Re: Official: Fujifilm GFX 50S Medium Format Announced!
Matt Grum wrote:
Can we call it 44x33 instead of \"mini-MF\"? Then we have a series of designations that refer to the actual size of the sensor (even if it referring to the gross size of the film and not the actual recording area):
35mm
44x33
645
6x6
6x7
6x9
4x5
8x10
There are problems with your \"actual size of the sensor\" basis:
35mm does not refer to the \"size of the sensor,\" which in full frame is nominally 24mm x 36mm
645 (and the other \"6\" formats) are not the actual size, either — the \"6\" dimension is actually always smaller than 6.
FF, miniMF, and MF are simple, clear, and consistent in their use of adjectives to modify \"format.\" They are also three in number... rather than ten! ;-)
Conversation:
A: \"Do you use FF, miniMF, or MF?\"
B: \"That\'s too complicated. Let me simplify this and make it more logical for you. 24 x 36 full frame should actually be called 35mm. miniMF should (mostly) be called 44x33 or 33x44, unless it is a bit different than that, and maybe 45 x 30. MF should be called 645, 6x6, 6x7, 6x9, 4x5, or 8x10. Unless it is one of the other digital MF formats that isn\'t one of those. Oh, and that 6? You are probably thinking those sensors a 6cm in one dimension, right. Well, not really. Maybe, or maybe not, more like 56mm.\"
A: \"OK, I think I get it. So, 4x5 is smaller than 6x7, then, right? And 44 x 33 must be HUGE compared to things like 6x6, yes?\"
Yeah, that\'s logical!
;-)
Dan
Sep 27, 2016 at 07:45 AM
Previous versions of gdanmitchell's message #13742333 « Pre-order: Fujifilm GFX 50S Medium Format body ($6,499) »
