[osv]

But FF is a format, not a resolution...

if you told the forum that you were going to go buy a truck, would anyone think that you meant that you were going to go buy a mack truck? i think not but how would they know for sure? you did say "truck" didn't you?

www.macktrucks.com

these days, ff is far more complicated than just 36x24mm, and wrt camera forums, it's far more germane to define the term "ff" by pixel count and yes, even manufacturer.

[boriscleto]

Yep, the K-3 has more pixels than the flagship Canon or Nikon FF.

Depends on your definition of "flagship". The D810 has more pixels, but the K-3 has a higher pixel density...

The D4 is more a boat anchor than flagship 1340g with battery and card...

[clackers]

it's far more germane to define the term "ff" by pixel count and yes, even manufacturer.

Amazing.

[osv]

Pentax have clearly been thinking about the crop lens issue a lot.

And there is this on the new FF, highlighting that Pentax are probably going to give us lots of options about how we are able to handle crop lenses on the FF body.

"crop" label on the knob??

given that certain geniuses on this forum keep claiming that crop is just as good as ff, maybe it makes sense after all

[dansamy]

The entire terminology of "full frame" references the size of a frame of 35mm film. That was a specific, measurable, quantifiable rectangle without regard to either camera manufacturer or film manufacturer. It was a fixed size. A full frame digital camera contains a sensor of that same, fixed, measurable, quantifiable size. It could contain 1 pixel or 1000 pixels or 10,000 pixels. It would still physically be a full frame sensor. So, no. Full frame isn't about resolution. Not at all. And IQ depends on far more things than simply sensor size.

[bertwert]

it's far more germane to define the term "ff" by pixel count and yes, even manufacturer.

No. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Full-frame_digital_SLR
Not resolution.

[osv]

Full frame isn't about resolution. Not at all.

yeah, a pickup truck is no different than a mack truck...

And IQ depends on far more things than simply sensor size.

yeah, crop is just as good as ff... whatever

---------- Post added 12-16-15 at 01:18 PM ----------

No. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Full-frame_digital_SLR
Not resolution.

yeah, and all trucks are the same https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Truck

[gfurm]

I always thought full frame means film size sensor, so 36x24mm. Now I hear it depends on MP and manufacturer? Can you elaborate?

Is Canon 1D X ff or not? sensor size is ok but it's only 18MP. Or maybe Nokia Lumia 1020? sensor is small but it's got 41MP and that's more than Nikon D800.

How do you define full frame then?

[dansamy]

Your pickup vs mack argument is more akin to crop vs FF. Types of trucks vs types of sensors. Differing in size. It is the size of the sensor that determines whether or not it is full frame. It is not about the number of pixels on the sensor wafer. The number of pixels, measured in megapixels, determines the resolution of a given sensor.

[Rondec]

It is difficult to use a truck as an analogy. There are multiple different sizes of truck, but no one defines their "truck" by the size of the engine. If you say that you have a full frame camera it is purely the size of the sensor. It could be a 5ds, a D700, an originial 5D -- whatever. Performance, or lack of it will be determined by generation of the sensor and a bunch of other things, but none of those determine whether or not a sensor is full frame, any more than an APS-C sensor is determined by number of megapixels.

[clackers]

Leave poor Osv alone, everyone.


By his definition, all owners of the 12Mp Sony A7S will be getting a refund.


They were under the impression they were buying a full frame camera. :-D

[osv]

I always thought full frame means film size sensor, so 36x24mm

that's certainly what people have co-opted it to mean, you guys are all correct in saying that.

however, 36x24mm was a film format long before it was ever called a digital sensor format. "The format originated with Oskar Barnack and his introduction of the Leica camera in the 1920s." https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/35mm_format

people still use 36x24mm film, we call it "ff", even tho it's an entirely different format(aka recording methodogy), at a much lower resolution than any cutting-edge digital sensor.

so "ff" is more than just a 36x24mm sensor; it encompasses different formats and different resolutions, even at the most base level of it's film vs. digital definition.

---------- Post added 12-16-15 at 03:56 PM ----------

Your pickup vs mack argument is more akin to crop vs FF. Types of trucks vs types of sensors. Differing in size.

it's car(crop) vs. truck(ff), not types of trucks, as defined in the link i posted: "A truck ...is a motor vehicle designed to transport cargo. Trucks vary greatly in size, power, and configuration(24mp vs. 36mp vs 50mp+)"

both carry people(take photos), but that's where the commonality ends... the heavy lifting gets done by trucks(ff), not cars(aps-c).

aps-c is at 16-28mp, it's just not in the same league as ff, at 24-50mp+... just like cars aren't in the same cargo carrying league as trucks.

"engine" is the amount of cpu/gpu/sensor power needed to acquire, process, and display different mp counts.

[normhead]

Leave poor Osv alone, everyone.


By his definition, all owners of the 12Mp Sony A7S will be getting a refund. :-D

Either that or a K-3 is an MF, because it's twice the resolution of an A7S full frame. It could go either way.

It's really rotten of me to be picking on a guy I've ignored. I feel dirty. But I can't help it. Does that make me a bad person?

[bertwert]

aps-c is at 16-28mp, it's just not in the same league as ff, at 24-50mp+

You`re still wrong...

just like cars aren't in the same cargo carrying league as trucks.

Some cars are better than some trucks.

[bertwert]

It's really rotten of me to be picking on a guy I've ignored. I feel dirty. But I can't help it. Does that make me a bad person?