Archived posting to the Leica Users Group, 2008/09/23
[Author Prev] [Author Next] [Thread Prev] [Thread Next] [Author Index] [Topic Index] [Home] [Search]I don't care about my DSLR's which I've been using the past two years being cropped either the quality is good and its a lot easier to shoot with more depth of field. The 1.5 or thereabouts crop gives you right about half frame format and I always like that format for that an other reasons. Compactness. - they were in camera bodies half the size of regular 35mm film camera bodies and the APS-2 cameras are the size of full 24x36 SLR film camera bodies of the 70's. Many of which were heavier than a Rolleiflex. I'm looking forward to the quality of image I'd be getting from a sensor in which a normal is 45 or 50. Not 35 or 28. mark@rabinergroup.com Mark William Rabiner > From: Ken Iisaka <ken@iisaka.org> > Reply-To: Leica Users Group <lug@leica-users.org> > Date: Tue, 23 Sep 2008 10:22:10 -0700 > To: Leica Users Group <lug@leica-users.org> > Subject: Re: [Leica] R10 in development > > 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