[Imageman]

You said


Do you have any hard figures to support your claim?

According to Wikipedia:

" It [135 format] quickly grew in popularity, surpassing 120 film by the late 1960s to become the most popular photographic film size."

Now Wikipedia could be wrong about this, but your claims about "unspeakable numbers" have even less weight, AFAIC, unless you corroborate them with some hard numbers / evidence.



The fact is there are no figures available for worldwide sales of rollfilm cameras in these early days and expecting sales figures from over 100 years ago is never going to be realised. You can win any argument by demanding that figures are produced where none exist before you believe whats staring you in the face.


Some things have to be accepted, they are self evident. We can make some assumptions and have a reasonable expectation that we are correct.


For example. The only camera formats available before 1930 were plate cameras, used by professionals. and roll film cameras used by everyone else. I don't need to prove that larger formats were preferred to 35mm before 1930, because 35mm hadn't been invented yet. For 100 years larger format cameras outsold 35mm cameras, that's because 35mm cameras didn't exist, and couldn't be purchased, and it took another 30 years before 35mm cameras took over from roll film.


From 1850 to 1930 the choice was between huge plate cameras or large roll film cameras. All cameras sold worldwide were larger than 35mm. That's a fact.


And between 1930 and 1960 35mm cameras were a niche sales area, desirable yes in the leica offerings, but sales were low. 35mm sales picked up during the Vietnam war when the Nikon F demonstrated its superiority and became the favourite of professionals, photojournalists and amateurs alike.


I know, I lived through it. I started taking photographs on a roll film camera in 1957. 35mm cameras were largely absent from society,, it was rollfilm rollfilm rollfilm.


I didn't see a 35mm camera until 1963, and they only became widely used in the mid to late 1960s Your Wikipedia quote supports entirely what I said earlier, I said 35mm took over from rollfilm after 1965, your quote says 35mm took over from rollfilm by the late 1960s.


I even said it took over earlier than Wikipedia did, so how can you say im wrong or disagreeing with them. And by 2000 35mm was dying, digital ruled, with APSc and 8mm sensor point and shoots


I don't deny that 35mm cameras were the peoples choice for 30 years until digital took over, but that's only 30 years out of 180 years. For the other 150 years larger formats ruled.

[eyeswideshut]

Interesting discussion. I think there is an element here that is strangely reminiscent of current debates on the camera industry. Some will point to all cameras sold (including p&s / smart phones) while others quietly assume that the only cameras worth talking about are those that have a mount and interchageable lenses.
Projecting this idea back into the past, I believe that you are right - medium format was extremely widespread right into the 1960's, but really as a kind of folding point and shoot.
Interchangeable lens cameras had already begun the transition to 35mm film in the thirties (rangefinders) and picked up steam after the war when slr's for 35mm became available.

Now this is folklore, but I have heard it said that after WWII the 6x6 format got another lease on life in Europe because the negative was just large enough to allow contact prints without the need for enlargements - people were poor and a 6x6 was better than no picture at all.

Anyway, it is good to be reminded that the total dominance of 35mm is of more recent vintage than we may sometimes think.

[Poit]

You said


Do you have any hard figures to support your claim?

According to Wikipedia:

" It [135 format] quickly grew in popularity, surpassing 120 film by the late 1960s to become the most popular photographic film size."

Now Wikipedia could be wrong about this, but your claims about "unspeakable numbers" have even less weight, AFAIC, unless you corroborate them with some hard numbers / evidence.



The fact is there are no figures available for worldwide sales of rollfilm cameras in these early days and expecting sales figures from over 100 years ago is never going to be realised. You can win any argument by demanding that figures are produced where none exist before you believe whats staring you in the face.


Some things have to be accepted, they are self evident. We can make some assumptions and have a reasonable expectation that we are correct.


For example. The only camera formats available before 1930 were plate cameras, used by professionals. and roll film cameras used by everyone else. I don't need to prove that larger formats were preferred to 35mm before 1930, because 35mm hadn't been invented yet. For 100 years larger format cameras outsold 35mm cameras, that's because 35mm cameras didn't exist, and couldn't be purchased, and it took another 30 years before 35mm cameras took over from roll film.


From 1850 to 1930 the choice was between huge plate cameras or large roll film cameras. All cameras sold worldwide were larger than 35mm. That's a fact.


And between 1930 and 1960 35mm cameras were a niche sales area, desirable yes in the leica offerings, but sales were low. 35mm sales picked up during the Vietnam war when the Nikon F demonstrated its superiority and became the favourite of professionals, photojournalists and amateurs alike.


I know, I lived through it. I started taking photographs on a roll film camera in 1957. 35mm cameras were largely absent from society,, it was rollfilm rollfilm rollfilm.


I didn't see a 35mm camera until 1963, and they only became widely used in the mid to late 1960s Your Wikipedia quote supports entirely what I said earlier, I said 35mm took over from rollfilm after 1965, your quote says 35mm took over from rollfilm by the late 1960s.


