FX

[Ray]

BJL,
I've never come across a reference to the Olympus 4/3rds system as a 'cropped format'. However, I don't spend much time on other photographic forums. Maybe you do and see a problem here.

I'm all in favour of greater precision in our expressions and don't really have a problem specifying precise dimensions except when the actual dimension vary by some small degree from the oft quoted dimensions. My mind then usually switches off. For example, the image size of 6x4.5 film is actually slightly smaller, but I'm blowed if I can remember by how much.

As for the smaller P&S formats, the appellations used might all be precisely defined, but who can remember what the precise dimensions are? In fact, there'd be a lot of P&S owners who wouldn't have a clue as to the size of their sensor, either in terms of height and width or in terms of that archaic terminology such as 1/2.5" or 1/2.7".

There'd be a lot of people also who would not know that the 35mm format is precisely 24x36mm, but I'd be surprised if they were at all confused by the term itself, either 35mm or full frame 35mm.

[Rob C]

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"?
[a href=\"index.php?act=findpost&pid=137294\"][{POST_SNAPBACK}][/a]

Not problematic at all, in either case; it´s simply that to MY mind, FF comes more readily.

Also, I forget who wrote it here, but how can 35mm film be referred to as an unsuccessful format when I guess more 35mm cameras have been sold than any other kind, at least to people who consider themselves photographers to some degree or another.

A further funny tale: watching CSI Miami last night, an episode where some models get knocked off by a nutty photographer, one of the technicians refers to the photographer´s use of 35mm as ´that double-edged film - maybe he thinks of himself as Ansel Adams´. Say no more... if a movie set can´t speak photography properly, what hope for the wider world!

[GregW]

I think the selection of 'FX' was a very good move by Nikon.  The risk is that we might over think this because the reasons are probably more simple and profound than many of the arguments presented here imply.

- It alerts the broader market to the fact there are now two Nikon DSLR formats, DX and FX

- Nikon has run with the DX format for a long time.  It was important to make a strong marketing statement as well as an engineering one.

- It uses a similar nomenclature to the existing format DX so it's familiar to existing customers

- The 'F' element eludes to film but recognizes that 35mm is not a definition many people will understand or have experience of.

- Product choice is simple x1.0 FX or x1.5 DX.  There is no intermediary format x1.3 to think about.  The selection of FX helps Nikon make that point more strongly in an increasingly crowded market place.

We are often told that top end camera sales are more about creating a brand halo effect than absolute profit.  In that context a simple sensor/lens naming convention should make the marketers job easier.  Consider marketing APS-C, APS-H, Full frame as opposed to DX and FX.  Nikon's simplified approach also applies to lenses.  DX lenses are designed for DX bodies but are EF-S lenses optimized for APS-C or APS-H or Full frame sensors!

While I believe Nikon may have an advantage in it's simplified naming convention it remains to be seen if it's somewhat lack luster marketing team can leverage it.

[Rob C]

I think the selection of 'FX' was a very good move by Nikon.  The risk is that we might over think this because the reasons are probably more simple and profound than many of the arguments presented here imply.

- It alerts the broader market to the fact there are now two Nikon DSLR formats, DX and FX

- Nikon has run with the DX format for a long time.  It was important to make a strong marketing statement as well as an engineering one.

- It uses a similar nomenclature to the existing format DX so it's familiar to existing customers

- The 'F' element eludes to film but recognizes that 35mm is not a definition many people will understand or have experience of.

- Product choice is simple x1.0 FX or x1.5 DX.  There is no intermediary format x1.3 to think about.  The selection of FX helps Nikon make that point more strongly in an increasingly crowded market place.

We are often told that top end camera sales are more about creating a brand halo effect than absolute profit.  In that context a simple sensor/lens naming convention should make the marketers job easier.  Consider marketing APS-C, APS-H, Full frame as opposed to DX and FX.  Nikon's simplified approach also applies to lenses.  DX lenses are designed for DX bodies but are EF-S lenses optimized for APS-C or APS-H or Full frame sensors!

While I believe Nikon may have an advantage in it's simplified naming convention it remains to be seen if it's somewhat lack luster marketing team can leverage it.
[a href=\"index.php?act=findpost&pid=137484\"][{POST_SNAPBACK}][/a]

´The ´F´element eludes to film but recognizes that 35mm is not a definition many people will understand or have experience of.´

So, all today´s camera buyers are teenagers, then? Well, as you probably think that you have just invented sex too, not a far-out statement.

[GregW]

So, all today´s camera buyers are teenagers, then? Well, as you probably think that you have just invented sex too, not a far-out statement.
[a href=\"index.php?act=findpost&pid=137495\"][{POST_SNAPBACK}][/a]

Unwittingly Rob, you're closer than you think to an explanation.  Since the mid 90's a clear trend emerged in the industry.  Women rather than men became the primary purchases of cameras.  This trend has continued and according to the PMA; the key US market now stands at 62%.  In the 12 months to June 2007 51% of DSLR purchasers were women.  Digital camera purchasers are more likely to have high speed wireless internet access, smartphones and other gadgets.  According to last years Frost and Sulivan industry trends DSLR purchasers were likely to be in the demographic range of 25-35.  Most of the people in this group refered to digital compact camera's or instant one time use film cameras as their first exposure to taking pictures.

I stand by what I said.  The majority of people purchasing DSLR's today are neither experts or committed to brand x or y.  It seems as though the critical requirement is to be able to take good or better photo's of their kids.

Sex.  Remind me.  When was it invented?  In the 60's?