Steve Spencer wrote:
It isn't even true as a percentage increase, but that doesn't stop Dan from saying it over and over again. Fuji APS-C has an area of 367 square mm. Full frame 35mm has an area of 864 square mm. FF 35mm is 2.35 times larger in area. Half of that would be 1.17 times as large. The 33 X 44 sensor has an area of 1452 square mm, which is 1.68 times as large as FF 35mm, so much larger than 1.17 times half the the size difference between APS-C and FF 35mm.
FF is 135% bigger than APSC and MF is 68% bigger than FF, so I think that is the origin of "its about half as much bigger". But that's not how you compare the size of things. The FF sensor is 497 sq.mm bigger than APSC and MF is 588 sq. mm bigger than FF. So the opposite is true, the difference is sensor size is greater between MF and FF than it is for FF to APSC.
Nov 11, 2025 at 12:13 AM
Steve Spencer Offline • • • • • • • Upload & Sell: On
SGinNorcal wrote:
FF is 135% bigger than APSC and MF is 68% bigger than FF, so I think that is the origin of "its about half as much bigger". But that's not how you compare the size of things. The FF sensor is 497 sq.mm bigger than APSC and MF is 588 sq. mm bigger than FF. So the opposite is true, the difference is sensor size is greater between MF and FF than it is for FF to APSC.
I agree. Comparing percentages here is quite misleading and doesn't deal with the fact that there are different aspect ratios too. I find a useful way to compare is considering depth of field with each sensor. If I use a 4 X 3 aspect ratio, then the difference between FF 35mm and 44 X 33 is about a stop in depth of field (it rounds to 1.4 times the FF 35mm f stop gets me the same depth of field as on 44 X 33), so an f/2 in FF 35mm gets me the same depth of field as f/2.8 on a 44 X 33 sensor. This is very similar to the difference in depth of field between Fuji APS-C and FF 35mm. Here we are used to multiplying the APS-C f stop by 1.5 to get the FF 35mm depth of field), so an f/2 APS-C lens gets me the same depth of field as a FF 35mm set to f/3.0. When thought about this way the difference between 44 X 33 and FF 35mm is about the same as the difference between FF 35mm and Fuji APS-C. I find Dan's math misleading.
Creative Edge wrote:
absolutely right, I forgot about that sensor. That one would be large format digital as it is the largest sensor, then the 33x44 would be medium format..
Forgot to add, back in the film days, where you had 6x9, 6x7, 6x6 and 645, no one called 645 mini medium...
Actually, in the '30s to '50s there were a number of folding 6x4.5 cameras that had 'Semi' in their model names to indicate they used half of the more common 6x9 format.
Creative Edge wrote:
orgot to add, back in the film days, where you had 6x9, 6x7, 6x6 and 645, no one called 645 mini medium...
All of those used the same “medium format” film with the 6cm width. That’s why they all consistently have “6” in their names.
(“645,” an abbreviation for 5cm x 4.5cm, used the film width for the longest dimension of the image, while the others used it for the short dimension. IN all of them the usable width of the film was slightly less than 6cm, as mentioned earlier in the thread.)
Steve Spencer wrote:
I agree. Comparing percentages here is quite misleading and doesn't deal with the fact that there are different aspect ratios too. I find a useful way to compare is considering depth of field with each sensor. If I use a 4 X 3 aspect ratio, then the difference between FF 35mm and 44 X 33 is about a stop in depth of field (it rounds to 1.4 times the FF 35mm f stop gets me the same depth of field as on 44 X 33), so an f/2 in FF 35mm gets me the same depth of field as f/2.8 on a 44 X 33 sensor. This is very similar to the difference in depth of field between Fuji APS-C and FF 35mm. Here we are used to multiplying the APS-C f stop by 1.5 to get the FF 35mm depth of field), so an f/2 APS-C lens gets me the same depth of field as a FF 35mm set to f/3.0. When thought about this way the difference between 44 X 33 and FF 35mm is about the same as the difference between FF 35mm and Fuji APS-C. I find Dan's math misleading....Show more →
That's one way, but I look at it by usage. For example a portrait or human photo might encompass the full 3:4 (MF) image where a 2:3 (FF, 35mm) image would be cropped from the long ends to obtain the same. In that case the usable MF/FF ratio would be 1.375x linearly and 1.89x by area. OTOH if the camera is used for a wide landscape then if the extra height of the MF image is cropped to 2:3 then the usable MF/FF ratio would be 1.22x linearly and 1.49x by area. Much of time the usable ratio will be somewhere inbetween.
