[Dan Rentea]

Medium format isn't medium format, it's cropped medium format with 0.79 crop factor, it's not full frame medium format.

Ok, then let me simplify it for you. We were and we are still talking about photographers who jumped from cameras with micro 4/3 or APS-C sensors to cameras with a sensor like the one found in K1 Mark II, D850, 5D Mark IV, A7R IV, etc. You can call those cameras anything you like.

[MrB1]

I thought that 35mm film became the most commonly used film size for stills photography. When cameras like Olympus Pen appeared, they could take twice as many shots on a standard cassette of 35mm film. So they were known as 'half-frame' (18mmx24mm images) compared with the more usual 'full-frame' (36mmx24mm images) of the majority of 35mm film cameras. The term and size 'full-frame' has carried forward into the digital era.

Philip

[BigMackCam]

I thought that 35mm film became the most commonly used film size for stills photography. When cameras like Olympus Pen appeared, they could take twice as many shots on a standard cassette of 35mm film. So they were known as 'half-frame' (18mmx24mm images) compared with the more usual 'full-frame' (36mmx24mm images) of the majority of 35mm film cameras. The term and size 'full-frame' has carried forward into the digital era.

That makes sense, Philip. I've certainly seen plenty of reference to "half-frame" meaning 18x24mm... in fact, the wonderful, late Bill Cunningham started out with an Olympus Pen "half frame" camera back in 1967. It's easy to see why folks would refer to 36x24mm as "full frame" accordingly...

[acoufap]

Umm, crop factor of what?
That said, I agree that "full frame" is a poorly chosen phrase.

I‘d like to suggest using the old german descritor „Kleinbildformat“ again in the future! - ok, not funny - sssorry.

[normhead]

That makes sense, Philip. I've certainly seen plenty of reference to "half-frame" meaning 18x24mm... in fact, the wonderful, late Bill Cunningham started out with an Olympus Pen "half frame" camera back in 1967. It's easy to see why folks would refer to 36x24mm as "full frame" accordingly...

Except for the snob value attitudes of some who seem to believe a half frame digital is only half as good as a full frame when in fact about 90% of what a full frame can do a half frame APS-c can do, and some times APS-c can do better. I have always found that people who use terms like full frame and crop often have a boatload of false ideas about the relative merits of both. Discussion of FF vs APS-c are a treasure chest of false information.

This is particularly true in the digital age where at base ISO an APS-c camera can provide the same functional resolution as a 24 MP FF. FF advantages all come down to, sometimes the FF is better (landscape, sometimes, narrow DoF sometimes) sometimes the APS_c is better (long lens wildlife and birding, more DoF for the same lens and setting).

There is nothings as disappointing as people crowing about their low res FF cameras that provide no discernible difference over 24 MP APS_c for the type of photography they do.

[volley]

I‘d like to suggest using the old german descritor „Kleinbildformat“ again in the future! - ok, not funny - sssorry.

Nothing wrong with "Kleinbildformat" in my opinion ... I'm just afraid that the translation "small picture format" would not help the case

[photoptimist]

It's funny how film camera technology formats generally progressed from large to medium to small (135 or 35mm) and smaller formats (e.g., 110 and 8mm) whilst digital progressed from small to APS-C to "Full" to larger formats.

In the original daguerreotype and tin-type worlds, the prevailing "full" format was the 6½" × 8½" plate that could be cut into smaller formats. What would become the approximate size of roll film's "medium" format shot (2" × 2½") was the tiny 1/9th daguerreotype and tin-type plate. (Preservation Self-Assessment Program (PSAP) | Daguerreotypes, Ambrotypes, and Tintypes).

Today's "full" format digital would be considered less than 1/36 of a "full" daguerreotype plate.

---

Last edited by photoptimist; 01-15-2021 at 12:24 PM. Reason: typo

[BigMackCam]

Except for the snob value attitudes of some who seem to believe a half frame digital is only half as good as a full frame when in fact about 90% of what a full frame can do a half frame APS-c can do, and some times APS-c can do better. I have always found that people who use terms like full frame and crop often have a boatload of false ideas about the relative merits of both. Discussion of FF vs APS-c are a treasure chest of false information.

This is particularly true in the digital age where at base ISO an APS-c camera can provide the same functional resolution as a 24 MP FF. FF advantages all come down to, sometimes the FF is better (landscape, sometimes, narrow DoF sometimes) sometimes the APS_c is better (long lens wildlife and birding, more DoF for the same lens and setting).

There is nothings as disappointing as people crowing about their low res FF cameras that provide no discernible difference over 24 MP APS_c for the type of photography they do.

