Fascination with full frame?

[mafoofan]

Advertisement (gone after registration)

I'm 30, so I grew up with film, adopted digital in my teens, and am now shifting back to film.

 

For me, the allure of full-frame is largely an artifact of having experienced firsthand the evolution of digital cameras. In the early days (mid to late '90s), all the speculation was about when digital photos might finally match 35mm film for image quality. It was broadly understood that the problem was sensor size. So, to my mind, a full-frame digital camera has always been a sort of technological holy grail.

 

Of course, along the way, the issue became obscured as sensor technology further developed and better and better image quality was being squeezed out of sensors without necessarily increasing their physical size. In light of that vector, I think one must admit that the "full-frame"-ness of a camera is a very artificial benchmark.

 

Yet, we remember what we remember. It's hard to forget what I idealized in my youth--and I suspect that is a general truth. My more rational mind tells me to get over it, but I have an emotional and sentimental attachment to cameras and photography.

[Manolo Laguillo]

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

 

what do you mean, Pico? could you please elaborate your question a little bit more?

[urs0polar]

Like a previous poster, I think 35mm full-frame is a very human-sized format. I'm 32. I started with APS-C digital, moved to medium format film (Mamiya 7, RB67), 4x5 film, and 8x10 film, and back to 35mm (hence this forum...). All since about 2005. So, I don't know much but I'm willing to loudly proclaim my ideas

 

What I mean by "human-sized format" is that 35mm full-frame has a lot going for it that fits in the physical dimensions of people. For instance, 8x10 ground glass is awesome -- easy to see what's going on, no need to squint, things look amazingly 3D, etc; 4x5 is a little less awesome but still very very good; the viewfinder of a medium format SLR is quite amazing; the viewfinder of a 35mm full-frame camera is pretty nice, and anything smaller is just above being "small".

 

Given the size of the sensor/film, the DOF characteristics of the lenses for 35mm FF are also a sweet spot, the normal format (45-50mm) lenses are usually very easy to handle and can be made very fast for not much money (50/1.8 canon is $100 new, 50mm lenses are generally cheaper than their longer and shorter counterparts). Normal for 8x10 is 360mm, and it's very rare to find lenses faster than f/4.5 or f/5.6.

 

Except for landscape and architecture, tripods suck. If the subject is alive, you want to be able to point the camera at it quickly. Medium format is barely adequate for this task; for instance, the Mamiya 7 is very maneuverable, but the fastest lenses are f/4. So, unless it's bright out, or you're in a studio, it's not as easy to use as, say, and M6 with a 50mm f/2 (or 1.4 or 0.95).

 

I guess what I'm trying to say is that on the smaller side of 45mm full frame, the viewfinders get to be smaller than they need to be to keep maneuverability and ergonomics, and on the larger side, the camera itself gets unwieldy and the lenses slow down. This has little to do with whether it's film or digital. I a perfect world, a hand-holdable 8x10/4x5 SLR or rangefinder with a motor drive, auto-exposure, etc etc would be awesome, but physically it would be just too big and heavy. Medium format is better but not quite there yet. 35mm is in many ways a good compromise format, and with Leica or similar performing lenses, it can be more than adequate for what most people reasonably need.

 

I also think this is why the S2 is so interesting; it's an optimal human-scale camera with a medium format sensor.

 

Why wouldn't you try to get the biggest sensor/film size as possible while optimizing the ergonomics and handling for the human scale? I think there's a strong argument that 35mm full-frame is pretty close to that point.

[AlanG]

 

Why wouldn't you try to get the biggest sensor/film size as possible while optimizing the ergonomics and handling for the human scale? I think there's a strong argument that 35mm full-frame is pretty close to that point.

 

I pretty much agree with what you wrote in that the 24x36mm format allows for fairly small cameras (even if some are kind of large today - and some of my friends prefer the larger DSLRs over smaller ones) and is probably the sweet spot for maximum versatility of lens designs at a reasonable size and cost. But smaller cameras have enough advantages that they are pretty much taking over for many photographers and they are progressing quickly. EVFs eliminate any issues with DSLR viewfinder size.

[SJP]

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?

The problem is with the "exact" equation in post 51, which only gives the "form follows format" rule of thumb for largish A values and not too severe cropping.

