I believe Full Frame to be akin the sex of angels, a perfect topic for an
endless discussion.
What's a frame? Is it related to lenses in use? Is it related to a bayonet
shape or a register distance? I don't think so.
With film, a frame is related to a supposedly standardised portion of film.
That's true enough with 35mm film, which saw very few exceptions to 24x36mm.
So the 18x24mm was the half frame and the 24x72 (see Xpan) was - by
definition - a double frame. Does anyone ever called it tha way? I don't
know.
Things become a lot harder with 120 film roll. What's full frame there? 6x6?
6x7? 6x8? 6x9? Perhaps 6x9, so that 6x4.5 is half frame (but try to dub it
that way when talking to a 6x4.5 user and be ready to fly out) and then 6x6
to 6x8 should all be reduced formats. This is nonsense to me.
With digital, you have no rolls, hence the frame relates to the sensor. Any
sensor is a full frame of itself, unless you take a cropped capture. If you
fit a lens covering a larger format on a given camera - which is the case
with DA sensors equipped with say a FA lens - you are tempted to start the
FF thing. However, would you describe a 35mm camera equipped with a 645 or
67 lens as a reduced format? Nonsense again. To me, format is related to the
sensor, not to to the lens in use, which may well be oversized at leisure.
At the end of the day, I think that FF is just another name for something
which didn't truly need it. Its's just another way of calling 24x36mm, with
no other meaning in it.
But I understand you all can disagree.
Dario
--
PDML Pentax-Discuss Mail List
[email protected]
http://pdml.net/mailman/listinfo/pdml_pdml.net
to UNSUBSCRIBE from the PDML, please visit the link directly above and follow
the directions.
