FX

[David Mantripp]

The D3 is Nikon's first full frame DSLR, calling the format FX (a new name for something that we've had for the past 85 years – thanks Nikon, we needed that)

Actually, I think that makes perfect sense. Less and less people will remember what "35mm film" means, and there are plenty of people who argue that "full frame" is equally applicable to other systems, for example 4/3rds, where the system is, of itself, full frame.

So yes, thanks Nikon, I'd say that is considerably less useless than a lot of marketing gunk.  Certainly less inane than "1Ds MkIII".

[NikosR]

I agree. What we 'had for the last 85 years' was finally standardized as '135'. To my knowledge nobody uses that for digital.

I believe FX makes much more sense than EXPEED or DIGIC or any other brand name marketing is throwing at us.

What is the alternative? 24x36mm is too long and maybe not accurate enough in some cases, full frame or FF has the problems drm stated, 35mm or 135 has only a historical significance which many younger people cannot relate to.

I wish all industry people would agree on a naming convention for the approx. 24x36mm sensor size be that FX or whatever.

[BJL]

I am not sure if "FX" is a good name for 24x36mm format, but it sure beats the highly ambiguous "Full Frame", and even "35mm" is somewhat ambiguous.

In the moving picture world, "35mm" means about 18x24mm or a vertical crop from that ... and the movie world is probably where most 35mm film is used these days.

As to "Full Frame equals 24x36mm": if I use a digital back with a 24x36mm sensor on a medium format camera body with MF lenses, it is reasonable to call it "Full Frame"? Of course not: it imposes a massive crop on all available lenses. Hasselblad gets flack for referring to a MF camera with sensor more than twice that big as "Full Frame".


The unambiguous name "24x36" is used routinely in Italian photographic magazines, and is shorter than "full frame", but apparently two unambiguous numbers is too scary for some people.

So maybe frame diagonal lengths:
645 is 42x56mm, diagonal 70mm
36x48mm is 60mm diagonal
24x36mm is 43mm diagonal
DX is 28mm diagonal
EF-S is 27mm diagonal
4/3" is 22mm diagonal
current digicams are 10mm diagonal and less.

[DarkPenguin]

Should we read anything into Nikon naming a sensor size after a bad film?

[Don Libby]

I thought the movie industry used “FX” as a term for special effects….



don

[DarkPenguin]

I thought the movie industry used “FX” as a term for special effects….
don
[a href=\"index.php?act=findpost&pid=135358\"][{POST_SNAPBACK}][/a]

Guess what the bad film was about.

As an aside to the aside I don't mind FX and much prefer FX and DX to full frame and crop.

[NikosR]

The unambiguous name "24x36" is used routinely in Italian photographic magazines, and is shorter than "full frame", but apparently two unambiguous numbers is too scary for some people.

24x36 maybe unambigous but is not accurate for either the D3 or the 5D, two of the three 'full frame' cameras out there.

[wolfnowl]

24x36 maybe unambigous but is not accurate for either the D3 or the 5D, two of the three 'full frame' cameras out there.
[a href=\"index.php?act=findpost&pid=135381\"][{POST_SNAPBACK}][/a]

The 5D and the 1Ds cameras all have 24x36 mm sensors.  The D3 sensor is listed as 23.9x36mm.  Pretty fine hair to split...

Mike.

[mahleu]

Aps-c seems to have stuck for crop sensors, so maybe something like aps-f?

Of course if it was easy to get brands to cooperate then we'd all have interchangeable lenses.

[Rob C]

I am not sure if "FX" is a good name for 24x36mm format, but it sure beats the highly ambiguous "Full Frame", and even "35mm" is somewhat ambiguous.

In the moving picture world, "35mm" means about 18x24mm or a vertical crop from that ... and the movie world is probably where most 35mm film is used these days.

As to "Full Frame equals 24x36mm": if I use a digital back with a 24x36mm sensor on a medium format camera body with MF lenses, it is reasonable to call it "Full Frame"? Of course not: it imposes a massive crop on all available lenses. Hasselblad gets flack for referring to a MF camera with sensor more than twice that big as "Full Frame".
The unambiguous name "24x36" is used routinely in Italian photographic magazines, and is shorter than "full frame", but apparently two unambiguous numbers is too scary for some people.

So maybe frame diagonal lengths:
645 is 42x56mm, diagonal 70mm
36x48mm is 60mm diagonal
24x36mm is 43mm diagonal
DX is 28mm diagonal
EF-S is 27mm diagonal
4/3" is 22mm diagonal
current digicams are 10mm diagonal and less.
[a href=\"index.php?act=findpost&pid=135312\"][{POST_SNAPBACK}][/a]

As a matter of interest, could you suggest any good Italian photo magazines, please? (This isn´t a challenge to what you wrote - it´s a genuine interest in buying one or two; I read Italian well enough.)

I did once find a copy of one called PHOTO, which I seem to remember was an Italian version of the French and US mags of the same name; the French one is far better - IMO - than the US one because it doesn´t promote the travel industry: it promotes photography. Anyway, French editors - possibly European ones as a whole - appear to me to suffer far less from the fear of some moral minority which, whether offended or not, would most probably not be buying the particular offending magazines anyway! Nothing to fear but fear itself, as someone far brighter than I once penned.