 

If you fill in all the relevant numbers for 4x crop (C=1/4), A = f/1 = 1, CoC35/CoCc = 1/C you get

 

Ac = ½sqrt(1/16.5-1) = ½sqrt(-11/16)

 

which is an imaginary number i.e. there is no physical solution even for an ideal infinitely thin lens.

 

The cut off crop factor to be able to get f/1 like DoF is at C = 1/sqrt(5) so roughly 2.2x smaller than FF. At 4x crop there is no possible way to get Noctilux like response, at least that is what the mathematics says. I will look into this further because however much I trust mathematics, I also want to understand the problem at a conceptual level. So far I do not.

 

Calculating on my spreadsheet was the first alarm bell for this surprising aspect, I could not get the numbers to work at 12.5/0.25 the DoF was in a range where changing the aperture did not do much anymore. This is outside the "normal" range & probably is impossible for engineering reasons as well.

 

First thing to do however is to check if the equation involves some approximation along the line, I don't recall that it does, but it is worth checking.

[pico]

what do you mean, Pico? could you please elaborate your question a little bit more?

 

Barcelona is a cultural leader, a prosperous and enlightening area. It could be that students are making something of a counter-intuitive cultural statement, making more with earlier technology.

[lct]

Advertisement (gone after registration)

...however much I trust mathematics, I also want to understand the problem at a conceptual level...

Your level in math is at parsecs ahead of mine so i'll wait til you land at the conceptual level

[urs0polar]

I pretty much agree with what you wrote in that the 24x36mm format allows for fairly small cameras (even if some are kind of large today - and some of my friends prefer the larger DSLRs over smaller ones) and is probably the sweet spot for maximum versatility of lens designs at a reasonable size and cost. But smaller cameras have enough advantages that they are pretty much taking over for many photographers and they are progressing quickly. EVFs eliminate any issues with DSLR viewfinder size.

 

Alan,

 

I agree with you, EVFs seem to be changing the game. I would rather have an optical viewfinder now instead of an EVF, but I'm sure in the future they will get to be the same or better ... that doesn't mean they will be fun though. Seeing actual things with my real eyes is pretty cool.

[jaapv]

What will never change is that looking through an optical viewfinder is looking through a window and looking at an EVF is looking at a little TV screen. An essential difference in my opinion.

Not to say that EVFs don't have their uses and that a good auxilary one on a future M could be quite useful for a fair number of users, but it can never be a replacement of a view/rangefinder, no more than an SLR ever could be.

[Manolo Laguillo]

Barcelona is a cultural leader, a prosperous and enlightening area. It could be that students are making something of a counter-intuitive cultural statement, making more with earlier technology.

 

mmh, that was what you meant...

Barcelona is neither more nor less prosperous than any other city in the first world, I would say.

Perhaps we should consider another way of thinking about the phenomenon that something (in this case "full-frame-ness") is simultaneously received by one group as progressive and by other group as regressive...

[AlanG]

... but it can never be a replacement of a view/rangefinder, no more than an SLR ever could be.

 

Well rangefinders and direct viewfinders work the same on any camera regardless of the format. Of course they can be large or small, bright or dim too based on design choices not related to sensor size. So the only issues for smaller cameras is if they use an EVF in place of what might otherwise be a smaller dimmer SLR system. With some cameras the choice is between an EVF or no eye level viewing system at all. And I see a lot of people (amateurs?) using the LCDs on their DSLRs when shooting as this is what many people think of as the way to shoot photos today.

[lct]

Rangefinders were not, are not and will never be TTL viewing cameras.

[Rick]

Seeing actual things with my real eyes is pretty cool.

 

Not only cool but, also what every thing else is judged by. An OVF is perceived by the eye as analog, and analog is the ultimate sensory experience for the analog visual system. Whereas, an EVF view finder is perceived by the eye as digital, and digital is not the ultimate sensory experience for the analog visual system.

 

Even the best EVF will be just an n'th approximation of the analog experience of the visual system.

[lct]

Rangefinders were not, are not and will never be TTL viewing cameras.

But they could well become soon or late rangefinders + TTL cameras.

