Originally posted by bertwert 35mm looks nicer than 35mil, but at least you'd be correct
36mmx24mm
I'm just going to say 35mil, because that's what we used to call 35mm SLRs. If we're going to adopt him terminology there, I'm way happier with that than full frame, which is essentially nonsense. "Full Frame" is marketing invention of camera manufacturers. 35mm was a a technical term describing image size. But as i pointed out in the above post, the importance of sensor size has been greatly diminished in the digital age. Some people are still clinging to the importance it had in film as a relevant standard. It's still a standard, just a standard greatly diminished in importance.
IN digital 35mil can mean, less subject resolution and less depth of field, if you are comparing with a Canon 6D on a wildlife image with a K-3 image taken with the same settings and lens. You actually can enlarge the K-3 image more if you shoot from 100-400 ISO on both. Assumptions adopted from film days are misleading, and really should just be discarded.
Especially since a Lumix DMC FZ1000 with a one inch sensor costing $1000 can out perform a $1500 Canon 6D with a $1300 lens on it, in bright light, and give you considerably more depth of field and open a stop wider. The old adages of the film age, have pretty much evaporated in the digital age. Today, it's all about depth of field, low light performance and MP. A very small sensor can produce 20 MP (more resolution) , and considerably more DOF on a much lighter portable system, and the 6D is actually a poor choice, in that circumstance. Even the low light is somewhat offset, in that the Lumix is ƒ4 at 400mm equivalent, while the Canon would be ƒ5.6 for the $1300 lens, and the 6D would have to use ƒ8 or 11, to match the DoF of the Lumix at ƒ4. Equivalence is a bitch.