly smaller, and thus more convenient, than large and medium format film, which are significantly older and stayed more popular than 35mm until 50 or so years ago. Since then 35mm has been the most popular format, and most photographers remember it the best, thus becoming the "standard". Nowhere in the entire history was any connection made to a human eye, with the arguable exception of the archaic measurement of viewfinder magnification, which by the way is also not tied to any format, but rather indirectly by way of an arbitrary 50mm "standard" lens.

Further, there is zero correlation between a human eye to any size of sensor or any other flat plane medium. The human retina is spherical not a flat plane, and the image it and the lens produces is physically and geometrically impossible to replicate using a flat plane medium (no more than the Earth can be displayed on a flat map without distortion). Rectilinear flat plane projection's (gnomonic projection) mathematical/geometric concepts of the focal length/FOV relationship have no equivalence to the human eye.

Your smarter than your own good my friend... If a lens says 50 on it and it becomes a 25 or 30 on medium format or a 75 on an APS-C it means 35mm is the standard. 35mm/FF has the lenses that a professional needs in the field I plan on going too. Like I said you can always do the math but most lenses are built with FF in mind therefore making FF/35mm the standard. Just because photographers adopted the format from film users doesn't mean it's not correct. You can throw equations and facts all day but when it comes down to it the fact is 35mm is the standard that most lenses are built around, deal with it... so that makes 35mm the standard format which all lenses are measured by... Just like I wish the US was on the metric system, it made things very complicated when I was working on air craft for the air force, you gotta have a standard format and that format is 35mm/FF...

wanderography · 10-30-2012, 05:11 PM

Originally posted by vonBaloney

How does your need for a wide-angle tilt-shift lens make one FOV more correct than another? The 35mm "full-frame" size is an arbitrary size, just as is APS-C and 4x5 and 6x7 and every other size. Just because something has been around longer doesn't make it inherently more "correct" than any other format. You can point to certain advantages for particular applications for full-frame, but the reverse is also true.

Once again it's not about being correct, it's about the standard format which everything is measured by, 35mm/FF...

vonBaloney · 10-30-2012, 05:24 PM

Originally posted by bmonki

Your smarter than your own good my friend... If a lens says 50 on it and it becomes a 25 or 30 on medium format or a 75 on an APS-C it means 35mm is the standard.

Except that it doesn't become anything on a different format. A 50 is a 50 is a 50 no matter the format. You are talking nonsense.

10-29-2012, 06:54 PM	#317
Class A Pentaxian Join Date: Aug 2008 Location: Wellington, New Zealand Posts: 11,251	FWIW, Adam says he has spoken to André Dierickx who has confirmed an FF model for the end of 2013. Not sure why Adam is now communicating this although he "wasn't supposed to mention" it. The release date seems a bit too early for me and I'll believe it when I see it, but what do I know. Last edited by Class A; 10-29-2012 at 09:08 PM.

10-30-2012, 02:36 PM	#324
wanderography Veteran Member Join Date: Aug 2011 Location: Hayward, California, USA Posts: 567	Originally posted by RBellavance There is no such thing as "the correct" field of view for a lens. A full-frame camera gives you the FoVs you were used to when you shot film, true. That does not make these FoVs any more "correct" than those given by an APS-C camera. As a matter of fact, having never shot film, the "correct" FoV for my lenses are the ones APS-C gives. Moving to full-frame would be an adaptation for me. Technically your correct, but if your using your human eyeball to look, your incorrect. We can all do math equations all we want, if the FoV was as we see it no matter what, the 5.5 crop factor on the Q wouldn't be that big of deal and no one would be complaining for an official K to Q mount adapter, so your argument is just a statement to justify the fact that you have never shot anything larger than an APS-C. Like I said are you a pro? do you make money? than it doesn't matter, but having the correct FoV does matter for a professional, I want to make a business doing food and restaurant photography which will require me to have a wide angle tilt shift lens, show me a wide angle tilt and shift lens for APS-C. There is room for both sensor sizes, but your having to "adapt" is you being more or less just a beginner in photography if you have never shot anything other than APS-c, so your comments are not valid on the discussion of a professional camera... Last edited by wanderography; 10-30-2012 at 02:41 PM.