[Guest Ornello]

Can someone give me a coherent explaination of this fetish for "full frame"? It would seem

that there's something - other than nearly 80 years of film production - that makes 24X36

some magical ratio. I can understand it in the film world where developing reels, printing

frames etc. needed to be standardized but I'm sure my computer doesn't care what the

initial pixel dimensions are.

Leica certainly broke new ground with the S series and it's new "negative" size, but it seems nothing else has broken with tradition. (I know some p&s cameras have a

"panorama" setting, but it's not a frame size, just a mask from "regular" 35mm ratios)

I think I'd like to see a native 16X9 quality camera since many of my photos only see life

on the large screen display.

Any comments?

 

It is not clear to me what you mean.

[pico]

mmh, that was what you meant...

Barcelona is neither more nor less prosperous than any other city in the first world, I would say.

Perhaps we should consider another way of thinking about the phenomenon that something (in this case "full-frame-ness") is simultaneously received by one group as progressive and by other group as regressive...

 

Perhaps your students turning to film is due to the influence of their instructor, perhaps through his own photography, enthusiasm, and pointing out the particular look of film prints and the darkroom experience.

 

Dunno. Just a thought.

 

The former Chair of our photography department had the wet darkroom shut down. They had a perfect room for a 14' tall 8x10 Saltzman enlarger that I restored. I was willing to donate and install it. She said, "There won't be any film in this department". The last film oriented instructor retired at the same time I did. And she was demoted. It's all digital now. So it goes.

[pico]

Not only cool but, also what every thing else is judged by. An OVF is perceived by the eye as analog, and analog is the ultimate sensory experience for the analog visual system. Whereas, an EVF view finder is perceived by the eye as digital, and digital is not the ultimate sensory experience for the analog visual system.

 

Even the best EVF will be just an n'th approximation of the analog experience of the visual system.

 

For certain experiments I use a Panasonic G1. I agree that the view is like a little TV screen, but worse in that in bright light the camera dims the view so that bringing the finder to the eye is a disconcerting experience as the eye adjusts to the darker view. It's grainy, low rez, and appears unnaturally desaturated. It is just terrible.

[tobey bilek]

I am happy using ff because the image is large and beautiful and there are lenses made for that format that do specific things, micro, T&S, portrait that do not work well with crop sensor cameras.

 

If you just want a tourist camera, save the weight and bulk and buy something smaller with nice zoom lens. You will be a happy camper.

[Manolo Laguillo]

Perhaps your students turning to film is due to the influence of their instructor, perhaps through his own photography, enthusiasm, and pointing out the particular look of film prints and the darkroom experience.

 

Dunno. Just a thought.

 

The former Chair of our photography department had the wet darkroom shut down. They had a perfect room for a 14' tall 8x10 Saltzman enlarger that I restored. I was willing to donate and install it. She said, "There won't be any film in this department". The last film oriented instructor retired at the same time I did. And she was demoted. It's all digital now. So it goes.

 

In my department we agreed in no closing the darkroom, and that was a wise decision.

 

Other schools in Barcelona (mainly private ones) closed their darkrooms, and installed "digital labs" instead.

 

I don't think young people use film because of the instructor's influence. It's the spirit of these times what's behind these trends toward the vintage. We live in an epoch that is "retroprogressive", as one writer here in my country describes it...

 

Back in the 80's I had in my darkroom at home a 4x5 Beseler enlarger, and an 8x10 enlarger that I put together with pieces from here and there. The Saltzman... what a piece of equipment!

[Advertisement]

Hallo,

Look here: Interesting Leica gear

[pico]

Back in the 80's I had in my darkroom at home a 4x5 Beseler enlarger, and an 8x10 enlarger that I put together with pieces from here and there. The Saltzman... what a piece of equipment!

 

I'm not smart enough to convert a 4x5 to the kind of 8x10 enlarger I want - to do 4X enlargements.

 

This Particular Saltsman, sans-lenses - has been passed around for free a few times as people fail to find a place to set it up. It takes at least two strong men (or a smart one with pulleys and come-alongs) to place the center post. A real beast. The best part is that it is made of entirely American stock sizes of steel tubing, gears and chain available at our local farm hardware supply house. (How appropriate, eh?) Oh, you would love the condensers (yes, it's a condenser model) - 14" in diameter.

 

Wow - have I drifted.