Fascination with full frame?

[Jeff S]

Advertisement (gone after registration)

The film size and the first aspect ratio for movies came from Thomas Edison.

 

More specifically, from William Dickson, who was the photographer at Edison Labs in charge of bringing Edison's concept to reality...more here and here.

 

Jeff

[pico]

From a manufacturing and handling point of view, the 35mm format is a sweet spot for most photographers.

 

Speak for yourself. That assertion comes from one habituated to 35mm format. There will likely be 4/3 habituates who appreciate its virtues and smaller format. Time marches on.

Edited March 3, 2012 by pico

[Advertisement]

The Leica Q3 is available for pre-order at B&H Photo Video and Adorama

[mgreernz]

I'm not sure what the OP's gripe is about. For me, full frame is simply that to which my photographer's eye is accustomed to. More than 50 years ago I propelled myself from 120 format to 35mm format. I'm simply pleased that today, digital sensors have successfully emulated the same format.

[erl]

I am more than prepared to be adaptable, outside my present kit which is locked in. However, I do pine for the Hasselbald format of square. I still have and occasionally use my Blads, but the square is just so much more versatile for composition, for my eye. A huge advantage is that 'cropping' is a mental process because there is no need to rotate the camera to change from vertical to horizontal crop. You do it all later! Rotating my Leica for 'format' always irritates me, and loses shots because of the delay.

[lars_bergquist]

Stop talking about 'full frame'. It was relevant only to cameras using 35mm film. Nowadays a camera can have a unique sensor size, like the S2 has, while in the old days you had to use a film already produced by someone. The Minox started out with 9.5mm cine film, lots of 'subminiatures' with 16mm cine film, Robot, Tessina, Leica with 35mm cine film, most everybody else with 120 roll film, which was introduced by a company that produced both film and cameras – Eastman Kodak.

 

The M8 was spoken of as having a 'cropped format' only because it was obviously a Leica M and used M lenses with an image circle of 42.3mm. DSLR cameras for the APS-C size do not use a 'cropped format' because they were not originally designed for 35mm, either analog or digital. With EVF cameras for that sensor size, this is blindingly obvious.

 

And a Hasselblad 500 did not use a 'cropped format' for using 6x6cm instead of 6x9cm – on the same 120 film. A camera uses a sensor of certain dimensions, technology (CCD or CMOS), pixel density, etc. and that is all. Judge everything on its own merits and demerits.

 

The proof of the pudding is in the viewing.

 

LB

[SJP]

Stephen, please can you explain a little more clearly how the diameter of the front element is the constant factor in relation to depth of field?

<snip>

Giordano, this is the direct result of the "form follows format" approximation which is good enough for most situations, I will go through in steps:

 

1) assume we have a crop factor of 4 (very small sensor compared to full frame), same no. of pixels.

2) two things need to happen to get the same field of view and depth of field (DoF):

- equivalent focal length on the cropped sensor is 4x less (50 mm FF is 12.5 mm on 4x crop)

- the circle of confusion (which governs the DoF range) is 4x smaller (30/4 = 7.5 micron on 4x crop)

3) the effect of the two factors mentioned under 2 is that to get the same depth of field on the cropped sensor 12.5 mm lens you need a 4x larger aperture, see equation below.

4) So if you want a Noctilux like DoF on a 4x crop sensor than you need a 12.5mm f/0.25 lens, the diameter of the front element is then 4 x 12.5 mm = 50 mm, just as before for a 50mm f/1 lens.

 

In the equation: A is the (FF) lens aperture, Ac is the required aperture due to use of a cropped sensor, C is the crop factor, COC35 is the full frame Circle of Confusion, and COCc is the cropped sensor Circle of Confusion. The A values are typically 1 or more which allows further simplification, giving Ac = C.A the "form follows format" result.

