molson wrote:
It only seems to be a handful of resentful people who don't have one and are stuck with their little miniature-format cameras that refer to it as "miniMF"
I call it minMF. I have three different systems (Pentax 645Z, Leica S and X1D). It's the calling of 36x24 "full frame" that seems weird to me. It's a term I won't use because they're all "full frame" I just call that 35mm. Maybe they're compensating or something.
Ideally all the formats would be described by their diagonal (although the Canon folks would feel inadequate ) and lenses by their angle of view.
flash wrote:
Ideally all the formats would be described by their diagonal (although the Canon folks would feel inadequate ) and lenses by their angle of view.
But Canon is the only company actually making 24x36mm sensors - it's the Sony sensors (also used by Nikon and Pentax) that come up a bit short of being "full" frame.
This is correct. Basically, if you use a camera with a higher resolution so that you can make larger prints than you now produce* you have to pay attention to all of the things that you have always had to pay attention to that affect the maximum print size. These include the full range of things that can affect print resolution, including camera stability, lenses, aperture choice, focus, subject motion, sharpening and other post-processing work, and so on.
But if you compare at the same size (e.g — not 100% magnification crops from different resolution sensors) there will be no difference in the amount of motion blur. The ideal way to see this is to make prints. You can also verify by viewing same-size jpgs on-screen, but that does introduce some variables that might affect what you see....Show more →
You may be an ad hominem magnet. Did the other kids in school roll their eyes at you because you had the right answers? Just kidding, of course, but I do think your need for specificity may be aligning with your current opinions on (mini)MF versus full frame in this case. When I take a lens off my GFX and see the sensor, the last thing it conjures up in my mind is the word "mini" – and this is coming from someone who used to shoot 645, 6x7, and 6x9 film. How about at least using "MMF" so I don't have to read the word "mini" and see it written in lowercase?
---
Regarding motion blur: Would it be fair to say then, when you move to a much higher pixel density on the same size sensor, it is prudent to pay attention to your shutter speed? – Because: 1.) You can more freely crop your images and 2.) because you can make larger prints. [edit] Never mind – I see you're saying exactly this and more in your message.[/edit]
flash wrote:
I call it minMF. I have three different systems (Pentax 645Z, Leica S and X1D). It's the calling of 36x24 "full frame" that seems weird to me. It's a term I won't use because they're all "full frame" I just call that 35mm. Maybe they're compensating or something.
Ideally all the formats would be described by their diagonal (although the Canon folks would feel inadequate ) and lenses by their angle of view.
Gordon
It's too confusing to use 35mm to describe full-frame in the context of discussing focal length equivalents between the formats, so in that case I don't think we have any choice but to say full-frame. Otherwise this sentence gets written, "So using the 45mm GF lens on the GFX is like your 35mm lens on 35mm." That's confusing as all get-out.
I like the idea of standardizing diagonally. Wasn't there a regulation passed in the 70s or 80s that forced television manufacturers to start labeling their TVs this way? They need to pass that on down to camera sensors.
flash wrote:
I call it minMF. I have three different systems (Pentax 645Z, Leica S and X1D). It's the calling of 36x24 "full frame" that seems weird to me. It's a term I won't use because they're all "full frame" I just call that 35mm. Maybe they're compensating or something.
Ideally all the formats would be described by their diagonal (although the Canon folks would feel inadequate ) and lenses by their angle of view.
Gordon
Heck, I'm wondering we don't need a new paradigm to address digital sensors – completely separate from film:
Mobile Format (iPhone)
Compact Format (micro 4/3)
Small Format (APS-C)
Standard Format (35mm)
Medium Format (GFX/X1D)
Large Format (H6D up to 6x7)
Industrial Format (4x5 range)
I know some of these go against film conventions, but the way we term things right now is beyond ridiculous.
molson wrote:
But Canon is the only company actually making 24x36mm sensors - it's the Sony sensors (also used by Nikon and Pentax) that come up a bit short of being "full" frame.
highdesertmesa wrote:
It's too confusing to use 35mm to describe full-frame in the context of discussing focal length equivalents between the formats, so in that case I don't think we have any choice but to say full-frame. Otherwise this sentence gets written, "So using the 45mm GF lens on the GFX is like your 35mm lens on 35mm." That's confusing as all get-out.
