Re: Full Frame: what is it?
On 22/10/08, Anthony Farr, discombobulated, unleashed: >You can buy a lot of lens for the price difference between an APS DSLR and a >FF DSLR. Pentax will earn more by selling you lenses than selling you >cameras. What would you do if you were Pentax? How many Pentax customers >will pay a 100% premium to get a full frame sensor? It'll come when the >price gap shortens, but Cotty's hat is safe for the moment. Sad but true. -- Cheers, Cotty ___/\__ || (O) | People, Places, Pastiche ||=|http://www.cottysnaps.com _ -- 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.
RE: Full Frame: what is it?
> -Original Message- > From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] On Behalf Of > Joseph McAllister > > > Please don't tell my insurance company that the value of my SMCP-A > 15mm f3.5 has been devalued! > > Joseph McAllister > Pentaxian > Joseph, I thought your were to be given the value of an equivalent replacement. Does that mean you can replace it with a functionally identical new lens, or do you have to find another SMCP-A 15mm f3.5? Or can you just take the money if you provide a current valuation? Regards, Anthony -- 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.
RE: Full Frame: what is it?
On Oct 21, 2008, at 15:58 , Anthony Farr <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: If you think being able to use old wide angle lenses will justify an investment in a full frame camera (in whatever format), you need to read around. The interaweb is replete with tales of film era lenses, especially wides, being found wanting when put in front of digital cameras, especially so when the full frame is being imaged. Almost inevitably a new lens will be purchased soon after the new camera, a camera which ironically had been intended to stretch the useful life of the old lenses. Why not cut out the middleman and buy a new lens for the camera you have right now. The residual value of the pre digital lens will be near to zero anyway, so cut your losses on it and move on. Please don't tell my insurance company that the value of my SMCP-A 15mm f3.5 has been devalued! Joseph McAllister Pentaxian P.S. The police have given up on any good leads toward the recovery of my equipment. P.P.S. A SMCP-A* 135mm f1.8 was on eBay last week, in Poland, for $2600 US. Didn't sell. -- 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.
RE: Full Frame: what is it?
If you want to shoot film and digital in parallel (I wonder why?)then two things can happen if the cameras have the same format. One outcome is that you'll go crazy swapping lenses from one camera to the other as you alternate the medium. The other outcome is that you'll want a duplicate set of lenses, one set for each camera. This isn't as silly as it sounds. When I shot film I had multiple prime lenses to choose from between 35mm and 135mm, plus 3 continuously overlapping zooms from 24mm to 210mm and a single example of a 17mm and a 500mm. So, from 35mm to 135mm I was always able to have two cameras at the same focal length. That might also be your situation. But having different formats creates an interesting possibility. If you contrive to have your lenses separated by an interval of 1.5x focal lengths (as near as possible), then you can achieve parallel shooting while not needing a duplicate lens at each focal length. All it means is that you need one wideangle lens 1.5x shorter and one tele lens 1.5x longer to get a full set of equivalent-field-of-view pairs of lenses. You can buy a lot of lens for the price difference between an APS DSLR and a FF DSLR. Pentax will earn more by selling you lenses than selling you cameras. What would you do if you were Pentax? How many Pentax customers will pay a 100% premium to get a full frame sensor? It'll come when the price gap shortens, but Cotty's hat is safe for the moment. Regards, Anthony > -Original Message- > From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] On Behalf Of > John Sessoms > Sent: Wednesday, 22 October 2008 12:01 PM > To: pdml@pdml.net > Subject: RE: Full Frame: what is it? > > From: Anthony Farr <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> > > If you think being able to use old wide angle lenses will justify an > > investment in a full frame camera (in whatever format), you need to read > > around. The interaweb is replete with tales of film era lenses, especially > > wides, being found wanting when put in front of digital cameras, especially > > so when the full frame is being imaged. Almost inevitably a new lens will > > be purchased soon after the new camera, a camera which ironically had been > > intended to stretch the useful life of the old lenses. Why not cut out the > > middleman and buy a new lens for the camera you have right now. The > > residual value of the pre digital lens will be near to zero anyway, so cut > > your losses on it and move on. > > Because it's not about residual value and middlemen or "interaweb" old > wives tales. > > It's about I already have the lenses; I already use them with my current > digital equipment while continuing to use them with my film equipment. I > have a kit that works with both my film & my digital SLRs. I intend to > keep it that way. > > But I would like to get the same angle of view out of the lens from both > my film and my digital cameras. It would be convenient. I'm not going to > buy an additional lens just to overcome the crop factor. > > If Pentax eventually comes out with a "Full Frame" DSLR, I might buy one > if I have the money. > > If I do buy one, one of the reasons for doing so would be so I could > take advantage of my existing wide angle lenses. ONE of the reasons. > > There would have to be other advantages, or it wouldn't be enough to > motivate me to buy another DSLR. > > -- 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.