I even said it took over earlier than Wikipedia did, so how can you say im wrong or disagreeing with them. And by 2000 35mm was dying, digital ruled, with APSc and 8mm sensor point and shoots


I don't deny that 35mm cameras were the peoples choice for 30 years until digital took over, but that's only 30 years out of 180 years. For the other 150 years larger formats ruled.

You have ignored his (totally valid, and correct) point that the term 'Full Frame' refers to the mount size.

Enough already...

[eyeswideshut]

You have ignored his (totally valid, and correct) point that the term 'Full Frame' refers to the mount size.

Enough already...

So a Pentax Q7 is full frame also? The original Q/Q10 were only part-frame.

[Nicolas06]

One can, for instance, debate whether one can recognise a special quality in this collection of full frame shots.

The initial poster of this thread gave some wonderfull shoots. I can think some of theses first set of shoots, you cannot get with APSC the same rendering. Not easily at least. Some other while really good I think you can; I have seen similar. Still I think with APSC, the photo would have been very interresting too.

On the following pages a good share of the shoot are simply uninteressing and can be get with any camera provided you have at least micro 4/3 and some of them a P&S would do the trick. On the opposite look at that: http://www.ricoh-imaging.co.jp/english/products/k-3/ex/img/ex-pic04.jpg

The rendering may be different, but around the photos seen in the FF example thread you provided, this APSC shoot would be among the bests. The difference? It has been shoot by a good pro. In term of price and investment, any entry level DSLR with a lens eq. to the DA70 would do. Not that expensive.

Yes FF can do more, but most of the time, one will simply fail to exhibit it consistantly (if at all).

I remember seeing a website where you could compare micro 4/3, FF and P&S photos and take trial to guess what kind of Camera has been used for the shoot. Consistently one could guess this was not a P&S... But to distinguish between micro 4:3 and APSC or APSC versus FF... This is much more difficult. Most of the time, I failed. Even through I was still a little better at it than just random.

For me this really nail it to the obvious conclusion: APSC is more than enough to any non pro shooter (in term of quality of the result). This mean most people, likely much more people than the market share of APSC number in fact. One can always get FF or more if it can really benefit of it, or just for the fun or because it is not necessarily more expensive neither (used FF + old tamron version of 28-75 & 70-200 can get you very far for a fair price). Other can prefer micro 4:3 and APSC for better entry level prices (low end APSC + kit lens) and smaller/lighter kit. That last point is exactly what Pentax APSC provide.

So anybody get what he want, spend the money he want... No problem with that. But what is essential for me is to respect everybody. All FF shooter are not just stupid people... And all using APSC are not clueless one that don't understand the inherent benefit of FF vs APSC!

A last remark: for thoses that think of the better high iso... That's far less interresting than it appear at first. I mean if I spend high money on latest high iso FF (so D610 at least) I can also spend money on optics with large appertures easily. But this is the same trick in fact. I have less deph of field, and for most shoots that a problem, not a feature! More many time where one would use very high isos or very large apperture trying to compensate for the lack of light, the problem is not just the quantity of light, but also the quality. Get entry level APSC DSLR, the kit lens, shoot your low light shoots with a tripod or judicious use of flash and your photos will look much more impressive than handled with FF. Sometime you can't or sometime it is just handy to have clearner iso800 shoots... And sometime there is no alternative (sports without good light). But this is not the silver bullet some think!

[Class A]

This is going to be my last post on the subject:

1. My main argument has nothing to do with the popularity of the 135 format.

2. I did not try to win an argument by asking for the impossible.

You can win any argument by demanding that figures are produced where none exist before you believe whats staring you in the face.

Please don't turn this around. It was you who was trying to win an argument without having any evidence. I merely asked you for some support for your claim. Maybe your claim is correct, I don't know, but if you want to topple over the widely held belief that 135 format is a very popular format then you need more than just hand waving.

3. In any event, I don't really care about what format may be regarded as the "most popular of all time". I was talking about the contemporary use of "full frame". Today, wet plates and Kodak Brownies don't have any relevance anymore. Today, if you recommend a portrait lens, you will point to Samyang 85/1.4 or similar, not a Petzval lens anymore. So even if at one point in time another format were more popular, if anyone is mentioning "full frame" today, they are not referring to some extinct format.

"Full frame" does not mean "the biggest" or "the best" format there ever was. There is no point arguing against that view.

[MarkJerling]

"Full frame" does not mean "the biggest" or "the best" format there ever was. There is no point arguing against that view.

Absolutely. I think there can be no argument that FF means 35mm and not some extinct or almost extinct format.