 

Edit: I tried this using a full spreadsheet calculation and for a crop factor of 4 there is no solution for Ac that gives the same DoF as you would get for 50mm f/1 @ 5m (this occurs when the argument of the square root is negative) - hadn't noticed that result before. Anyway it implies that it is impossible to get Noctilux like DoF on a cell phone.

Welcome, dear visitor! As registered member you'd see an image here…

Simply register for free here – We are always happy to welcome new members!

Edited March 3, 2012 by SJP

[jaapv]

Advertisement (gone after registration)

Most photographers in their mid-20s have no use for the 35mm format: most will have grown up with no experience of film, let alone 35mm. To them, 35mm is something "old people" use.

 

As Pico says, time moves on...

 

I doubt this is true - nor will it be as long as marketing departments percieve this as a sales pitch.

[thighslapper]

I can't say I'm the slightest bit fussed about the size of the sensor, or what sort it is ........ it's being able to use quality lenses to their full potential and the ergonomics and handling of the picture taking instrument itself and the resultant image quality that is important.

 

There is a minimum to camera and lens size below which usability and flexibility starts to suffer .... unless you are a hobbit ....

 

Unless you insist on sub f2 lenses the Leica M system comes pretty close to ideal. It could be lighter but then you trade off robustness for weight........

 

Leica can stick whatever they fancy in an M10 and as long as the image quality and character retains the Leica 'look' ..... and allows me to use my existing lenses I will be happy.....

Edited March 3, 2012 by thighslapper

[pgk]

Over the last few years there have been a plethora of new formats requiring new lens systems. Which will be the winner? Which is the one to go for? Which will yield as good images as .....? Given that 35mm format is a known quantity with known quality boundaries (actually being pushed further now than ever before) and with legacy systems and lenses, it may well make sense to stick with a known rather than opt for an unknown. The cynical side of me wonders whether many of the new, smaller formats are actually a mechanism for ensuring constant change as they wax and wane in manufacturer's catalogues.

[Lucklik]

I like my P**** K5 with the small limited edition lenses. However I hate the tunnel viewfinder.

I almost use my M6 TTL and 7 every day. I bought the cameras and 5 of my 6 Leica M lenses new. For me it makes no sense using those FF lenses on APSC. A 50mm or 35mm on APSC can be build much smaller and lighter than a 50 or 35 on FF

[lct]

Problem with crop cams is one needs faster hence dearer and bulkier lenses to get the same DoF... if any. Who can show me a fast 15, 16, 18 or even 21mm wide for my R-D1 and M8.2, aside from the monstruous Summilux? I don't see a better reason to prefer the well named full frame 24x36.

[giordano]

Giordano, this is the direct result of the "form follows format" approximation which is good enough for most situations, I will go through in steps:

 

1) assume we have a crop factor of 4 (very small sensor compared to full frame), same no. of pixels.

2) two things need to happen to get the same field of view and depth of field (DoF):

- equivalent focal length on the cropped sensor is 4x less (50 mm FF is 12.5 mm on 4x crop)

- the circle of confusion (which governs the DoF range) is 4x smaller (30/4 = 7.5 micron on 4x crop)

3) the effect of the two factors mentioned under 2 is that to get the same depth of field on the cropped sensor 12.5 mm lens you need a 4x larger aperture, see equation below.

4) So if you want a Noctilux like DoF on a 4x crop sensor than you need a 12.5mm f/0.25 lens, the diameter of the front element is then 4 x 12.5 mm = 50 mm, just as before for a 50mm f/1 lens.

Thank you. Now I understand. You're assuming the diameter of the front element is the maximum effective aperture. This is seldom true of real world lenses. For example, these lenses on my shelf both have an effective aperture of 17.5mm mm but you'd never know that from measuring their front elements.

 

• Summicron-M 35/2 v4: front element c.22mm
  
• Nikkor 35/2 AI: front element c. 45mm
  

[SJP]

<snip>

• Summicron-M 35/2 v4: front element c.22mm
  
• Nikkor 35/2 AI: front element c. 45mm
  

John, thanks for the list, this makes things worse:D

 

35/22 could on paper be f/1.6

35/45 could on paper be f/0.78

 

Note that the surface area of the Nikkor is 4.2x larger, i.e. a lot heavier & more imposing.