10-30-2012, 03:57 PM - 1 Like	#327
Cannikin Veteran Member Join Date: Mar 2010 Location: SW Washington Posts: 833	Originally posted by bmonki Technically your correct, but if your using your human eyeball to look, your incorrect. We can all do math equations all we want, if the FoV was as we see it no matter what, the 5.5 crop factor on the Q wouldn't be that big of deal and no one would be complaining for an official K to Q mount adapter, so your argument is just a statement to justify the fact that you have never shot anything larger than an APS-C. This rambling made absolutely no sense whatsoever. "35mm" is a completely arbitrary designation based on historical business/technical reasons. It was derived from older 70mm film stock, which Thomas Edison's lab decided to cut in half to approximately 35mm wide to adapt to his kinetoscope, add perforations for film feeding, and ended up with a frame size of 24x18mm (35mm cinema film). Later, still photographers took this same 35mm film stock, rotated the orientation (such that the 24mm horizontal dimension became the vertical) and doubled the width (18x2=36), giving you the 36x24mm that we now call "35mm" or "full frame". The reason it became popular is because it was significantly smaller, and thus more convenient, than large and medium format film, which are significantly older and stayed more popular than 35mm until 50 or so years ago. Since then 35mm has been the most popular format, and most photographers remember it the best, thus becoming the "standard". Nowhere in the entire history was any connection made to a human eye, with the arguable exception of the archaic measurement of viewfinder magnification, which by the way is also not tied to any format, but rather indirectly by way of an arbitrary 50mm "standard" lens. Further, there is zero correlation between a human eye to any size of sensor or any other flat plane medium. The human retina is spherical not a flat plane, and the image it and the lens produces is physically and geometrically impossible to replicate using a flat plane medium (no more than the Earth can be displayed on a flat map without distortion). Rectilinear flat plane projection's (gnomonic projection) mathematical/geometric concepts of the focal length/FOV relationship have no equivalence to the human eye. Last edited by Cannikin; 10-30-2012 at 04:21 PM.

Similar Threads
Thread	Thread Starter	Forum	Replies	Last Post
ready to go! first development coming soon	dj_saunter	Film Processing, Scanning, and Darkroom	17	05-15-2011 09:14 PM
Development: Rwanda style.	ihasa	General Talk	16	04-07-2011 11:37 PM
two bath development	icywarm	Film Processing, Scanning, and Darkroom	22	01-08-2011 12:27 AM
UN Human Development Report	mikemike	General Talk	5	11-05-2010 05:55 AM
Any Arrested Development (TV) fans here?	RolloR	General Talk	8	10-21-2010 08:25 PM

10-29-2012, 06:47 PM	#316
Winder Veteran Member Join Date: Apr 2010 Location: Tennessee Posts: 6,617	Originally posted by bossa I don't think that Adam is an official Pentax representative is he? So until THEY announce a FF it doesn't count for mine. I've all but given up on them anyway as you can see from my signature. I see in your Sig you have the Sigma 50mm and 85mm for your Nikon D800. How well do they perform on a full sized sensor? I have them for Pentax and love them. I hope to use them on a Pentax FF one day soon.

10-29-2012, 07:06 PM	#318
bossa Veteran Member Join Date: Jul 2011 Location: Adelaide Posts: 4,546	Originally posted by Winder I see in your Sig you have the Sigma 50mm and 85mm for your Nikon D800. How well do they perform on a full sized sensor? I have them for Pentax and love them. I hope to use them on a Pentax FF one day soon. The 50 is better than the Nikon 50's apart from maybe the 50/1.8 but only if you want it sharper at more open apertures at the edge of the frame. I think the Sigma 85 is better than the Nikon counterparts. That lens is superb.

10-29-2012, 07:15 PM	#319
Alizarine Veteran Member Join Date: Dec 2010 Location: Manila Photos: Gallery \| Albums Posts: 2,185	Originally posted by dane.dawg If you guys saw the k-5ii review ,Adam states full frame is confirmed... The question is "when"... and another hundred pages will come up for that =))

10-29-2012, 07:48 PM	#320
stevebrot Otis Memorial Pentaxian Join Date: Mar 2007 Location: Vancouver (USA) Photos: Gallery \| Albums Posts: 42,007	Originally posted by ogl I'm against FF...FF is marketing trick. Careful...your experience is showing... Steve (...been shooting "FF" for years and knows the difference...)

