Archived posting to the Leica Users Group, 2008/09/23
[Author Prev] [Author Next] [Thread Prev] [Thread Next] [Author Index] [Topic Index] [Home] [Search]Last I've heard that term used it was used to connote the shape of the thing fitting an 8x10 print. I think it was 6x7 instead 6x9. As ways of slicing up the Brownie film pie. mark@rabinergroup.com Mark William Rabiner > From: slobodan dimitrov <s.dimitrov@charter.net> > Reply-To: Leica Users Group <lug@leica-users.org> > Date: Tue, 23 Sep 2008 10:40:55 -0700 > To: Leica Users Group <lug@leica-users.org> > Subject: Re: [Leica] R10 in development > > So, if I said "ideal format" you wouldn't know what it meant? > s.d. > > On Sep 23, 2008, at 10:22 AM, Ken Iisaka wrote: > >> Indeed. Although I don't yet consider myself an old fart, I have >> used a >> variety of format so I just picked and chose appropriate lenses for >> each of >> the format. There is no notion of "full-frame" AFAIC. >> >> I've used: >> >> Minox (8x11mm) >> 110 (13x17mm) >> Four-Thirds (13.5x18mm) >> Canon digital (15.1x22.7mm) >> Half-frame 35mm (18x24mm) >> Leica M8 (18x27mm) >> Leica 35mm (24x36mm) >> 126 (28x28mm) >> 127 (36x38mm) >> 645 (42x56mm) >> 66 (56x56mm) >> 67 (56x68mm) >> 69 (56x84mm) >> 45 (96x122mm) >> >> So, I don't know what "full-frame" really means. :) :) >> >> I don't really care about my M8 being "cropped." With a 35mm >> Summilux-ASPH, >> it's better than M6 with Noctilux. >> >> On Tue, Sep 23, 2008 at 8:36 AM, Lottermoser George >> <imagist3@mac.com>wrote: >> >>> ; ~ ) indeed >>> >>> I would like people >>> to speak >>> simply and accurately >>> in terms of size >>> >>> as an elder-fart >>> we always referred to 8x10, 6x6, 6x9, 35mm etc. >>> in harmony with focal length of lens >>> never heard of "full frame" (a term totally without meaning) >>> 'til digital sensors arrived >>> >>> tell me the specific >>> sensor size (or film dimension) >>> and lens focal length >>> I can visualize >>> the field of view >>> with that information >>> >>> this "crop factor" "full frame" "35mm equivalent" >>> stuff just turns a simple thing into double speak >>> >>> Fond regards, >>> George >>> >>> george@imagist.com >>> http://www.imagist.com >>> http://www.imagist.com/blog >>> http://www.linkedin.com/in/imagist >>> >>> >>> >>> On Sep 23, 2008, at 9:54 AM, Douglas Sharp wrote: >>> >>> Hi George >>>> I suggest calling "normal" format "Double-cine" or "Barnack" >>>> format :-) >>>> (I refrain from writing "OB" format, OB is the best selling >>>> brand of >>>> Tampons in Germany) >>>> Cheers >>>> Douglas >>>> >>>> >>>> Lottermoser George wrote: >>>> >>>>> never understood >>>>> "normal" >>>>> (except as a city in Illinois) >>>>> >>>>> never met a normal person >>>>> never met a normal lens >>>>> >>>>> glass plate, tintype cameras: >>>>> 6.5 x 8.5 inches Full-plate >>>>> 4.5 x 5.5 inches Half-plate >>>>> 3.125 x 4.125 inches Quarter-plate >>>>> 2.5 x 3.5 inches Sixth-plate >>>>> 2 x 2.5 inches Ninth-plate >>>>> 1.625 x 2.125 inches Sixteenth-plate >>>>> .5 x 1 inch Gem >>>>> >>>>> film cameras that I've actually used: >>>>> 12 x 20 inches >>>>> 11 x 14 inches >>>>> 8 x 10 inches >>>>> 5 x 7 inches >>>>> 4 x 5 inches >>>>> 3.25 x 4.25 inches >>>>> 2.25 x 3.25 inches >>>>> various polaroid formats from 8x10 to sx70 >>>>> 2.25 x 2.75590553 inches >>>>> 2.25 x 2.25 inches >>>>> 24 x 36 mm >>>>> 16 mm >>>>> >>>>> film cameras I've not used: >>>>> half frame >>>>> minox (what ever size that is) >>>>> variwide (what ever size that is) >>>>> and many other specialized formats >>>>> >>>>> Digital sensor cameras (a partial list): >>>>> 4 x 3 mm >>>>> 4.536 x 3.416 mm >>>>> 4.8 x 3.6 mm >>>>> 5.27 x 3.96 mm >>>>> 6.4 x 4.8 mm >>>>> 7.176 x 5.319 mm >>>>> 8.8 x 6.6 mm >>>>> 12.8 x 9.6 mm >>>>> 18 x 13.5 mm >>>>> 22.7 x 15.1 mm >>>>> 23.7 x 15.6 mm >>>>> 25.1 x 16.7 mm >>>>> 36 x 24 mm >>>>> 30 x 45 mm (Leica S2) >>>>> 56 x 41.5 mm >>>>> >>>>> "normal" format >>>>> and related lenses >>>>> have never existed >>>>> in the world of photography >>>>> for more than a short time >>>>> >>>>> "normal" = whatever >>>>> camera/lens you're making >>>>> a photograph with >>>>> >>>>> Fond regards, >>>>> George >>>>> >>>>> george@imagist.com >>>>> http://www.imagist.com >>>>> http://www.imagist.com/blog >>>>> http://www.linkedin.com/in/imagist >>>>> >>>>> >>>>> >>>>> On Sep 23, 2008, at 1:40 AM, Mark Rabiner wrote: >>>>> >>>>> To me a normal lens is what spells it out. >>>>>> >>>>> >>>>> >>>>> _______________________________________________ >>>>> Leica Users Group. >>>>> See http://leica-users.org/mailman/listinfo/lug for more >>>>> information >>>>> >>>>> >>>> _______________________________________________ >>>> Leica Users Group. >>>> See http://leica-users.org/mailman/listinfo/lug for more information >>>> >>> >>> >>> _______________________________________________ >>> Leica Users Group. >>> See http://leica-users.org/mailman/listinfo/lug for more information >>> >>> >> >> >> -- >> Ken Iisaka >> first name at last name dot org or com >> >> _______________________________________________ >> Leica Users Group. >> See http://leica-users.org/mailman/listinfo/lug for more information > > > _______________________________________________ > Leica Users Group. > See http://leica-users.org/mailman/listinfo/lug for more information