I think \"Full Frame\" is the odd, conjured up, totally ambiguous and historically absent term prior to digital that we should dispense with. I think it\'s a marketing term put forth by duopolists that connoted that once you had a 24mm x 36mm sensor you needed nothing else. Which was convenient because their lenses just happened to be designed around that particular format. Then they proceeded to call every format smaller than \"small format 35mm\" a \"crop format\" even if they already had other names like \"super 35\" or \"APS\". Which is strange because I remember when crop format referred to non 1:1 square formats in any category.
Agree for cameras and sensor sizes, but when it comes to lenses, we now have lenses that do not cover the full image circle or frame the lens mount was designed for. Within one lens mount, the designation \"FF\" for a lens is unambiguous.
Agreed from the perspective of a particular lens mount (like say EF) to sensor relationship. But now that mirrorless is really disrupting the older lens mounts we have a bunch of new lens mounts which are all \"FF\". It ends up not really being all that descriptive anymore but seemingly used as a pejorative towards other formats even if they are FF themselves. Like the iPhone or the GFX50 which are both \"FF\". But it seems like FF has come to be synonymous with 35mm (24mm x 36mm) small format.
Sep 27, 2016 at 08:49 AM
Previous versions of rbf_'s message #13742434 « Pre-order: Fujifilm GFX 50S Medium Format body ($6,499) »