10-29-2012, 09:14 PM	#321
wanderography Veteran Member Join Date: Aug 2011 Location: Hayward, California, USA Posts: 567	I'm excited about the FF, and no FF is not a marketing trick. FF gives you the correct FoV for your lenses, FF makes your DoF scale on your lens relevant without being a math wiz. I like APS-C and FF (don't own a FF camera besides film), I think M43 is retarded and cant believe people actually spend the big bucks for zeiss and voigtlander lenses to put on em, APS-C cameras are just getting smaller and it seems M43 is getting bigger, makes no sense haha... I just don't see the hate for either sensor sizes, I think they are both relevant. But what I dont understand is how many people here are pros who make money off there images? That is the only reason to complain about image quality, if your a pro, other than that you should be happy with the output of any digital camera coming out during our present time. If it wasn't for the fact that I was going to school to learn the business aspects of photography I would never buy anything more than my Q and my MX, but I need to start collecting as many PRO lenses as I can right now and I use my K-01 to use them while I wait for FF so I don't have to just look at them. It's like photographers are like those car freaks, gotta have the fastest car but yet you never hit the track, whats the point of having maximum image quality if your not gonna sell those images for someone to print up huge and stick on there wall, I know none of you are slapping all your high res images on your wall in your house...

10-30-2012, 09:46 AM	#322
Winder Veteran Member Join Date: Apr 2010 Location: Tennessee Posts: 6,617	Originally posted by Class A FWIW, Adam says he has spoken to André Dierickx who has confirmed an FF model for the end of 2013. Not sure why Adam is now communicating this although he "wasn't supposed to mention" it. The release date seems a bit too early for me and I'll believe it when I see it, but what do I know. I think the end of 2013 is pretty accurate. Pentax still has work to do on several key technologies before they can put a competitive full frame on the market at a justifiable price. C-AF with a competitive sensor array is needed. Pentax is still a couple of generations behind. Flash system that is comparable to Nikon. Yes, Pentax is serviceable, but Nikon's is much less work to get results. HD Video is still a weak spot for Pentax for those who need it. Lenses to support a full frame body. I would guess we will see several key support technologies released in the K-3 APS-C and Pentax can work the bugs out so they can be implemented in the K-1. Of course the K-5 could evolve into the K-5III. The K-3 could be a full frame like the D600/D800 and the K-1 could be a later "pro" body like a D4. Last edited by Winder; 10-30-2012 at 10:26 AM.

10-30-2012, 10:05 AM	#323
RBellavance Veteran Member Join Date: Nov 2006 Location: Near Montréal, Canada Photos: Gallery Posts: 1,716	Originally posted by bmonki FF gives you the correct FoV for your lenses There is no such thing as "the correct" field of view for a lens. A full-frame camera gives you the FoVs you were used to when you shot film, true. That does not make these FoVs any more "correct" than those given by an APS-C camera. As a matter of fact, having never shot film, the "correct" FoV for my lenses are the ones APS-C gives. Moving to full-frame would be an adaptation for me.

10-30-2012, 03:24 PM - 1 Like	#325
redrockcoulee Pentaxian Join Date: Nov 2009 Location: Medicine Hat Posts: 2,306	bmonki All the pro photographers from the past that shot multiple formats of LF might disagree with you as well. A 210 on my 4X5 is different from the same lens on my 5X7 and I do not think either is incorrect any more than the 50 on my K-r or MZ5n. And the 50 on my MF is certainly different then either of them (granted it is made for a different format). What I am trying to say is although I see arguments for the need of full frame I do not agree with the one that it allows the lens to be what it should be. The lens is what it is for the manner you use it. In my former job we used both FF and DX Nikon lenses on high speed cameras (Phantoms) and either of the two types were cropped, it did not matter, one needed a certain focal length and you used the lens you had. I have shot from 110 to 5X7 and have been employed as a photographer but my opinion is no more valid than is RBellavance, he simply stated how he views the correct focal length and he did use quotes. I would think that a 35 would be what he thinks of when he thinks normal focal length whereas you might think 50 however neither is correct until you mention the film or sensor size. My 35 is a DA lens so it is a normal lens as it was made for APS-C but it is wide angle when I use it on my film camera. The lens is still the same focal length and neither or should I say both are correct depending on what I am shooting it on. And no I do not hang my wife's 60 by 85 inch prints on the wall as do not have a wall big enough From film MF not digital.

