Re: Official: Fujifilm GFX 50S Medium Format Announced!
GMPhotography wrote:
Dan it\'s the same crap...
Chill, OK?
Lee Saxon wrote:
But then there\'d be people on forums arguing about whether we should\'ve used horizontal or diagonal field of view
And, of course, which focal length will provide that angle-of-view on whatever format they are using!
It is what it is.
For those \"doing math,\" a quick and dirty approximation is useful. Using a 50MP miniMF sensor provides you very close to what you would get by stitching two 24MP full frame images with a typical overlap.
But what about 6x6, 6x7, and 6x9 - do they become squareMF, slightlywiderthansquareMF and sameaspectratioas35mmMF?
If I were King Of Format Naming — I\'m not — I would do what we already do with, for example, at least one smaller format: we say \"cropped sensor\" while recognizing that there are two versions at 1.6x and 1.5x. It isn\'t that complicated.
When it comes to classic (?) medium format, we aren\'t really introducing a new problem, as the term \"medium format\" (or \"MF\") has always included quite a range of sub-formats, many of which have been listed in this thread.
In most naming schemes, at least where many things are possible, there is always some tension between the need to identify each possible variation precisely and the value of collecting some of them into useful groupings.
Re: Official: Fujifilm GFX 50S Medium Format Announced!
GMPhotography wrote:
Dan it\'s the same crap...
Chill, OK?
Lee Saxon wrote:
But then there\'d be people on forums arguing about whether we should\'ve used horizontal or diagonal field of view
And, of course, which focal length will provide that angle-of-view on whatever format they are using!
It is what it is.
For those \"doing math,\" a quick and dirty approximation is useful. Using a 50MP miniMF sensor provides you very close to what you would get by stitching two 24MP full frame images with a typical overlap.
gdanmitchell wrote:
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! ;-)
But what about 6x6, 6x7, and 6x9 - do they become squareMF, slightlywiderthansquareMF and sameaspectratioas35mmMF?
If I were King Of Format Naming — I\'m not — I would do what we already do with, for example, at least one smaller format: we say \"cropped sensor\" while recognizing that there are two versions at 1.6x and 1.5x. It isn\'t that complicated.
When it comes to classic (?) medium format, we aren\'t really introducing a new problem, as the term \"medium format\" (or \"MF\") has always included quite a range of sub-formats, many of which have been listed in this thread.
In most naming schemes, at least where many things are possible, there is always some tension between the need to identify each possible variation precisely and the value of collecting some of them into useful groupings.
Re: Official: Fujifilm GFX 50S Medium Format Announced!
GMPhotography wrote:
Dan it\'s the same crap...
Chill, OK?
Lee Saxon wrote:
But then there\'d be people on forums arguing about whether we should\'ve used horizontal or diagonal field of view
And, of course, which focal length will provide that angle-of-view on whatever format they are using!
It is what it is.
For those \"doing math,\" a quick and dirty approximation is useful. Using a 50MP miniMF sensor provides you very close to what you would get by stitching two 24MP full frame images with a typical overlap.
Dan
Sep 27, 2016 at 02:04 PM
Previous versions of gdanmitchell's message #13742890 « Pre-order: Fujifilm GFX 50S Medium Format body ($6,499) »
