[Leica] The new Hasselblad is announced

[George Lottermoser]

> On Jun 23, 2016, at 1:28 PM, Sonny Carter <sonc.hegr at gmail.com> wrote:
> 
> Having been a 645 user in another life, I can assure you that it uses 120
> film, commonly known as medium format to photographers of my
> generation. (credibility
> unstretched or not)
> 
> 645 is actually a pretty nice frame size, but like 35mm, it's best to pick
> out as you shoot which you want, landscape or portrait.
> 
> No comes digital, and many cameras have the ability of setting the shape of
> the image through menus,  my iPhone does it, and my Sony A7s does it.  I
> don't think I get a choice with my M9.
> 
> The Leica M240 has choices in the video side.
> 
> No matter what, I really don't much care what shape the sensor is, because
> I format an image to fit the composition, not the other way around.
> That's why God gave us mattes.

always amazed by these “controversies.”
“medium” and “large” format obviously qualify as "relative” terms.
we, who grew up with the terms, know their meaning.

620 roll film, 120 roll film, 70 mm roll film, 
which included 6 x 4.5 cm, 6 x 6 cm, 6 x 7 cm, 6 x 9 cm frame cameras and or backs
were all referred to as “medium format.”

4 x 5" sheet film and larger were referred to as “large format”
even though 4 x 5" seems rather small when compared to 11 x 14" and 12 x 20".

2 1/4 x 3 1/4" sheet film - fell into a void - terminology wise.

And of course none of those terms has any particular relevance in digital sensor world.
Now we say “full frame” to describe a sensor more or less the size of a 24 x 36 mm film frame;
even as sensors (frames) come in every conceivable size from extremely tiny to relatively large;
with NONE reaching anywhere close to 6 x 6 cm or larger.

What is relevant and important, to me, 
is the actual size of the film and/or sensor
not relative terms
like full, medium, miniature, or large


Regards,
George Lottermoser 

http://www.imagist.com
http://www.imagist.com/blog
http://www.linkedin.com/in/imagist