At the end of the day, perhaps it doesn´t really matter at all whether there is consensus about nomenclature: folks probably buy whatever looks good to them and is within their budget. I´m not sure whether one should abandon the 35mm film notion as a sort of standard format - after all, most people who bought 35mm cameras didn´t know or care about the movie provenance of the film they were using, but since photography in the ´smaller´sizes is long established, I guess it will be the lens supply that ends up being the deciding factor of what will survive or, better, flourish.

With digital capture, there is no need to purchase a standard film format, so where the need to conform, other than as per the lens criteria alluded to above?

As for the naming of specific cameras, just look at the meaningless rubbish by which cars are named! Nikon was okay up to the F5, after which a sense of confusion seemed to develop, at least, in the dearer range. Perhaps a case of too many products, much like Mercedes, where going downmarket with smaller cars didn´t do a whole lot to the image. Merc Elk for Christmas, anyone?

Ciao - Rob C

[NikosR]

The 5D and the 1Ds cameras all have 24x36 mm sensors.  The D3 sensor is listed as 23.9x36mm.  Pretty fine hair to split...

Mike.
[a href=\"index.php?act=findpost&pid=135390\"][{POST_SNAPBACK}][/a]

The only 24x36 camera is the 1Ds. The 5D is 35.8 x 23.9. I agree it's fine hair to split, but still 24x36 is not accurate for thes cameras.

[Eric Myrvaagnes]

The only 24x36 camera is the 1Ds. The 5D is 35.8 x 23.9. I agree it's fine hair to split, but still 24x36 is not accurate for thes cameras.
[a href=\"index.php?act=findpost&pid=135555\"][{POST_SNAPBACK}][/a]

While looking for even finer hairs to split, I can't resist pointing out that the 5D is 23.9 x 35.8, and not 35.8 x 23.9 (following the convention in the "24 x 36" terminology, where the first number is height and the second is width).

So there!  

[David Mantripp]

As a matter of interest, could you suggest any good Italian photo magazines, please? (This isn´t a challenge to what you wrote - it´s a genuine interest in buying one or two; I read Italian well enough.)
[a href=\"index.php?act=findpost&pid=135403\"][{POST_SNAPBACK}][/a]

Rob, whilst there may well be some good ones, the mainstream ones on newstands here aren't up to much.  They tend to be quite badly printed and very heavy on the gear reviews - which are nothing special.  The French ones are far better. And actually, there are some quite good British ones emerging. DSLR magazine for example.  Of course they all end up repeating themselves.

[BJL]

Like Dave (drm), I cannot say that any Italian magazine is excellent, though at least they tend to give MTF graphs in reviews whereas the English language press declares that such objective, quantitative data would be to confusing, and instead offers us things like color coded tables of SQF percentage scores instead.

Anyway, "24x36" is not unique to Italy; it might be common through out Europe: I notice that Chasseur d'Images also uses "format 24x36".


And 24x36 is plenty close enough for 23.9x36 or even 23.9x35.8! using whole numbers only claims accuracy to within 0.5mm in each direction.

It is certainly way closer than using "APS-C" to describe formats as small as Canon's 14.8x22.2mm and always smaller than 16x24mm, given that APS-C film format is a 16.7x25.1mm.

Then there is the absurdity of Canon using the name "APS-H" (a film format with dimensions 16.7x30.2mm, aspect ratio 1. for the format of the EOS-1D models (18.7x28.1): wrong size, wrong shape, and a reference to an obsolete and never popular film format. Why does Canon do that? To avoid saying "1.3x crop"?

[Ray]

I can't understand these concerns about the description 'full frame". Hands up all those who are confused by the term   .

Apart from the long-winded process of actually specifying the dimension of the sensor, the clearest, most unambiguous appellation of any sensor format that I've come across is "full frame". When the sensors in MFDBs reach the size of 6x4.5cm (give or take a milliimetre or fraction thereof), then we shall have to be a little more specific in order to avoid confusion and use the appellation "full frame 35mm" when referring to 24x36mm sensors.

If you are not convinced, let's have a look at the other names given to various formats and see just how imprecise and sometimes incomprehensible they are.

(1) APS-C. This was the name given to a 'smaller than 35mm film' format which was actually 25.1x16.7mm. It's sometimes used to describe sensors which are smaller than 36x24mm, but smaller by a variety of different degrees. When the term is used for old-fashioned film, we know exactly what the dimensions are, even if we have to look it up. When the term is used for sensors, it could refer to any of a variety of similar but not identical sizes.

(2) Cropped Format. This term is equally as imprecise as APS-C. It could refer to any size from 28.7x19.1mm to 22.2x14.8mm.

(3) Medium Format. When referring to film, this could be any of a variety of sizes from 6x4.5cm to 4x5in. When referring to digital sensors it generally means a size ranging from 35mm to double that of 35mm, or for the confused, approximately 24x36mm to 36x48mm.

(4) Large Format. This could refer to any format larger than 4x5in, although it's not always clear to me whether 4x5 is the largest of the MF formats or the smallest of the LF formats.