RE: Full Frame: what is it?
> > Which is a pretty good description of the newer lenses which are also > stand-out performers. > Not having to buy new lenses is one of the justifications for "needing" a 36mm x 24mm sensor. (I made an ironic shrug) Regards, Anthony > -Original Message- > From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] On Behalf Of > Adam Maas > Sent: Wednesday, 22 October 2008 10:40 AM > To: Pentax-Discuss Mail List > Subject: Re: Full Frame: what is it? > > On Tue, Oct 21, 2008 at 7:32 PM, Anthony Farr <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > >> > >> And also replete with tales of film-era lenses (like the Zeiss 21/2.8 > >> Distagon and the 21/3.5 and 21/2 Zuiko's) seriously outperforming > >> those new designs on digital. > >> > > > > The lenses named are uncommonly good lenses, the key word being > > "uncommonly". > > > > Regards, Anthony > > > > Which is a pretty good description of the newer lenses which are also > stand-out performers. Plenty of craptacular new glass as well as old. > > -- > 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. -- 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.
RE: Full Frame: what is it?
FF puts less pressure on lens quality, i.e. you Get better picture quality for a given level of Lens quality vs APS . The only caveat would be FF wide Angles with really poor corner performance in terms Of sharpness or vignetting. JC O'Connell [EMAIL PROTECTED] -Original Message- From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] On Behalf Of John Sessoms Sent: Tuesday, October 21, 2008 9:01 PM To: pdml@pdml.net Subject: RE: Full Frame: what is it? From: Anthony Farr <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> > If you think being able to use old wide angle lenses will justify an > investment in a full frame camera (in whatever format), you need to read > around. The interaweb is replete with tales of film era lenses, especially > wides, being found wanting when put in front of digital cameras, especially > so when the full frame is being imaged. Almost inevitably a new lens will > be purchased soon after the new camera, a camera which ironically had been > intended to stretch the useful life of the old lenses. Why not cut out the > middleman and buy a new lens for the camera you have right now. The > residual value of the pre digital lens will be near to zero anyway, so cut > your losses on it and move on. Because it's not about residual value and middlemen or "interaweb" old wives tales. It's about I already have the lenses; I already use them with my current digital equipment while continuing to use them with my film equipment. I have a kit that works with both my film & my digital SLRs. I intend to keep it that way. But I would like to get the same angle of view out of the lens from both my film and my digital cameras. It would be convenient. I'm not going to buy an additional lens just to overcome the crop factor. If Pentax eventually comes out with a "Full Frame" DSLR, I might buy one if I have the money. If I do buy one, one of the reasons for doing so would be so I could take advantage of my existing wide angle lenses. ONE of the reasons. There would have to be other advantages, or it wouldn't be enough to motivate me to buy another DSLR. -- 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. -- 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.
RE: Full Frame: what is it?
From: Anthony Farr <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> If you think being able to use old wide angle lenses will justify an investment in a full frame camera (in whatever format), you need to read around. The interaweb is replete with tales of film era lenses, especially wides, being found wanting when put in front of digital cameras, especially so when the full frame is being imaged. Almost inevitably a new lens will be purchased soon after the new camera, a camera which ironically had been intended to stretch the useful life of the old lenses. Why not cut out the middleman and buy a new lens for the camera you have right now. The residual value of the pre digital lens will be near to zero anyway, so cut your losses on it and move on. Because it's not about residual value and middlemen or "interaweb" old wives tales. It's about I already have the lenses; I already use them with my current digital equipment while continuing to use them with my film equipment. I have a kit that works with both my film & my digital SLRs. I intend to keep it that way. But I would like to get the same angle of view out of the lens from both my film and my digital cameras. It would be convenient. I'm not going to buy an additional lens just to overcome the crop factor. If Pentax eventually comes out with a "Full Frame" DSLR, I might buy one if I have the money. If I do buy one, one of the reasons for doing so would be so I could take advantage of my existing wide angle lenses. ONE of the reasons. There would have to be other advantages, or it wouldn't be enough to motivate me to buy another DSLR. -- 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.
Re: Full Frame: what is it?
