In article , nospam wrote:
the terms half-frame and full-frame came to be when olympus
introduced a half-frame film camera over 50 years ago
Of course not, using a smaller part of the 135-film has been done far longer.
The Robot camera shot 24x24mm on 135-film as well as 18x24mm and that was 85
years ago. Back then, the 36x24 format was called the "Leica" format, and
24x18 was the normal cine format, used for film cameras.
and there was a need to differentiate it from standard 35mm cameras.
the terminology has carried into the digital age.
Difference is, of course, that the term "full frame" these days means a
camera without a crop factor. And crop factor, as we know, is only a variable
when it comes to the lens.
medium format has never used the term full-frame because there are
multiple sizes in common use. it's always been the actual frame
size, such as 6x7, 6x6 or 6x4.5, sometimes included in the name of
the camera, e.g., pentax 6x7.
Ironic that you should make this claim in a thread about a news article about
a medium format sensor manufacturer that is using the term "full frame" to
designate a sensor that is as close as the smallest version of medium format
as has been done.
https://www.phaseone.com/en/Products/Camera-Systems/XF100MP.aspx
"We were the first to offer Full Frame Medium Format CCD systems
and now we?re proud to be the first to offer a Full Frame Medium
Format CMOS solution."
there can only be one meaning of the term full frame, which is
24x36mm, the same as 35mm film.
36x24mm, what was first called the Leica format, was called both "full frame"
and "double frame" in the really early days, but 135-film has been used in
"fuller" frames than that. There were 58x24mm panoramic cameras that used far
more of the film.
It is true, however, that the 18x24mm format was generally called "half
frame" because it was half the frame of the most widely used format; 36x24mm,
but there wasn't people going around saying they're shooting "full frame"
with their Nikon F3, because that would be the normal film size, so no need
for a distinction, the distinction was only needed when cameras used a
smaller (or larger) film size on 135-film.
Contrast with digital cameras, that came about in an era where just about
everyone shot with 135-film in the normal 36x24mm size, but their sensors
weren't "full frame", so again the distinction was important, as was the crop
factor since you were using your normal Nikon and Canon lenses with your
digital sensor but not getting the same result.
that's why a standard 35mm lens works with the smaller crop sensors
and also why a medium format lens can be used on a full frame or
crop frame camera, with an appropriate adapter.
Correct. And with digital medium format cameras up until a few years ago, the
same crop factor math was applicable when using an 80mm medium format lens on
a digital back with a smaller-than-645 sensor.
http://www.dpreview.com/articles/611...ch-reducer-to-
mount-medium-format-lenses-on-full-frame-cameras Chinese lens
manufacturer Kipon has announced that next year it will make
available a reducing adapter thatıs designed to allow medium
format lenses to fit on full frame cameras. The adapter will have a
magnification factor of 0.7x which it says will both widen the
effective focal length of the lens in use and widen its effective
aperture.*
Yes, adapters such as these are called "speed boosters" and exists for most
of the crop cameras out there. Hadn't heard of such a solution for MF lenses
on 35mm cameras though
--
Sandman