gdanmitchell Offline Upload & Sell: Off
|
molson wrote:
Where did the silly "miniMF" name come from? By definition, medium format is anything larger than 24x36mm and smaller than 4x5.
Your presumption is incorrect on several counts.
Traditional MF was a variety of film formats that were possible with 120/220 film, which is 6cm wide. Various flavors include 6 x 4.5 (645), 6x6, 6x7, 6x17, etc. What they all had in common was the 6cm film width. (For the record, there were also other sheet film LF formats smaller than 3x5.)
Digital sensors larger than full frame have come in a range of sizes. A few extremely expensive backs actually are comparable to the smallest of the original MF sizes, but most are a little bit smaller. However, the 33mm x 44cm miniMF format is quite a bit smaller, and actually closer to full frame 24mm x 36mm than to the film MF formats.
When Pentax introduced the excellent and ground-breaking 645d in 2010, it was almost universally regarded as something quite special. However, quite a few people felt that the use of the "645" naming was misleading, meant to suggest the use of the formal that was already known as 645. The 33mm x 44mm sensor in the Pentax camera most certainly was not the same as that 645 format.
There is no complete agreement about any of this, but lots of MF film folks recognize that the 33 x 44 digital format is a lot smaller than what they called MF. So the term "miniMF" gained some acceptance as a way to acknowledge that the format is larger than full frame but smaller than traditional MF formats.
Personally, I don't see why miniMF would be a problematic label. It indicates the positive (bigger than full frame) of the format and openly acknowledges ("mini") that it is smaller than what most people think of as MF. It also brings come clarity to the comparison to the larger digital MF back systems that preceded it.
The naming doesn't change the capabilities of the 33 x 44mm sensor systems at all, but it does provide a more accurate way to describe them relative to other formats.
molson wrote:
So I guess anything less than 6x9 cm would be considered "miniFF" then.
Probably anything less that 645, though so far I've only seen the term applied to 33mm x 44mm. It is specific to the 33 x 44 format used in the Fujifilm GFX, Pentax 645d and 645z, and Hasselblad X1D.
molson wrote:
Technically, only Canon has FF (24x36 mm) cameras - all the Sony sensors are slightly smaller than 24x36, so I guess we should start calling them "miniFF"...?
The differences among full frame sensors amounts to nothing of consequence. You wouldn't notice it if you held them in your hand.
Example:
D850: 35.9 x 23.9 mm
A7rII: 35.9mm x 24.0mm
5DsR: 36mm x 24mm
A total difference range of .1mm at most. :-)
Take care,
Dan
For a fun comparison, calculate the crop factor relationship between full frame and miniMF. You'll find that the difference is a lot smaller than that between full frame and 1.5x crop, much less 1.6x crop.
Edited on Nov 02, 2017 at 09:49 AM · View previous versions
|