On Tue, Oct 21, 2008 at 7:32 PM, Anthony Farr <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: >> >> And also replete with tales of film-era lenses (like the Zeiss 21/2.8 >> Distagon and the 21/3.5 and 21/2 Zuiko's) seriously outperforming >> those new designs on digital. >> > > The lenses named are uncommonly good lenses, the key word being > "uncommonly". > > Regards, Anthony > Which is a pretty good description of the newer lenses which are also stand-out performers. Plenty of craptacular new glass as well as old. -- 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.
RE: Full Frame: what is it?
> > And also replete with tales of film-era lenses (like the Zeiss 21/2.8 > Distagon and the 21/3.5 and 21/2 Zuiko's) seriously outperforming > those new designs on digital. > The lenses named are uncommonly good lenses, the key word being "uncommonly". Regards, Anthony -- 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.
Re: Full Frame: what is it?
On Tue, Oct 21, 2008 at 6:57 PM, Anthony Farr <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > If you think being able to use old wide angle lenses will justify an > investment in a full frame camera (in whatever format), you need to read > around. The interaweb is replete with tales of film era lenses, especially > wides, being found wanting when put in front of digital cameras, especially > so when the full frame is being imaged. Almost inevitably a new lens will > be purchased soon after the new camera, a camera which ironically had been > intended to stretch the useful life of the old lenses. Why not cut out the > middleman and buy a new lens for the camera you have right now. The > residual value of the pre digital lens will be near to zero anyway, so cut > your losses on it and move on. > > Regards, Anthony > And also replete with tales of film-era lenses (like the Zeiss 21/2.8 Distagon and the 21/3.5 and 21/2 Zuiko's) seriously outperforming those new designs on digital. -- 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.
RE: Full Frame: what is it?
If you think being able to use old wide angle lenses will justify an investment in a full frame camera (in whatever format), you need to read around. The interaweb is replete with tales of film era lenses, especially wides, being found wanting when put in front of digital cameras, especially so when the full frame is being imaged. Almost inevitably a new lens will be purchased soon after the new camera, a camera which ironically had been intended to stretch the useful life of the old lenses. Why not cut out the middleman and buy a new lens for the camera you have right now. The residual value of the pre digital lens will be near to zero anyway, so cut your losses on it and move on. Regards, Anthony > -Original Message- > From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] On Behalf Of > John Sessoms > Sent: Wednesday, 22 October 2008 9:15 AM > To: pdml@pdml.net > Subject: Re: Full Frame: what is it? > > From: Cory Waters <[EMAIL PROTECTED] > > I too have never understood the obsession with the sensor's physical > > size. I'm shooting now with my K10D and getting pictures that are > > really good quality. The k20 is a little better, I suppose. Are th > > e"full frame" cameras better simply because of the size of the sensor? > > I doubt it. > > CW > > The only "obsession" I have with it is my old wide angle lenses aren't > so wide angle on a crop sensor. My 20 mm lens and 24mm lens have a wider > angle of view on a film camera. > > But, on my DSLR's they have an angle of view equivalent to 30mm and 36mm > lenses ... 95 deg becomes 75 deg; 85 deg becomes 60 deg. > > Other than that, it's no big deal. > > -- > 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. -- 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.
RE: Full Frame: what is it?
> (the Voigtlander 12mm is available in F mount as well as > LTM mount, although it requires lockable MLY, meaning F, F2 and > Nikkormats only). > If you have to disable the R in SLR, then it isn't a functional SLR lens. I can put my camera on a microscope if I like, but it 'll never be a good eyepiece. Regards, Anthony -- 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.
Re: Full Frame: what is it?
From: Cory Waters <[EMAIL PROTECTED] I too have never understood the obsession with the sensor's physical size. I'm shooting now with my K10D and getting pictures that are really good quality. The k20 is a little better, I suppose. Are th e"full frame" cameras better simply because of the size of the sensor? I doubt it. CW The only "obsession" I have with it is my old wide angle lenses aren't so wide angle on a crop sensor. My 20 mm lens and 24mm lens have a wider angle of view on a film camera. But, on my DSLR's they have an angle of view equivalent to 30mm and 36mm lenses ... 95 deg becomes 75 deg; 85 deg becomes 60 deg. Other than that, it's no big deal. -- 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.
Re: Full Frame: what is it?
Dario Bonazza wrote: Godfrey DiGiorgi wrote: On Oct 21, 2008, at 7:02 AM, Mark Roberts wrote: I wouldn't be surprised to see larger sensor 4/3 cameras appear after the micro 4/3 gets established. If it is a larger sensor, it isn't 4/3 System. By definition. That's great news. We'll call it the Super 4/3. In all seriousness, that's probably a good guess. -- 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.