 

It is obviously impossible for the front element to be less than 17.5 mm diameter for a 35 mm f/2.

 

What I am still wrapping my brain around is that the maths tells me that it is physically impossible to make a narrow DoF (f/1) equivalent lens on severely cropped sensors. Not that they would be impossible to engineer (also probably true) but they are forbidden. This is a good argument for desiring a certain sensor size - stopping down to get deep DoF is easier than changing the laws of physics.

[lct]

Not sure to see the problem. A 12.5/0.25 lens will have the same entrance pupil as a 50/1 lens i guess i.e. both 50mm. Correct me if i'm wrong. So the 12.5/0.25 would probably be as bulky as the 50/1 and will never sell for this reason. But where is the other impossibility?

[giordano]

To get a feel for the problem, start by thinking of a Noctilux and then imagine it with glass four times the diameter (i.e. a 50mm f/0.25 lens). Consider how thick the elements would be if they maintained their present curvature over four times the diameter: the rear elements would come way behind the sensor, which of course is impossible.

 

So if such a lens is possible it would have to be a retrofocus design, meaning even more bulk and an even bigger front element. Maybe something the size of a football - and the 12.5mm version the size of a grapefruit.

 

As far as I know the only optical lenses ever built with apertures around f/0.3 have been reflectors and fresnel condensers with very narrow "fields of view", for uses such as searchlights where wide aperture is paramount and poor resolution and serious aberrations scarcely matter. I wonder if the Canon "Diffractive Optics" technology has potential for ultra-ultra-fast lenses? It certainly hasn't taken off in long lenses.

[lct]

Thank you but i don't understand why a 12.5mm lens with the same entrance pupil as a 50mm lens would be necessarily bulkier than the latter. Never mind i'm a complete null in math.

[pico]

Most photographers in their mid-20s have no use for the 35mm format: most will have grown up with no experience of film, let alone 35mm. To them, 35mm is something "old people" use.

 

My first camera was a brownie but it was too expensive for us then to have the film printed so it went away (only to show up again fifty years later in my deceased grandparents' packing crate.)

 

I entered pro photography with 35mm, bucking the trend at the time for press photographers who used TLRs and even Speed Graphics. If I were to start today, I'm sure I would begin with digital, just like the rest of the young people do today, so I can feel no moral status being a film photographer who also uses MF and sometimes LF. And I seriously doubt that in the future, unlike today when I can point to film, that I will be able to point to virtues of FF 35mm film.

 

I feel the future I speak of above is coming very quickly because I know published, known professional PJs in their Forties who have never used a rangefinder, let alone film. God, this is a depressing moment.

.

Edited March 3, 2012 by pico

[jaapv]

What people use (mainly for financial reasons) is not the same as what marketeers want to push. That is about what people covet - they may want to look like The War Correspondent with his 1Div, but all their wife will let them buy is a Rebel . Still, Canon notches up a sale .

Jaap - just look around you at what most people use...!

 

Most casual photographers use small-format cameras - typically a phone or a compact camera, or, if more serious, an APS-format digital SLR or, increasingly, Micro 4/3. For the minority who take photography even more seriously, perhaps a full-frame camera like the Canon 5D Mk II.

 

As I'm typing this, I recalled that Flickr shows camera use statistics. I've just had a look: see Flickr: Camera Finder. The stats are a bit crude, but bear out my thoughts, with a caveat - Flickr is not representative of camera users as a totally, just a particular subgroup (broadly, photography as a "serious leisure" pursuit).

