On Tue, Oct 21, 2008 at 12:26 PM, Godfrey DiGiorgi <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > > On Oct 21, 2008, at 8:05 AM, David J Brooks wrote: > >> I still don't see the big deal of FF. >> >> I know people say then their 24 will be a 24. not a 35 equivalent, >> etc, but just do what I do. >> >> I step back a bit.:-) > > The idiocy is that a 24mm lens is *always* a 24mm lens. The focal length > only defines a field of view in the context of a format definition. > > I see nothing particularly special about so-called "full frame" ... > personally, I always thought 2:3 proportions were too oblong anyway. I'd > rather have 4:5 or 3:4 proportion formats. > > I guess 6x4.5 isn't "full frame" either ... I mean, after all, there're > 6x4.5, 6x6, 6x7, 6x8, 6x12, and 6x17 cm formats on 120mm roll film. And many > of those cameras can share lenses. Which of them is "full frame", I > wonder... ? > > Godfrey
'FF' is just an arbitrary designation for the 36x24mm 135 format as compared to smaller formats designed to use the same mounts and registers as legacy 135 cameras. The sole advantage to it is that it's something of a sweet spot between sensor size and performance and the equipment cost advantages to using well established mounts with large amounts of pre-existing lenses available at reasonable costs. I agree on 2:3 being rather oblong. The thing about the 24mm lens 'being' a 24mm lens has more to do with the lack of lens choices wider than 24mm, especially primes for those of us who prefer them. Frankly, I'm kinda interested in one thing about the D3/D700, which is a native 10MP 4:5 option (with auto-cropped viewfinder on the D3) allowing you to compose easily in a nicer aspect ratio. -- M. Adam Maas http://www.mawz.ca Explorations of the City Around Us. -- PDML Pentax-Discuss Mail List PDML@pdml.net http://pdml.net/mailman/listinfo/pdml_pdml.net to UNSUBSCRIBE from the PDML, please visit the link directly above and follow the directions.