Re: Full Frame: what is it?
Steve Desjardins wrote: I prefer the Intel approach, "4/3 II". Hmmm... what about "8/6"? Dario -- 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.
Re: Full Frame: what is it?
On 10/21/08, Steve Desjardins <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > I prefer the Intel approach, "4/3 II". Yeah, but is it off by 1? -- Scott Loveless New Cumberland, Pennsylvania, USA http://www.twosixteen.com/fivetoedsloth/ -- 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.
Re: Full Frame: what is it?
Steve Desjardins wrote: I prefer the Intel approach, "4/3 II". Or the Canon approach: 4/3 mk-II! -- 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.
Re: Full Frame: what is it?
I prefer the Intel approach, "4/3 II". This thread is such a delightful mix of semantics, optics, and sarcasm. Reminds me of why I subscribe to the PDML. >>> "Dario Bonazza" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> 10/21/2008 3:23 PM >>> Godfrey DiGiorgi wrote: > On Oct 21, 2008, at 7:02 AM, Mark Roberts wrote: > >> I wouldn't be surprised to see larger sensor 4/3 cameras appear >> after the micro 4/3 gets established. > > If it is a larger sensor, it isn't 4/3 System. By definition. That's great news. We'll call it the Super 4/3. The Olympus MktDept. -- 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. !SIG:48fe2ca5272011234610606! -- 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.
Re: Full Frame: what is it?
Godfrey DiGiorgi wrote: On Oct 21, 2008, at 7:02 AM, Mark Roberts wrote: I wouldn't be surprised to see larger sensor 4/3 cameras appear after the micro 4/3 gets established. If it is a larger sensor, it isn't 4/3 System. By definition. That's great news. We'll call it the Super 4/3. The Olympus MktDept. -- 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.
Re: Full Frame: what is it?
The Voigtländer Heliar 12mm in Nikon mount is discontinued as far as I can discover. A lens that doesn't allow use of a reflex viewfinder is hardly an SLR lens, although it can be fitted to an SLR body. I have no use for Sigma products. The one in 20 that meets the product specification generally performs ok. To me, that's just junk. Godfrey On Oct 21, 2008, at 10:26 AM, Adam Maas wrote: 3 SLR lenses (the Voigtlander 12mm is available in F mount as well as LTM mount, although it requires lockable MLY, meaning F, F2 and Nikkormats only). The Sigma 12-24 is actually a pretty good performer with stellar control of distortion. -Adam On Tue, Oct 21, 2008 at 12:27 PM, Godfrey DiGiorgi <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: Ok, three. One SLR lens, one RF lens, and a piece of junk. Big deal. ]'-) G On Oct 21, 2008, at 7:03 AM, Adam Maas wrote: Nikon 13mm f5.6, Voigtlander 12mm f5.6, Sigma 12-24mm f4.5-5.6 -- 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.
Re: Full Frame: what is it?
On Tue, Oct 21, 2008 at 1:29 PM, Mark Roberts <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > John Francis wrote: >> >> I wouldn't call the Nikon 13mm a piece of junk :-) >> >> Seriously, though, I knew many people who owned and used the Sigma >> (mostly in Canon mount). It seemed to produce reasonable results. > > I'm a big fan of the Sigma EX series lenses. I'd rate the 180/3.5 macro with > some of the best Pentax lenses, in terms of image quality and construction. > > The Sigma 12-24 is not up to the performance of other EX series lenses like the 10-20 or the 180 macro. But it is quite good nonetheless and the distortion control is incredibly good, better than any other zoom in its FoV range and also better than most ultra-wide primes. -- 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.
Re: Full Frame: what is it?
John Francis wrote: I wouldn't call the Nikon 13mm a piece of junk :-) Seriously, though, I knew many people who owned and used the Sigma (mostly in Canon mount). It seemed to produce reasonable results. I'm a big fan of the Sigma EX series lenses. I'd rate the 180/3.5 macro with some of the best Pentax lenses, in terms of image quality and construction. -- 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.
Re: Full Frame: what is it?