 

The most popular camera is the iPhone, followed by a single full-frame camera (Canon 5D Mk II), then by assorted APS-format SLRs. Surprisingly, despite their ubiquity in the real world, compact cameras (like the Canon S95) are relatively unpopular compared with crop-factor SLRs - this is probably an artefact of the Flickr demographic. The next most used full-frame camera, the Nikon D700, is not popular - it's beaten by a whole slew of crop-factor SLRs (and the iPhone). As for numbers, if we compare the first and second most popular cameras, the iPhone 4/4S and the Canon 5D Mk II, Flickr daily usage is currently 7016 versus 4077. The next most popular cameras, the APS-format SLRs, range between 3996 and 3290. The full-frame Nikon D700 manages a miserable 1799.

 

We can conclude that - among Flickr users - a whole posse of formats are popular and are widely used. Since only one 35mm-format camera is among the most used cameras, this format no longer retains the dominant position it had during the film era.

 

I'm with most of my fellow MA photography degree students at the moment - there's 14 of us here today. So, I thought I'd have a straw poll about format and use. Our background: most of us have a BA in photography or fine art (I don't - chemistry!); 8 students are in their early 20s, 2 in their 30s, and the remaining 4 in their 40s. Results:

 

• 12 use both digital and film; 2 use film only.
  
• Most students use a Canon 5D or 5D Mk II; 2 use digital Leicas (M8 and M9).
  
• "Why do you use a full-frame digital camera?" The overwhelming answer was image quality because of the large sensor. With a single exception (the Leica M9 user - who's in his 40s), the fact that the sensor matches 35mm film was of no interest ("Who cares!? was one reply).
  
• "Do you think that the full-frame digital format is important?" The majority response was "no" - it's of historical interest only in today's digital age. Most of the full-frame Canon 5D users would happily buy a smaller-format digital camera if the image quality met their needs.
  
• "What about 35mm film?" The response was that it's handy as it's cheap and available everywhere - but concern about its image quality compared with high-end digital means most (11) students prefer medium format (or large format) film for "serious" work: "35mm film is for snaps - not serious use". There was an age difference: all students in their 20s considered 35mm film just one among several formats, and nothing special, whereas most in their 40s preferred 35mm film because "I'm used to it".

 

So, there you have it. Hardly statistically representative, but the above bears out what we all know: today, there's nothing special about the full-frame format - those who prefer it mostly grew up with 35mm film cameras, whereas it has no significance to those who grew up with digital. (It's worth mentioning that - at least among my fellow students - film is far from dead. But the prediliction is for medium- and large-format film, not 35mm.)

[Manolo Laguillo]

Most photographers in their mid-20s have no use for the 35mm format: most will have grown up with no experience of film, let alone 35mm. To them, 35mm is something "old people" use.

 

 

This is not true.

 

In my experience of more than 30 years as a teacher of photography at university level I have been through every camera technology:

1. I learned with fully manual cameras,

2. saw the advent of autofocus,

3. was unhappy with the disappearing of traditional aperture and time controls,

4. and went through the dawn and evolution of digital technologies.

 

It's incredible how many young students like working with 35 mm film.

Our printing lab at the fine arts school is being used by many of them.

 

A well known photographic equipment shop here in my city was thinking about the possibility of closing the film selling counter. But when the owners saw how much film they were selling they changed their minds. The margins of film are higher than those of cameras etc.

 

Film has come back! For the kids it means something we can´t even imagine...

 

And if film is interesting again, and because 2nd hand medium format cameras are cheaper than they used to be, it is normal that many prefer them instead 35mm cameras...

Edited March 3, 2012 by Manolo Laguillo

[Advertisement]

Hallo,

Look here: Interesting Leica gear

[pico]

This is not true.

 

In my experience of more than 30 years as a teacher of photography at university level I have been through every camera technology:

[...]

 

although I did not teach photography, I also was in higher ed for about 30 years (in the USA)

 

It's incredible how many young students like working with 35 mm film.

Our printing lab at the fine arts school is being used by many of them.

 

Might the culture and economics of Barcelona have something to do with that?