(5) However, the most absurd nomenclature of all is that used for the P&S digital cameras. Hands up all those who know off the top of their head the precise dimensions referred to as 1/2.5", 1/2.7", 1/1.8", 2/3" etc etc   . These sizes seem to bear no relationship to the diagonal of the sensor nor its width nor its height.

According to the dpreview glossary, these terms refer to the outer diameter of 1950's TV camera tubes. Now you can't get sillier than that, can you?

So just remember when knocking the term "full frame", that this is the most unambiguous and precise term of the lot.

[Rob C]

Ray

I think you have made a fairly good case for the FF description. I would be a little more precise with the medium format range, because I think it was always supposed to include all the variations possible on 120 film.

As for 4x5, that has always sounded large format to me, mainly on the feeling that anything too big for roll packaging falls into LF. This does not preclude smaller sheet film sizes from being MF either, but I doubt that many of those exist anymore. I used to buy 1/4  plate film for some years in the dim dark ages for copying stuff and making slides and titles for prints (double printing... long-winded and boring as hell) but those days are, thankfully, long behind me now.

I still think that there is an argument to name new digital formats after the lenses they can handle or, indeed, require. Perhaps a new, lens-based idea would put the emphasis elsewhere.

Rob C

[BJL]

I can't understand these concerns about the description 'full frame". Hands up all those who are confused by the term
[a href=\"index.php?act=findpost&pid=135869\"][{POST_SNAPBACK}][/a]

The confusion is that the wording "full frame" implies that the "non-full" alternative is "cropped frame", and it it confusing (or just plain wrong) to use the idea of cropping for combinations like FourThirds bodies and lenses, or EF-S bodies with EF-S lenses, where no cropping is going on unless you decide to do so.

Apart from the long-winded process of actually specifying the dimension of the sensor

How is "24x36" or even "24x36mm" more long winded that "full frame"? (5, 7 and 10 characters respectively.) How have the poor Europeans managed with "24x36" all these years?

To me, the insistence on avoiding shorter and more accurate numerical specifications, or even "35mm" (utterly well understood in the context of still photography) is a hint of the hidden agenda for some of those who insist so much on using "full frame" as synonym for "24x36" or "35mm".

If you are not convinced, let's have a look at the other names given to various formats and see just how imprecise and sometimes incomprehensible they are.

(1) APS-C.

Agreed, a bit vague, and strange to use an obsolescent and rather unsuccessful film format to describe hugely successful and far better known DSLR formats.
But at least in the DSLR context "APS-C" is now established as referring to only the small range from EF-S to DX.

(2) Cropped Format. ... This term is equally as imprecise as APS-C. It could refer to any size from 28.7x19.1mm to 22.2x14.8mm.

This is not really a format name at all! It refers to a wide variety of situations where the sensor format is smaller than the format for which the available lens system is designed, including 33x44mm and 36x48mm when used with medium format film camera lens systems.

(3) Medium Format. ..
(4) Large Format. ...

Again, obviously neither of these names refers to a single format, but to a range of formats and usually to certain types of camera.
When people do wish to specify a particular format of these types, they do exactly what I advocate: specify approximate dimensions like 645 (6x4.5cm, roughly), 6x6, 6x7 etc. for MF, 4x5, 8x10 etc. for LF.

(5) However, the most absurd nomenclature of all is that used for the P&S digital cameras.

Absurd maybe, but at least they are all precisely and unambiguously defined.

Ray, your list of other format names studiously omits a number of familiar and well understood options. To paraphrase you, who in practice is confused by any of the following well established format names:

35mm, 24x36, 645, 6x6, 6x7, 6x8, 4x5, 5x7, 8x10.

(And I am happy to add 16x24 to this list for DX/DA/DT/DC/DI-II etc., as I have also seen in European sites.)

[BJL]

I think you have made a fairly good case for the FF description.
[a href=\"index.php?act=findpost&pid=135960\"][{POST_SNAPBACK}][/a]

Rob, two simple questions:
- in what way to you find the common European naming "24x36" problematic?
- In what way do you find "full frame" superior to "24x36", or even "35mm"?

[JeffKohn]

How is "24x36" or even "24x36mm" more long winded that "full frame"? (5, 7 and 10 characters respectively.)

In text, you have a point. But when speaking, "full frame" is only two syllables (in English, anyways), while "24x36mm" is eleven syllables.

I think Nikon's FX format designation makes perfect sense. It's two letters, unambiguous, assumes no knowledge of "legacy" (ie film) formats, and builds on the DX designation which they've been using for cropped sensors since first going digital.

[BJL]

In text, you have a point. But when speaking, "full frame" is only two syllables (in English, anyways), while "24x36mm" is eleven syllables.
[a href=\"index.php?act=findpost&pid=137336\"][{POST_SNAPBACK}][/a]

"Twenty-four thirty-six" is six syllables, and I talk fast. But OK, when we meet to talk about photography, I will use "Old Film Format", which is what 24x36mm is and probably always will be for 99% of camera users.

On the internet, I will type "24x36".

I would be happy with "FX", but I doubt it will catch on over at Canon!