3 SLR lenses (the Voigtlander 12mm is available in F mount as well as LTM mount, although it requires lockable MLY, meaning F, F2 and Nikkormats only). The Sigma 12-24 is actually a pretty good performer with stellar control of distortion. -Adam On Tue, Oct 21, 2008 at 12:27 PM, Godfrey DiGiorgi <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > Ok, three. One SLR lens, one RF lens, and a piece of junk. > > Big deal. ]'-) > > G > > On Oct 21, 2008, at 7:03 AM, Adam Maas wrote: > >> Nikon 13mm f5.6, Voigtlander 12mm f5.6, Sigma 12-24mm f4.5-5.6 >> >> -Adam >> >> On Tue, Oct 21, 2008 at 9:51 AM, Godfrey DiGiorgi <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: >>> >>> Olympus has a lovely 7-14mm lens in 4/3 System which nets 115 diagonal >>> degrees,rectilinear. There's only one lens I know of for so-called "full >>> frame" that provides a wider rectilinear FoV. >>> >>> Godfrey - www.gdgphoto.com >>> >>> On Oct 21, 2008, at 4:50 AM, Steve Desjardins <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: >>> The only real issue (in my mind) is the availability of wide angle lenses. It's easier to get wide angles for the FX format (Nikonese, I believe) especially since so many exist in the used market. Other than that, I'm happy with a smaller camera and the DX format. > > -- > 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. > -- 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.
Re: Full Frame: what is it?
I wouldn't call the Nikon 13mm a piece of junk :-) Seriously, though, I knew many people who owned and used the Sigma (mostly in Canon mount). It seemed to produce reasonable results. On Tue, Oct 21, 2008 at 09:27:56AM -0700, Godfrey DiGiorgi wrote: > Ok, three. One SLR lens, one RF lens, and a piece of junk. > > Big deal. ]'-) > > G > > On Oct 21, 2008, at 7:03 AM, Adam Maas wrote: > >> Nikon 13mm f5.6, Voigtlander 12mm f5.6, Sigma 12-24mm f4.5-5.6 >> >> -Adam >> >> On Tue, Oct 21, 2008 at 9:51 AM, Godfrey DiGiorgi <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> >> wrote: >>> Olympus has a lovely 7-14mm lens in 4/3 System which nets 115 >>> diagonal >>> degrees,rectilinear. There's only one lens I know of for so-called >>> "full >>> frame" that provides a wider rectilinear FoV. >>> >>> Godfrey - www.gdgphoto.com >>> >>> On Oct 21, 2008, at 4:50 AM, Steve Desjardins <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> >>> wrote: >>> The only real issue (in my mind) is the availability of wide angle lenses. It's easier to get wide angles for the FX format (Nikonese, I believe) especially since so many exist in the used market. Other than that, I'm happy with a smaller camera and the DX format. > > -- > 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. -- 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.
Re: Full Frame: what is it?
On Oct 21, 2008, at 7:02 AM, Mark Roberts wrote: I wouldn't be surprised to see larger sensor 4/3 cameras appear after the micro 4/3 gets established. If it is a larger sensor, it isn't 4/3 System. By definition. G -- 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.
Re: Full Frame: what is it?
Ok, three. One SLR lens, one RF lens, and a piece of junk. Big deal. ]'-) G On Oct 21, 2008, at 7:03 AM, Adam Maas wrote: Nikon 13mm f5.6, Voigtlander 12mm f5.6, Sigma 12-24mm f4.5-5.6 -Adam On Tue, Oct 21, 2008 at 9:51 AM, Godfrey DiGiorgi <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: Olympus has a lovely 7-14mm lens in 4/3 System which nets 115 diagonal degrees,rectilinear. There's only one lens I know of for so-called "full frame" that provides a wider rectilinear FoV. Godfrey - www.gdgphoto.com On Oct 21, 2008, at 4:50 AM, Steve Desjardins <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: The only real issue (in my mind) is the availability of wide angle lenses. It's easier to get wide angles for the FX format (Nikonese, I believe) especially since so many exist in the used market. Other than that, I'm happy with a smaller camera and the DX format. -- 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.
Re: Full Frame: what is it?
Mark Roberts wrote: the mirror can be made to move back and up rather than just flipping up on a normal hinge - I think Nikon has done the latter on a recent camera. My bad. Not Nikon. It's the new Sony A900. And they stole the idea from the Pentax K2 :) -- 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.
Re: Full Frame: what is it?
Adam Maas wrote: On Tue, Oct 21, 2008 at 10:02 AM, Mark Roberts <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: Here's an interesting observation, too: The 4/3 lens mount has the same opening diameter as the Nikon F mount (44mm), so larger sensors *could* be used in the 4/3 system in the future. They'd require a new line of lenses, of course, but all the manufacturers (except Sony) are in that boat to one degree or another. I wouldn't be surprised to see larger sensor 4/3 cameras appear after the micro 4/3 gets established. However the short register of 4/3rds restricts the mirror size. Who said it would have a mirror? ;-) Seriously, there are ways of minimizing that issue: The lens rear elements can be designed to be farther from the sensor and lens flange and/or the mirror can be made to move back and up rather than just flipping up on a normal hinge - I think Nikon has done the latter on a recent camera. -- 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.
