zhangyue
Offline
Upload & Sell: On
|
 Re: Fuji's marketing concept? | |
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.
Nielk Mike wrote:
zhangyue wrote:
gdanmitchell wrote:
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.
EBH
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.
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.
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?
|
