On Thursday, 29 November 2012 at 23:58:49 -1000, Gnome Nomad wrote: > On 11/29/2012 01:42 PM, Greg 'groggy' Lehey wrote: > >> That wasn't what I was referring to, but arguably it needs to be >> improved. The reference is barely authoritative, and "Film format" >> sounds positively archaic. > > To me, "film format" for digital cameras refers to the proportions of > the CCD. My Minolta has an APS-C sized CCD. Other cameras have CCDs with > the same proportions and size as a frame of 35mm film. So the phrase > doesn't sound archaic to me.
Well, a more modern term might be sensor format. What does it have to do with film? That's what I consider archaic. > So the sensor size a lens was designed for impacts the field of view > you get from it. Yes, of course. And that's the point I've been making. I've been talking about Four Thirds sensors, which are roughly half the linear size of a full frame sensor. Greg -- Sent from my desktop computer. Finger g...@freebsd.org for PGP public key. See complete headers for address and phone numbers. This message is digitally signed. If your Microsoft MUA reports problems, please read http://tinyurl.com/broken-mua
pgpKdjgICCkTQ.pgp
Description: PGP signature