Re: Full Frame: what is it?
Oh, I'm not saying you can't do it. It's just that many folks have a number of wide angles that are no longer as useful in the DX format. I don't, so I'm happy with the smaller format. Steven Desjardins Department of Chemistry Washington and Lee University Lexington, VA 24450 (540) 458-8873 FAX: (540) 458-8878 [EMAIL PROTECTED] >>> Godfrey DiGiorgi <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> 10/21/2008 9:51 AM >>> Olympus has a lovely 7-14mm lens in 4/3 System which nets 115 diagonal degrees,rectilinear. There's only one lens I know of for so-called "full frame" that provides a wider rectilinear FoV. Godfrey - www.gdgphoto.com On Oct 21, 2008, at 4:50 AM, Steve Desjardins <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > The only real issue (in my mind) is the availability of wide angle > lenses. It's easier to get wide angles for the FX format (Nikonese, I > believe) especially since so many exist in the used market. Other > than > that, I'm happy with a smaller camera and the DX format. > > > > -- > 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. -- 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. !SIG:48fddf9c272016918317400! -- 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.
RE: Full Frame: what is it?
With top quality lenses, there is nearly twice as much detail In a FF image as a aps image, this is because they both have Relative same lp/mm and the FF image is much larger. JC O'Connell [EMAIL PROTECTED] -Original Message- From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] On Behalf Of Mark Roberts Sent: Tuesday, October 21, 2008 10:02 AM To: Pentax-Discuss Mail List Subject: Re: Full Frame: what is it? David Savage wrote: > > 2008/10/21 Rick Womer <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>: >> --- On Tue, 10/21/08, David Savage <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: >>> For long exposures (10+ minutes) & low light, high ISO >>> shots the full frame sees a big (no pun intended) improvement in IQ. >>> >>> For regular shooting in good light, not so much of a >>> difference. >>> >> That's true at the current level of technology. A few years from now maybe, maybe not. >> > Possibly, but it doesn't help for the photos I'm taking now. It's physically inevitable that, given an equal number of pixels, a 24x36 sensor will have larger pixels and hence lower noise than a 16x24 sensor. Perhaps technology will lower all noise levels in the future to the point where the difference is unimportant, but I expect we're past the point of diminishing returns now and approaching the limits of physics: Noise, more than absolute pixel count, is why full-frame is growing so fast. Here's an interesting observation, too: The 4/3 lens mount has the same opening diameter as the Nikon F mount (44mm), so larger sensors *could* be used in the 4/3 system in the future. They'd require a new line of lenses, of course, but all the manufacturers (except Sony) are in that boat to one degree or another. I wouldn't be surprised to see larger sensor 4/3 cameras appear after the micro 4/3 gets established. -- 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. -- 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.
RE: Full Frame: what is it?
I believe FF 24x36 will always have advantage over aps sensors Because the lenses are the limiting factor already, bigger sensor Makes lenses relatively sharper compared to the size of the sensor, Just like medium format vs 35mm film. JC O'Connell [EMAIL PROTECTED] -Original Message- From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] On Behalf Of Rick Womer Sent: Tuesday, October 21, 2008 9:03 AM To: Pentax-Discuss Mail List Subject: Re: Full Frame: what is it? That's true at the current level of technology. A few years from now maybe, maybe not. Rick http://photo.net/photos/RickW --- On Tue, 10/21/08, David Savage <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > > For long exposures (10+ minutes) & low light, high ISO > shots the full > frame sees a big (no pun intended) improvement in IQ. > > For regular shooting in good light, not so much of a > difference. > > Cheers, > > Dave > > -- > 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. -- 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. -- 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.
Re: Full Frame: what is it?
Well, of course I agree. Dario is right. I for one have the right to express my own, hmmm, preferences. When I take my trusty old MZ-6 and or even older Perkeo I folder I am thinking that my K10D is too big. My lenses, with only one being an exception, cover more than the camera can capture, which, given the quality of the lenses, is great waste of highest quality photons and hence pixels. ;-) *Singing trying to mimic Billy Joel's voice* "I am in the full frame frame of mind"... ;-) Boris AlunFoto wrote: 2008/10/21 Boris Liberman <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>: Dario, I totally agree with you. Yet I want either smaller camera or a full frame(*) one. (*) Full Frame is the so called 24x36 mm sensor size ;-). I thought you said you agreed? :-) You could make a smaller camera by reducing the bayonet diameter to fit the APS-C, and the register distance. Somehow, I think you would be very disappointed with that route because you would have to buy another set of lenses too. At least until some clever Chinese guy comes up with a suitable adaptor. full frame is just a frame of mind, mate. :-) Jostein -- 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.