10-30-2012, 03:26 PM	#326
vonBaloney Pentaxian Join Date: Oct 2011 Location: Albuquerque, NM Posts: 6,029	Originally posted by bmonki Technically your correct, but if your using your human eyeball to look, your incorrect. We can all do math equations all we want, if the FoV was as we see it no matter what, the 5.5 crop factor on the Q wouldn't be that big of deal and no one would be complaining for an official K to Q mount adapter, so your argument is just a statement to justify the fact that you have never shot anything larger than an APS-C. Like I said are you a pro? do you make money? than it doesn't matter, but having the correct FoV does matter for a professional, I want to make a business doing food and restaurant photography which will require me to have a wide angle tilt shift lens, show me a wide angle tilt and shift lens for APS-C. There is room for both sensor sizes, but your having to "adapt" is you being more or less just a beginner in photography if you have never shot anything other than APS-c, so your comments are not valid on the discussion of a professional camera... How does your need for a wide-angle tilt-shift lens make one FOV more correct than another? The 35mm "full-frame" size is an arbitrary size, just as is APS-C and 4x5 and 6x7 and every other size. Just because something has been around longer doesn't make it inherently more "correct" than any other format. You can point to certain advantages for particular applications for full-frame, but the reverse is also true.

10-30-2012, 05:06 PM	#328
wanderography Veteran Member Join Date: Aug 2011 Location: Hayward, California, USA Posts: 567	Originally posted by Cannikin This rambling made absolutely no sense whatsoever. "35mm" is a completely arbitrary designation based on historical business/technical reasons. It was derived from older 70mm film stock, which Thomas Edison's lab decided to cut in half to approximately 35mm wide to adapt to his kinetoscope, add perforations for film feeding, and ended up with a frame size of 24x18mm (35mm cinema film). Later, still photographers took this same 35mm film stock, rotated the orientation (such that the 24mm horizontal dimension became the vertical) and doubled the width (18x2=36), giving you the 36x24mm that we now call "35mm" or "full frame". The reason it became popular is because it was significantly smaller, and thus more convenient, than large and medium format film, which are significantly older and stayed more popular than 35mm until 50 or so years ago. Since then 35mm has been the most popular format, and most photographers remember it the best, thus becoming the "standard". Nowhere in the entire history was any connection made to a human eye, with the arguable exception of the archaic measurement of viewfinder magnification, which by the way is also not tied to any format, but rather indirectly by way of an arbitrary 50mm "standard" lens. Further, there is zero correlation between a human eye to any size of sensor or any other flat plane medium. The human retina is spherical not a flat plane, and the image it and the lens produces is physically and geometrically impossible to replicate using a flat plane medium (no more than the Earth can be displayed on a flat map without distortion). Rectilinear flat plane projection's (gnomonic projection) mathematical/geometric concepts of the focal length/FOV relationship have no equivalence to the human eye. Your smarter than your own good my friend... If a lens says 50 on it and it becomes a 25 or 30 on medium format or a 75 on an APS-C it means 35mm is the standard. 35mm/FF has the lenses that a professional needs in the field I plan on going too. Like I said you can always do the math but most lenses are built with FF in mind therefore making FF/35mm the standard. Just because photographers adopted the format from film users doesn't mean it's not correct. You can throw equations and facts all day but when it comes down to it the fact is 35mm is the standard that most lenses are built around, deal with it... so that makes 35mm the standard format which all lenses are measured by... Just like I wish the US was on the metric system, it made things very complicated when I was working on air craft for the air force, you gotta have a standard format and that format is 35mm/FF...

10-30-2012, 05:11 PM	#329
wanderography Veteran Member Join Date: Aug 2011 Location: Hayward, California, USA Posts: 567	Originally posted by vonBaloney How does your need for a wide-angle tilt-shift lens make one FOV more correct than another? The 35mm "full-frame" size is an arbitrary size, just as is APS-C and 4x5 and 6x7 and every other size. Just because something has been around longer doesn't make it inherently more "correct" than any other format. You can point to certain advantages for particular applications for full-frame, but the reverse is also true. Once again it's not about being correct, it's about the standard format which everything is measured by, 35mm/FF...

10-30-2012, 05:24 PM	#330
vonBaloney Pentaxian Join Date: Oct 2011 Location: Albuquerque, NM Posts: 6,029	Originally posted by bmonki Your smarter than your own good my friend... If a lens says 50 on it and it becomes a 25 or 30 on medium format or a 75 on an APS-C it means 35mm is the standard. Except that it doesn't become anything on a different format. A 50 is a 50 is a 50 no matter the format. You are talking nonsense.