[Kunzite]

Let's not forget that Pentax is actively developing a larger than "full frame" format. There are actually as many camera makers on that market as on the "full frame" one (Pentax, Hasselblad, PhaseOne, Leica vs. Canon, Nikon, Sony, Leica - hope I didn't miss anyone); niche doesn't mean "almost extinct".
"Full frame", IMHO, makes sense only when your thinking is restricted in the Canikon's world (though many people - me included - are using it just because everyone knows what we really mean.) It was a genius move from both Canon and their fans, "full frame" sounds much better than "small format". And the message is clear(ly wrong): there can't be anything better than "full frame", can it? How many knows about the medium format?

[jogiba]

Let's not forget that Pentax is actively developing a larger than "full frame" format.
There are actually as many camera makers on that market as on the "full frame" one (Pentax, Hasselblad, PhaseOne, Leica vs. Canon, Nikon, Sony, Leica - hope I didn't miss anyone); niche doesn't mean "almost extinct".
"Full frame", IMHO, makes sense only when your thinking is restricted in the Canikon's world (though many people - me included - are using it just because everyone knows what we really mean.) It was a genius move from both Canon and their fans, "full frame" sounds much better than "small format". And the message is clear(ly wrong): there can't be anything better than "full frame", can it? How many knows about the medium format?

[Class A]

Let's not forget that Pentax is actively developing a larger than "full frame" format.

Yes, 1.27 times larger (in crop factor terms) than what we refer to as "FF" these days.

For reference, an FF sensor is ~1.5 times larger (in crop factor terms) than an APS-C sensor.

The MF sensors used by Pentax and others are crop sensors, i.e., they are not "full frame" with respect to the 645 mount. They really should be 2 times larger (in crop factor terms), but they are not.

Personally, I feel that the price gap between digital FF and digital (crop-) MF is way too large, given the relatively modest increase in sensor size (and since the D800 also in MP increase).

[jsherman999]

The problem I see with this, and the original post, is that it only contemplates existing Pentax users (ie do we really want a FF).

If all of our selfish desires for the brand are to stand a chance of being realised, we should understand that Pentax (as it currently stands) is not an attractive offering for many photographers (be it real or perceived).

Regardless of whether we want or need a FF (I am in the camp of needing one, happy to explain), it is in our interest that Pentax caters to photographers (read non Pentax users) who do know how to get the best out of a FF camera, so the brand may attract more users.

Attractiveness to the photography world, as whole, is key to the future viability Pentax future (I'm stopping short of using the word 'doomed' here ).

Well said.

.

[Big Dave]

It is not worthless because "full frame" mainly means that the sensor is not artificially smaller than what the mount was designed for.

.

Actually this is a meaningless argument, because the term full frame isn't about every camera ever produced. It just describes the use of two 35mm movie frames being used for a still camera format. Half frame uses only one movie frame in the vertical format. Leica popularized the full frame format back in 1924. There are other photographic terms that make less sense, such as 4 thirds. We should be calling asp-c half frame, even though it is a little less then half of a full frame. I think that the FF term may be a result of the introduction of HF cameras.

[Kunzite]

Isn't it a "double frame", then?

[Rondec]

The problem that I have with all of these discussions is that they end up projecting our personal needs/wants/desires onto everyone else. For those for whom photography is a hobby, there is no need for a particular size format camera. There is only a want or a desire. What you end up choosing then comes down to a compromise between what you want, what your budget is, what your spouse thinks your budget is, etc. For many, APS-C or, four thirds becomes such a compromise with lenses chosen carefully to maximize the budget.

Professionals have a different set of priorities and for them, a large format camera can be a need, although they too have budgets and are probably more careful about expenses and less likely to upgrade gear just for the sake of upgrading than hobby photographers.

My wife does shoot professionally -- weddings and portraiture -- and she has never had anyone ask her what format she shoots, what brand camera she shoots, or complain after the fact due to too much depth of field. Photography is more about light, subject, composition, lenses, and post processing than it is about the box that you mount your lens on. Yes, there are a small percentage of shots that are possible with 35mm sensors that are not possible with APS-C, but I doubt that most of those are make or break for the majority of photo shoots.

[jogiba]

Actually this is a meaningless argument, because the term full frame isn't about every camera ever produced. It just describes the use of two 35mm movie frames being used for a still camera format. Half frame uses only one movie frame in the vertical format. Leica popularized the full frame format back in 1924. There are other photographic terms that make less sense, such as 4 thirds. We should be calling asp-c half frame, even though it is a little less then half of a full frame. I think that the FF term may be a result of the introduction of HF cameras.

I guess most here were not shooting in the film days when I had the Pentax LX 35mm SLR and Pentax 6x7 medium format then later on the PZ-1P in the early 90's.. Back then 35mm SLR and point and shoot 35mm cameras were what most used. BTW Walmart still sells disposable 35mm (full frame ) cameras.
http://www.walmart.com/ip/Fujifilm-Disposable-35mm-Camera-With-Flash-2-Pack/11019775