Originally posted by tuco Calling a 35mm film camera FF just seems weird.
A 6x6 and 8x10 cameras are full frame too. Calling it small format is a common phrase heard on a large format forum.
Not too long ago, the
standard term for 35mm was “miniature”. Commercial event photographers might take their miniature on vacation instead of the 4x5 press camera with which they plied their trade. Those same folks called the 2x3” press cameras “Baby Graphics”. And the intermediate 3-1/4 x 4-1/4” version was “quarter-plate”.
In those days, 4x5 wasn’t “large format”—it was more like the default format for pros, not deserving of a special adjective. That was up until the Vietnam War, when the Nikon F established itself as the standard field journalism camera.
A Rolleiflex was a “rollfilm camera”—its own beast. The term “medium format” came into vogue with the advent of the Mamiya RB67 and maybe the earlier Press Universal. These were similar to small press cameras. They were a reaction by non-journalist pros to the emerging dominance of the Nikon F. The Pentax 6x7 and the Hasselblad each also had their own pro fan base. The ‘blad was the system alternative to the Rolleiflex, but I recall both being generally called “rollfilm cameras” before the late 60’s.
Europeans used different terms. There, the Rolleiflex was the default pro camera rather than the Graflex. And the field action camera was the Leica for reportage.
Terms come and go. Now, “full frame” means 24x36, medium format is anything bigger, and (sadly) there is no large format digital camera.
Rick “terms dominated by users of tiny sensors” Denney