There's a lot of misinformation on the web, isn't there? Even in these forums, from undoubtedly well-meaning folk... and it can be pretty difficult at times to figure out what's accurate and what's not. I used to be a lot more trusting of "information" and consequently accepted a lot of it at face value. I've even, on occasion, been guilty of passing on to others what turned out to be misinformation as a result. With respect to formats, it took for me to own and use a few of them - from very small 1/2.33" to 35mm "full frame" - over time to appreciate the advantages and disadvantages of each in a variety of use cases. There's no substitute for experience. As such, I tend to bristle when someone proclaims one format is "better" than another without context, including a range of use cases and personal preferences. The assumption that FF is "better" than APS-C has cropped up numerous times in one of the K-3III threads, with the K-1II being declared better value for money because it's FF. A lot of folks have trouble accepting that bigger does not always mean better

[reh321]

I use the best technology for the setting.

Typically, I use my whisper-quiet Q-7, with its leaf-shutter, for religious services, where my noisier DSLRs might be distracting.
I use my KP for shots out the window at the bird feeder, where I want to put as many auto-focused pixels as possible on the subject.
Often I use my K-30 for indoors flash pictures, where ‘any ol’ shot will do.

[normhead]

I use the best technology for the setting.

Typically, I use my whisper-quiet Q-7, with its leaf-shutter, for religious services, where my noisier DSLRs might be distracting.
I use my KP for shots out the window at the bird feeder, where I want to put as many auto-focused pixels as possible on the subject.
Often I use my K-30 for indoors flash pictures, where ‘any ol’ shot will do.

All of us who use multiple formats, will use one over all the others in specific situations. The one we chose is better than the others for that use.

I had some ice on a porch window the other day...

Lumix ZS100
No need for DR any camera would do.... check
Much faster shutter speed and DoF at a wider aperture setting... check
More resolution than a K-5, in LW/PH almost as good as a K-3... check
Hand holdable with shake reduction.... check.
Best tool for the job. I could have pulled my, K-1, K-3, K-5ii, XG-1 or Q out of the case.




1 inch sensor, best for the job and saved me setting up a tripod. You might say, "well I don't do that job." But if it was as easy to get this shot for you as It was for me, maybe you would

[reh321]

1 inch sensor, best for the job and saved me setting up a tripod. You might say, "well I don't do that job." But if it was as easy to get this shot for you as It was for me, maybe you would

That was my very point.
Thank you for making it once again.

[savoche]

I‘d like to suggest using the old german descritor „Kleinbildformat“ again in the future! - ok, not funny - sssorry.

Well, why not? 135 format film is small format film...

[Rondec]

The idea of call a format "full frame" was a dump idea and that dump idea became a standard.

---------- Post added 13-01-21 at 22:42 ----------


Evidence that something repeated over and over and over again becomes something accepted by everyone even if that thing is wrong.

I think you probably should measure the actual focal length of your lenses and start calling them by that. Because while many 50mm lenses are called 50s, the reality is that they are often a few mm off from that spec. So, I would expect to see you showing up and talking, for instance, about your DFA *51.76mm lens.

(Naming isn't really that important as long as it is pretty consistent and on the Forums, when people are talking about full frame medium format they say that and when they just say full frame, they are talking about a sensor that is roughly the size of a 35mm film negative).

[Tony Belding]

I don't understand this thread. Full frame of what format? Full frame apsc, Full frame full frame, or full frame medium format? Full frame of what?

I personally avoid referring to 135 format as “full frame” because I see it as a marketing ploy to make a small format sensor sound like the biggest and best thing ever. Judging from what I see on most forums, it has been a highly effective ploy.

From where I sit, Four Thirds and APS-C and 135 format are close to the same size and close to the same performance. The amount of words expended hashing over the difference between them is kind of ridiculous.

[Rondec]

I personally avoid referring to 135 format as “full frame” because I see it as a marketing ploy to make a small format sensor sound like the biggest and best thing ever. Judging from what I see on most forums, it has been a highly effective ploy.

From where I sit, Four Thirds and APS-C and 135 format are close to the same size and close to the same performance. The amount of words expended hashing over the difference between them is kind of ridiculous.

I don't think so. I think the issue in the early 2000s was that people were switching from film and trying to figure out how focal lengths worked on crop sensors. There were a whole host of folks who simply said they wanted their lenses to behave the way they were used to.

I heard a lot more salesmanship touting the benefits of crop sensors and how it made "all of your lenses longer" thereby saving you a huge amount of money and weight on telephotos.