As long as we designate lenses by focal length standardized formats are
both necessary and desirable. If people wish to use shorthand (aps-c,
FF, whatever), to refer to those standardized formats who really cares.
It seems a particularly silly thing to take offense at.
Now I don't have any SLR lenses "optomized for digital, at partly
because I still have film cameras, (which I expect I'd actually shoot
with if I had an available darkroom), and it's really convienent to
have all my lenses work on two different formats.
Now just to clear the air the original mini-cam full format was 2 1/4" x
3.1/4 or 6x9. The 2:3 aspect ration predates the use of 35mm film in
still cameras by, hum, oh say 30 years. Looked at from that standpoint
every subsequent film format and most digital formats are less than full
frame.
On 12/19/2010 5:25 PM, paul stenquist wrote:
On Dec 19, 2010, at 5:16 PM, Steven Desjardins wrote:
We are just seeing the overlap of film stuff and digital sensors. So
many lenses were designed for the 35 mm format. We still use "medium
format" even though the sensor isn't that size. Look at the 645D.
The sensor isn't even close to 6 x4.5, but it was based on that body
design. It will take years (if ever) for a more rational terminology
to emerge, but as JCO points out we all know what it means.
History-laden terminology has a certain charm for many and, it seems,
especially photographers.
I plan to start calling APS-C "the happy format" and see if it catches on.
There are now so many different sensor sizes, that a description in millimeters
would be most apt and informative. I expect we'll eventually come around to
that, after the supply of silly names has been exhausted. With film, there was
a reason to keep the range of sizes to a manageable level, and those sizes were
largely dictated by the available supply of film. Now, with a wide range of
sizes available, dimensional descriptions make sense.
Paul
On Sun, Dec 19, 2010 at 4:59 PM, J.C. O'Connell<[email protected]> wrote:
no, the way the term "full frame" is actually
used in todays nomenclature is 24x36 sensor
and lenses. You can mean it to whatever you
want but its not anything but 24x36 at this
point in time technology wise. BTW, I want
Pentax to do a FF dslr, do you know what I
mean? I think you do.
--
J.C. O'Connell (mailto:[email protected])
Join the CD PLAYER& DISC Discussions :
http://tech.groups.yahoo.com/group/cdplayers/
http://launch.groups.yahoo.com/group/cdsound/
-----Original Message-----
From: [email protected] [mailto:[email protected]] On Behalf Of Paul
Stenquist
Sent: Sunday, December 19, 2010 4:53 PM
To: Pentax-Discuss Mail List
Subject: Re: New 12-35 lens on the way
"Full frame" is a bit of silliness. It's irrelevant. Is a 645 camera "double
frame?" There are many sensor sizes. All of them are full. Paul On Dec 19,
2010, at 4:24 PM, J.C. O'Connell wrote:
In my opinion, the modern DSLR usage of the term "full frame" means
cameras and lenses designed for 24x36mm sensors. It doesn't mean all
the various formats out there are full frame just because the lens
fits and covers whatever non 24x36mm frame size is being used. Pentax
DA lenses are not "full frame" lenses in the context of todays gear.
--
J.C. O'Connell (mailto:[email protected])
Join the CD PLAYER& DISC Discussions :
http://tech.groups.yahoo.com/group/cdplayers/
http://launch.groups.yahoo.com/group/cdsound/
-----Original Message-----
From: [email protected] [mailto:[email protected]] On Behalf
Of Boris Liberman
Sent: Sunday, December 19, 2010 8:00 AM
To: Pentax-Discuss Mail List
Subject: Re: New 12-35 lens on the way
On 12/19/2010 2:11 PM, paul stenquist wrote:
Then why worry about the lens frame? A lens designed for APS-C will
outperform one designed for 24 x 36. (They're both full frame. Just
different frames.) Paul
I opine (may be wrong, but that's my right) that some 24x36 designed
lenses outperform some 18x24 ones. In particular, some Sigma EX 24x36
lenses show impressive degree of correction of geometric distortions.
For my kind of shooting it makes them particularly attractive given
their price tag.
You're however absolutely right that there are no "partial" frame
lenses
here. Unless of course, we're speaking of circular fish eyes /grin/.
Boris
--
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.
--
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.
--
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.
--
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.
--
Steve Desjardins
--
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.
--
Where's the Kaboom? There was supposed to be an Earth-shattering Kaboom!
--Marvin the Martian.
--
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.