Re: Full Frame: what is it?
On Tue, Oct 21, 2008 at 10:02 AM, Mark Roberts <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > David Savage wrote: >> >> 2008/10/21 Rick Womer <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>: >>> >>> --- On Tue, 10/21/08, David Savage <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: For long exposures (10+ minutes) & low light, high ISO shots the full frame sees a big (no pun intended) improvement in IQ. For regular shooting in good light, not so much of a difference. >>> That's true at the current level of technology. A few years from now >>> maybe, maybe not. >>> >> Possibly, but it doesn't help for the photos I'm taking now. > > It's physically inevitable that, given an equal number of pixels, a 24x36 > sensor will have larger pixels and hence lower noise than a 16x24 sensor. > Perhaps technology will lower all noise levels in the future to the point > where the difference is unimportant, but I expect we're past the point of > diminishing returns now and approaching the limits of physics: Noise, more > than absolute pixel count, is why full-frame is growing so fast. > > Here's an interesting observation, too: The 4/3 lens mount has the same > opening diameter as the Nikon F mount (44mm), so larger sensors *could* be > used in the 4/3 system in the future. They'd require a new line of lenses, > of course, but all the manufacturers (except Sony) are in that boat to one > degree or another. I wouldn't be surprised to see larger sensor 4/3 cameras > appear after the micro 4/3 gets established. However the short register of 4/3rds restricts the mirror size. -- 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.
Re: Full Frame: what is it?
Nikon 13mm f5.6, Voigtlander 12mm f5.6, Sigma 12-24mm f4.5-5.6 -Adam On Tue, Oct 21, 2008 at 9:51 AM, Godfrey DiGiorgi <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > Olympus has a lovely 7-14mm lens in 4/3 System which nets 115 diagonal > degrees,rectilinear. There's only one lens I know of for so-called "full > frame" that provides a wider rectilinear FoV. > > Godfrey - www.gdgphoto.com > > On Oct 21, 2008, at 4:50 AM, Steve Desjardins <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > >> The only real issue (in my mind) is the availability of wide angle >> lenses. It's easier to get wide angles for the FX format (Nikonese, I >> believe) especially since so many exist in the used market. Other than >> that, I'm happy with a smaller camera and the DX format. >> >> >> >> -- >> 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. > > -- > 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. > -- 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.
Re: Full Frame: what is it?
David Savage wrote: 2008/10/21 Rick Womer <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>: --- On Tue, 10/21/08, David Savage <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: For long exposures (10+ minutes) & low light, high ISO shots the full frame sees a big (no pun intended) improvement in IQ. For regular shooting in good light, not so much of a difference. That's true at the current level of technology. A few years from now maybe, maybe not. > Possibly, but it doesn't help for the photos I'm taking now. It's physically inevitable that, given an equal number of pixels, a 24x36 sensor will have larger pixels and hence lower noise than a 16x24 sensor. Perhaps technology will lower all noise levels in the future to the point where the difference is unimportant, but I expect we're past the point of diminishing returns now and approaching the limits of physics: Noise, more than absolute pixel count, is why full-frame is growing so fast. Here's an interesting observation, too: The 4/3 lens mount has the same opening diameter as the Nikon F mount (44mm), so larger sensors *could* be used in the 4/3 system in the future. They'd require a new line of lenses, of course, but all the manufacturers (except Sony) are in that boat to one degree or another. I wouldn't be surprised to see larger sensor 4/3 cameras appear after the micro 4/3 gets established. -- 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.
Re: Full Frame: what is it?
Olympus has a lovely 7-14mm lens in 4/3 System which nets 115 diagonal degrees,rectilinear. There's only one lens I know of for so-called "full frame" that provides a wider rectilinear FoV. Godfrey - www.gdgphoto.com On Oct 21, 2008, at 4:50 AM, Steve Desjardins <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: The only real issue (in my mind) is the availability of wide angle lenses. It's easier to get wide angles for the FX format (Nikonese, I believe) especially since so many exist in the used market. Other than that, I'm happy with a smaller camera and the DX format. -- 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. -- 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.
Re: Full Frame: what is it?