EB-1 wrote:
That's one way, but I look at it by usage. For example a portrait or human photo might encompass the full 3:4 (MF) image where a 2:3 (FF, 35mm) image would be cropped from the long ends to obtain the same. In that case the usable MF/FF ratio would be 1.375x linearly and 1.89x by area. OTOH if the camera is used for a wide landscape then if the extra height of the MF image is cropped to 2:3 then the usable MF/FF ratio would be 1.22x linearly and 1.49x by area. Much of time the usable ratio will be somewhere inbetween.
All true. For me personally, I use a 4 X 3 aspect ratio for a large majority of my shots including landscapes, so the 1.4X ratio is the one that makes most sense for me, but for others who use a 2 X 3 or even a skinnier aspect ratio then the 1.2X ratio makes sense. It is part of the reason I have always said that what aspect ratio you typically use is something that people considering the formats should think about.
Analog film formats are completely irrelevant for digital sensor formats. There is no direct relation. Digital medium format delivers quality that is comparable to what significantly larger format film is able to produce.
Using a 1:1 size comparison to justify a silly term like “miniMF” is a very thinly veiled attempt at trolling. It’s neither funny, nor intelligent.
Fuji GFX and Hasselblad X are digital medium format systems. There is nothing “mini” about them. Continuing with that childish bit only discredits the person who perpetuates it ad nauseam.
vineyard wrote:
Analog film formats are completely irrelevant for digital sensor formats. There is no direct relation. Digital medium format delivers quality that is comparable to what significantly larger format film is able to produce.
Using a 1:1 size comparison to justify a silly term like “miniMF” is a very thinly veiled attempt at trolling. It’s neither funny, nor intelligent.
Fuji GFX and Hasselblad X are digital medium format systems. There is nothing “mini” about them. Continuing with that childish bit only discredits the person who perpetuates it ad nauseam.
In the digital world…why do we have to revert back to comparing against the analog world. Medium format in digital is medium format period. Calling it mini just shows one’s ignorance on the subject.
SGinNorcal wrote:
FF is 135% bigger than APSC and MF is 68% bigger than FF, so I think that is the origin of "it’s about half as much bigger". But that's not how you compare the size of things. The FF sensor is 497 sq.mm bigger than APSC and MF is 588 sq. mm bigger than FF. So the opposite is true, the difference is sensor size is greater between MF and FF than it is for FF to APSC.
There’s a link for ther down in this post of mine that will show you a bunch of such comparisons among a range of formats. (
see “really complicated” below.)
- - -
EB-1 wrote:
That's one way, but I look at it by usage. For example a portrait or human photo might encompass the full 3:4 (MF) image where a 2:3 (FF, 35mm) image would be cropped from the long ends to obtain the same. In that case the usable MF/FF ratio would be 1.375x linearly and 1.89x by area. OTOH if the camera is used for a wide landscape then if the extra height of the MF image is cropped to 2:3 then the usable MF/FF ratio would be 1.22x linearly and 1.49x by area. Much of time the usable ratio will be somewhere inbetween.
It is really impossible to come up with a singular, perfect way of comparing formats with different aspect ratios. It is really complicated.
When it comes to comparing a 3:2 and a 4:3 aspect ratio, I think that each user needs to think about how they would use the two of them. My case is the most sympathetic to miniMF — I shoot FF (3:2) and most often crop to 4:3 because I like that format. So the comparison here is more favorable to the larger format than it would be in the other two cases.
Calculating the numbers is interesting. I’ve done it for a bunch of formats. (See the link above.) But what it really comes down to is how it looks in your preferred output, whether that’s screen images or prints.
There is one other way that the comparative values can prove interesting, and that is understanding the relationships between different pairs of formats to see what they might mean. A basic one that might be a useful frame of reference for many photographers using digital systems is that the difference between miniMF and FF is about half as great as the difference between FF and APS-C.
Of course the comparison also needs to incorporate the qualit of the lesser system. For example, when we say that miniMF is somewhere between 1.22 and 1/37 times FF (looked at from one perspective most favorable to the larger format), it is useful to ask (simplifying here) what is it that it is 1.37 better than? If the starting point is already quite good — say in the cases of 60MP Sony sensor camera — it isn’t like comparing no good to excellent. It is more like comparing excellent to a little more excellent. ;-)
- - -
vineyard wrote:
Analog film formats are completely irrelevant for digital sensor formats. There is no direct relation. Digital medium format delivers quality that is comparable to what significantly larger format film is able to produce..