I like the idea of standardizing diagonally. Wasn't there a regulation passed in the 70s or 80s that forced television manufacturers to start labeling their TVs this way? They need to pass that on down to camera sensors.
Maybe we just need some special sqiggle to differentiate. Like the hashtag is used in social media. ~35mm or ^35mm? Or we could go old school and call it 135 format.
flash wrote:
Maybe we just need some special sqiggle to differentiate. Like the hashtag is used in social media. ~35mm or ^35mm? Or we could go old school and call it 135 format.
flash wrote:
Maybe we just need some special sqiggle to differentiate. Like the hashtag is used in social media. ~35mm or ^35mm? Or we could go old school and call it 135 format.
Gordon
I think "35mm-format" might work and require less explanation.
I frequent a few other sites which have active medium format boards and none of them refer to this format as MiniMF. They refer to the format as medium format and there really is no confusion with any of the discussions.
Sometimes keeping things simple is the best approach rather than coming out with yet more classifications...we have enough already.
After all, we don’t have a miniApsc for the smaller Canon crop sensor.
This really has been a fascinating discussion, and I have read it with interest, but...to get back to the subject of the thread, here are three pics from my weekend trip to Ocenaside, Oregon:
gdanmitchell wrote:
That is a harder one to explain in words. A picture or two could make it pretty simple. Perhaps time for an article about it at my blog...
Thanks for your article link. I got the motion blur thing after some time alone to console myself, having to give up Internet Group Think Syndrome™ and all. I enjoyed the other part of the article about apparent sharpness between low and higher MP sensors. Interesting. But didn't the original 5D have a very weak AA filter that may account for some of the difference? It was really really difficult for me to accept viewing 5D Mk IV images at 1:1 after coming from the original 5D, but I did like the 5D Mk IV color. Sometimes I wonder if based on the previous statement, the 1DX Mk II might be a good choice for me if I add a Canon back to the arsenal. But part of me worries they have used a 5D Mk IV-strength AA filter on it.
highdesertmesa wrote:
Thanks for your article link. I got the motion blur thing after some time alone to console myself, having to give up Internet Group Think Syndrome™ and all. I enjoyed the other part of the article about apparent sharpness between low and higher MP sensors. Interesting. But didn't the original 5D have a very weak AA filter that may account for some of the difference? It was really really difficult for me to accept viewing 5D Mk IV images at 1:1 after coming from the original 5D, but I did like the 5D Mk IV color. Sometimes I wonder if based on the previous statement, the 1DX Mk II might be a good choice for me if I add a Canon back to the arsenal. But part of me worries they have used a 5D Mk IV-strength AA filter on it. ...Show more →
Good point about AA filters, especially on the earlier cameras. They do have an effect on initial image sharpness.
On more recent cameras where we had a choice of AA-filtering and non-AA-filtering models, it turned out that the difference was quite minimal in the end, and the difference in terms of aliasing effects was also minimal.
You usually don't get visible aliasing with non-AA-filtering cameras, and even AA-filtering cameras are not immune to the effect. I used to see with with cameras that had AA filters. At the same time, while the AA-filtering cameras start out with a sharper raw file, at the end of the workflow there is little difference between them at the comparable versions with AA filtering.
We had the option with the Nikon D800 and D800e and then with the 5Ds and the 5DsR. Before I got my 5DsR I worried a lot about whether a) I would see artifacts if I went with the 5DsR and b) whether I would sacrifice sharpness by going with the 5Ds. I got my hands on some raw files from both, took them through a full post-processing workflow... and in the end I could get pretty much equal (and very high) resolution from both.
I finally decided that the difference was trivial and invisible in virtually all cases. I also noted that more cameras were being released w/o AA filtering, especially in larger and higher resolution formats. I decided that the AA filter wasn't needed.