Possibly, but it doesn't help for the photos I'm taking now. Cheers, Dave 2008/10/21 Rick Womer <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>: > That's true at the current level of technology. A few years from now maybe, > maybe not. > > Rick > > http://photo.net/photos/RickW > > > --- On Tue, 10/21/08, David Savage <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: >> >> For long exposures (10+ minutes) & low light, high ISO >> shots the full >> frame sees a big (no pun intended) improvement in IQ. >> >> For regular shooting in good light, not so much of a >> difference. >> >> Cheers, >> >> Dave -- 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.
Re: Full Frame: what is it?
- Original Message - From: "Dario Bonazza" Subject: Full Frame: what is it? 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. Funnily enough, I agree with Dario. The English language is full of this type of thing. The pedants can bawl their silly heads off, but the term "full frame" as it relates to DSLR sensors has become a modern colloquialism, in much the same way that the much hated "crop factor" has. William Robb -- 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.
Re: Full Frame: what is it?
On Oct 21, 2008, at 2:42 AM, Dario Bonazza wrote: I understand you all can disagree. Mark! -- 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.
Re: Full Frame: what is it?
That's true at the current level of technology. A few years from now maybe, maybe not. Rick http://photo.net/photos/RickW --- On Tue, 10/21/08, David Savage <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > > For long exposures (10+ minutes) & low light, high ISO > shots the full > frame sees a big (no pun intended) improvement in IQ. > > For regular shooting in good light, not so much of a > difference. > > Cheers, > > Dave > > -- > 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. -- 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.
Re: Full Frame: what is it?
The only real issue (in my mind) is the availability of wide angle lenses. It's easier to get wide angles for the FX format (Nikonese, I believe) especially since so many exist in the used market. Other than that, I'm happy with a smaller camera and the DX format. -- 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.
Re: Full Frame: what is it?
2008/10/21 Cory Waters <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>: > Are th e"full frame" > cameras better simply because of the size of the sensor? It depends where/what you are shooting. For long exposures (10+ minutes) & low light, high ISO shots the full frame sees a big (no pun intended) improvement in IQ. For regular shooting in good light, not so much of a difference. Cheers, Dave -- 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.
Re: Full Frame: what is it?
2008/10/21 Boris Liberman <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>: > Dario, I totally agree with you. Yet I want either smaller camera or a full > frame(*) one. > > (*) Full Frame is the so called 24x36 mm sensor size ;-). I thought you said you agreed? :-) You could make a smaller camera by reducing the bayonet diameter to fit the APS-C, and the register distance. Somehow, I think you would be very disappointed with that route because you would have to buy another set of lenses too. At least until some clever Chinese guy comes up with a suitable adaptor. full frame is just a frame of mind, mate. :-) Jostein -- http://www.alunfoto.no/galleri/ http://alunfoto.blogspot.com -- 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.
Re: Full Frame: what is it?
I too have never understood the obsession with the sensor's physical size. I'm shooting now with my K10D and getting pictures that are really good quality. The k20 is a little better, I suppose. Are th e"full frame" cameras better simply because of the size of the sensor? I doubt it. CW Dario Bonazza wrote: 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 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. No virus found in this incoming message. Checked by AVG - http://www.avg.com Version: 8.0.173 / Virus Database: 270.8.2/1735 - Release Date: 10/20/2008 2:52 PM -- 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.
Re: Full Frame: what is it?
Dario, I totally agree with you. Yet I want either smaller camera or a full frame(*) one. (*) Full Frame is the so called 24x36 mm sensor size ;-). Boris Dario Bonazza wrote: 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. -- 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.
Re: Full Frame: what is it?
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. Very well put, all of it. :D John (just turned 30 27 minutes ago) -- http://www.neovenator.com http://www.cafepress.com/neovenatorphoto -- 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.
RE: Full Frame: what is it?
It's a crutch for people who obsess over the size of their tool ;-) Regards, Anthony > -Original Message- > From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] On Behalf Of > Dario Bonazza > Sent: Tuesday, 21 October 2008 5:42 PM > To: Pentax-Discuss Mail List > Subject: Full Frame: what is it? > > 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 > 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. -- 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.
Re: Full Frame: what is it?
2008/10/21 Dario Bonazza <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>: > I believe Full Frame to be akin the sex of angels. Damn you, Dario. Drinking coffee and reading PDML is getting more and more hazardous to computer hardware. Well said, though. Worthy a MARK!! Rest of the post was good too. Couldn't agree more. Jostein Still smiling after wiping the liquid off his screen and keyboard... -- http://www.alunfoto.no/galleri/ http://alunfoto.blogspot.com -- 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.