It is a bit more nuanced than that.
I’d say that (based on various published tests and on work I’ve seen from friends who use the format) that miniMF is as good as 4x5 in terms of image resolution and better than 4x5 color in terms of things like dynamic range.
On the other hand, a lot of folks make a big deal out of the supposed “MF look” from miniMF systems, in parallel with the difference in “look” between 35mm film and MF film formats like 645 and larger. But miniMF is not as big as those and the look is going to be, in one sense, no more than halfway from FF to 645.
For the umpteenth time, I’m not saying that there’s anything bad about the format — I’ve said the opposite, actually.
- - -
chez wrote:
Calling it mini just shows one’s ignorance on the subject.
gdanmitchell wrote:
There’s a link for ther down in this post of mine that will show you a bunch of such comparisons among a range of formats. (
see “really complicated” below.)
- - -
It is really impossible to come up with a singular, perfect way of comparing formats with different aspect ratios. It is really complicated.
When it comes to comparing a 3:2 and a 4:3 aspect ratio, I think that each user needs to think about how they would use the two of them. My case is the most sympathetic to miniMF — I shoot FF (3:2) and most often crop to 4:3 because I like that format. So the comparison here is more favorable to the larger format than it would be in the other two cases.
Calculating the numbers is interesting. I’ve done it for a bunch of formats. (See the link above.) But what it really comes down to is how it looks in your preferred output, whether that’s screen images or prints.
There is one other way that the comparative values can prove interesting, and that is understanding the relationships between different pairs of formats to see what they might mean. A basic one that might be a useful frame of reference for many photographers using digital systems is that the difference between miniMF and FF is about half as great as the difference between FF and APS-C.
Of course the comparison also needs to incorporate the qualit of the lesser system. For example, when we say that miniMF is somewhere between 1.22 and 1/37 times FF (looked at from one perspective most favorable to the larger format), it is useful to ask (simplifying here) what is it that it is 1.37 better than? If the starting point is already quite good — say in the cases of 60MP Sony sensor camera — it isn’t like comparing no good to excellent. It is more like comparing excellent to a little more excellent. ;-)
- - -
It is a bit more nuanced than that.
I’d say that (based on various published tests and on work I’ve seen from friends who use the format) that miniMF is as good as 4x5 in terms of image resolution and better than 4x5 color in terms of things like dynamic range.
On the other hand, a lot of folks make a big deal out of the supposed “MF look” from miniMF systems, in parallel with the difference in “look” between 35mm film and MF film formats like 645 and larger. But miniMF is not as big as those and the look is going to be, in one sense, no more than halfway from FF to 645.
For the umpteenth time, I’m not saying that there’s anything bad about the format — I’ve said the opposite, actually.
Sorry, couldnt help on chime in this BS. Who the hell call this miniMF other than you? if anyone prefer 3X4 ratio, the area is 1.9X, almost double the area of FF sensor. It will collect double the light, or can print 1.9X area for a given quality.
Why you need put "mini" on this? Is that helping on any discussion?
There is nobody, really nobody care about its name until you make this a big deal and come out every single time to make something big out of nothing. This becomes repetitive and boring.
Nowdays, when people talk about MF digital, most rational people will naturally think about Fuji and Hasselblad that both used 44X33 format. People call that MF digital, anything wrong? Why you need create a personal term and keep bring this up? What goal you are trying to achieve?
If I keep bring up "tinyFF" to format discussion, do you see it is funny or helpful to any discussion?
BTW, nothing in term of format is really complicated. It is all about brain size. Sorry I couldnt help on trolling as well.
gdanmitchell wrote:
There’s a link for ther down in this post of mine that will show you a bunch of such comparisons among a range of formats. (
see “really complicated” below.)
It is really impossible to come up with a singular, perfect way of comparing formats with different aspect ratios. It is really complicated.
A basic one that might be a useful frame of reference for many photographers using digital systems is that the difference between miniMF and FF is about half as great as the difference between FF and APS-C.
- - -
- - -
Ok, I looked at the chart. It doesn't seem really complicated. If you compare all 3 formats at 3:2, which is worst case for the Gfx, then it does tilt the scale to where the difference of APSC to FF is larger than FF to Gfx by a small amount. No where near 2x. Can you explain, using mathematics, how your claim is true?
I shoot mostly 4:3, like the Gfx, and don't really care. It just bothers me to see this repeated without basis.
zhangyue wrote:
Sorry, couldnt help on chime in this BS. Who the hell call this miniMF other than you? if anyone prefer 3X4 ratio, the area is 1.9X, almost double the area of FF sensor. It will collect double the light, or can print 1.9X area for a given quality.
Why you need put "mini" on this? Is that helping on any discussion?
There is nobody, really nobody care about its name until you make this a big deal and come out every single time to make something big out of nothing. This becomes repetitive and boring.
Nowdays, when people talk about MF digital, most rational people will naturally think about Fuji and Hasselblad that both used 44X33 format. People call that MF digital, anything wrong? Why you need create a personal term and keep bring this up? What goal you are trying to achieve?
If I keep bring up "tinyFF" to format discussion, do you see it is funny or helpful to any discussion?
BTW, nothing in term of format is really complicated. It is all about brain size. Sorry I couldnt help on trolling as well. ...Show more →
Medium format for me has always started with 6x6. Fuji is smaller - so it can be called miniMF if one so likes. Why getting so upset?
Nov 14, 2025 at 04:29 AM
Steve Spencer Offline • • • • • • • Upload & Sell: On
gdanmitchell wrote:
There’s a link for ther down in this post of mine that will show you a bunch of such comparisons among a range of formats. (
see “really complicated” below.)
- - -
It is really impossible to come up with a singular, perfect way of comparing formats with different aspect ratios. It is really complicated.
When it comes to comparing a 3:2 and a 4:3 aspect ratio, I think that each user needs to think about how they would use the two of them. My case is the most sympathetic to miniMF — I shoot FF (3:2) and most often crop to 4:3 because I like that format. So the comparison here is more favorable to the larger format than it would be in the other two cases.
Calculating the numbers is interesting. I’ve done it for a bunch of formats. (See the link above.) But what it really comes down to is how it looks in your preferred output, whether that’s screen images or prints.
There is one other way that the comparative values can prove interesting, and that is understanding the relationships between different pairs of formats to see what they might mean. A basic one that might be a useful frame of reference for many photographers using digital systems is that the difference between miniMF and FF is about half as great as the difference between FF and APS-C.
Of course the comparison also needs to incorporate the qualit of the lesser system. For example, when we say that miniMF is somewhere between 1.22 and 1/37 times FF (looked at from one perspective most favorable to the larger format), it is useful to ask (simplifying here) what is it that it is 1.37 better than? If the starting point is already quite good — say in the cases of 60MP Sony sensor camera — it isn’t like comparing no good to excellent. It is more like comparing excellent to a little more excellent. ;-)
- - -
It is a bit more nuanced than that.
I’d say that (based on various published tests and on work I’ve seen from friends who use the format) that miniMF is as good as 4x5 in terms of image resolution and better than 4x5 color in terms of things like dynamic range.
On the other hand, a lot of folks make a big deal out of the supposed “MF look” from miniMF systems, in parallel with the difference in “look” between 35mm film and MF film formats like 645 and larger. But miniMF is not as big as those and the look is going to be, in one sense, no more than halfway from FF to 645.
For the umpteenth time, I’m not saying that there’s anything bad about the format — I’ve said the opposite, actually.
Dan it is not really complicated and the problem with your description of these issues is that you oversimplify and talk about these issues in a condescending way that assumes that the person you are talking to can't understand the issues. You call it miniMF because it is smaller than MF film as if the person you are talking to needs to have that point made clear. When I have never seen any one on this forum who does not know that.
You then say things like, "A basic one that might be a useful frame of reference for many photographers using digital systems is that the difference between miniMF and FF is about half as great as the difference between FF and APS-C," when it is a way oversimplification and only comes close to being true when you make the worst case comparison. Again, you treat those with whom you are discussing these issues as if they can't understand the complexities and need to have it boiled down to something "useful." When that supposedly useful statement is just condescending and misleading.
Here's the thing. On this forum we really can understand these issues. We don't need them overly simplified, so drop the tone that it is so complicated we can't really understand it. We can. Continuing to trot out the same old overly simplified terms comes off as high handed and dismissive.
Nielk Mike wrote:
Medium format for me has always started with 6x6. Fuji is smaller - so it can be called miniMF if one so likes. Why getting so upset?
There is a history here. The term was first used years ago by the 'inventor' in discussion, disparaging the GFX. To many, it sounded like sour grapes.
Don't confuse film era nomenclature with digital era. If sensor size ever grows tremendously, maybe the inventor's comment will be prophetic! Wouldn't he love that.
Every discussion has background context.
I am not upset, not at all. I just did the same thing Dan really did to this forum.
Feel free to call it mini, tiny, micro if you like the term better for some reason (what for? Do you also name iPhone differently than industry name because historic reason? ) but keep it to yourself is one thing, brought out in every discussion is another.
BTW, if only 6x6 MF, what about 645,6x9?
Nielk Mike wrote:
Medium format for me has always started with 6x6. Fuji is smaller - so it can be called miniMF if one so likes. Why getting so upset?
Speaking for myself, the only reason the term "mini MF" bothers me is it adds confusion instead of clarification. In digital parlance, the digital sensor sizes larger than 35mm/Fx are the new "Medium Format," at least for the entire contemporary digital world. To those that never chose to adopt or try them out, it does seem that there might be a sort of turn their nose up thinking that they don't offer enough over digital Fx to justify the investment, but of course they'd be wrong in that assumption... However and in their defense somewhat, the "gap" between 60mp Fx and 100mp MFx is narrower than it was with 24mp Fx; but that's a different discussion... My final point here is that I shot a LOT of MF *and* LF film in the day, everything from 645 to 6x9 plus 4x5 and 8x10; and when I got my first 65mp digital back, I got notably superior technical results to anything I ever got with my best MF and LF film captures. My 45mp back before that was superior to any of the MF film captures I made...
PS: Ironically, we also had "Large format" digital for a time being with scanning backs. They were a 3" x 4" sensor size and it slipped into the film slot between the ground-glass and camera on conventional 4x5 film camera. An entirely different topic of discussion again, other than my point here is that nobody ever referred to them as "Mini LF" digital scanning backs...
For any format ratio approach square:4:3, 4:5,5:6,6:7,1:1.
The area is 1.9X, almost double. It is simple math and fact.
Do you need it? is it worth it? It is your thing, you can justify anyway you want but don’t pretend you are smarter and wiser to justify your choice.
gdanmitchell wrote:
It is far from “utterly unusable,” but performance is uneven. My experience:
Shooting small primes for street/travel the focus accuracy is usually quite good. It isn’t as fast as the fastest from other brands, but it is effectively fast.
Oddly, I have had a less satisfying experience with zooms, including the 16-55mm f/2.8, the 50-140mm f/2.8, and the 100-400mm. I’m still trying to understand why this is. To some extent it appears to be somewhat an issue of consistency — last week I was photographing at a wildlife refuge and I got some quite decent stuff from the 100-400 when shooting landscape subjects, but not quite as good or as consistent with wildlife, which was birds that were mostly nearly stationary.
Some recent misses with the 50-140 has perplexed me, since it has been been very sharp and accurate in the past, Still trying to figure that one out.
Generally the “misses” are still usable, but just not as sharp as i expect....Show more →
Fuji AF is not unusable - but needs to be watched more than, say, Sony AF. In AF-S, it can be 50cm to 1m off fromn shot to shot at mid distance (like 3m-10m). And that doesn't cause issues (mostly) unless the image is viewed at 100%. What I find more irritating is the focus beyond infinity that happens quite often when aiming at a distant subject (and unless the focus distance limiter function is set to "on"). Focus beyond infinity leads to an overall soft image which shows even when not at 100%. As you have noticed, AF is more "inconsistent" with zoom lenses, while my prime lenses (except for WA) fare much better.
Nielk Mike wrote:
Fuji AF is not unusable - but needs to be watched more than, say, Sony AF. In AF-S, it can be 50cm to 1m off fromn shot to shot at mid distance (like 3m-10m). And that doesn't cause issues (mostly) unless the image is viewed at 100%. What I find more irritating is the focus beyond infinity that happens quite often when aiming at a distant subject (and unless the focus distance limiter function is set to "on"). Focus beyond infinity leads to an overall soft image which shows even when not at 100%. As you have noticed, AF is more "inconsistent" with zoom lenses, while my prime lenses (except for WA) fare much better. ...Show more →
I really don't know what you are doing with your AF. When my cameras miss it is pretty obvious in the VF and I just recompose and give the AF a second chance which it normally gets. I rarely if ever get home to find when pixel peeping that the AF has missed from where I wanted it. Are you shooting fast moving subjects in continuousc AF?
