full frame digital backs for Contax 645

[Zuikoholic]

We seem to agree then that with appropriate lenses, smaller formats are at no disadvantage for wide angle coverage.
[a href=\"index.php?act=findpost&pid=53529\"][{POST_SNAPBACK}][/a]

Yes, we agree on that. This was a problem previously, but nowadays the problem has been addressed - in the 35mm format anyway.

As to getting shallow DOF, 35mm generally matches or outdoes all other formats, larger and smaller. In comparison to medium format, this is due to the typically lower minimum aperture ratios of 35mm format prime lenses. For example, Hasselblad's current square MF lenses are limited to f/2.8, which matches about f/1.4 in 35mm format for DOF.
[a href=\"index.php?act=findpost&pid=53529\"][{POST_SNAPBACK}][/a]

But even so, unless faster lenses are offered with an image circle to cover 4x4, the cropped format will suffer in terms of DOF in my opinion.

Don't get me wrong on all this - I am shooting nice shallow DOF photos with nice blurry backgrounds with my 5D and will continue to do so. I can wait as long as it takes for medium format to produce what I want. If they never do, it still won't bother me unduely - I have virtually given up on M.F. but would take it up again if I can get hold of a 6x6 sensor. If I can't, then I'll stick with 35mm format FF dSLRs.

It's just that I like shooting with the 'Blad! I like looking down at the large square focusing screen and taking my photos at waist height, and I like the square format so that I don't have to hold the camera awkwardly to get a vertical crop. I miss using the 'Blad and would welcome technology which would let it "live again" - but in the meantime, I'm constantly shooting with the 5D so if the 6x6 digiback never happens, I won't have been holding my breath - I'm getting on with my life, and they are welcome to tap me on the shoulder later if they want my money - but they'll only get my money if they offer me what I want.

It's no big deal really if it doesn't happen, but if they can make it happen, then I want them to know that there is at least one person here who wants a 6x6 digiback (Christmas is around the corner, so I'll check under the tree - you never know!   )

[BJL]

But even so, unless faster lenses are offered with an image circle to cover 4x4, the cropped format will suffer in terms of DOF in my opinion.
[a href=\"index.php?act=findpost&pid=53565\"][{POST_SNAPBACK}][/a]

Indeed, and for people with substantial current investment in a system like Hasselblad (or high end 35mm format), this is a major part of the argument for backward compatibility, including matching sensors to the old film formats. Hasselblad/Fuji do indeed offer new faster lenses for their new "H" system than the classic "V system" (500 series) lenses; f/2.2 compared to f/2.8 and so on. But the transition cost is very high, requiring a new H body, and an adaptor if you wish to also use the old lenses on that new body.

The transition to new somewhat smaller formats could in part be generational, completed only as a new generation of photographers grow up on the new formats.


P.S. Maybe "5x4" is a better nick-name than 4x4 for the new formats of 49x37 mm and 48x36 mm? And "4x3" for the other new option of 44x33 mm?

[Eric Myrvaagnes]

P.S. Maybe "5x4" is a better nick-name than 4x4 for the new formats of 49x37 mm and 48x36 mm? And "4x3" for the other new option of 44x33 mm?
[a href=\"index.php?act=findpost&pid=53638\"][{POST_SNAPBACK}][/a]

"5x4" would be misleading as to the shape, since 48x36 has precisely the proportions of 4x3. If you need distinguishable nicknames, how about "big 4x3" and "small 4x3", assuming the slight difference between 49x37 and 48x36 is inconsequential.

Truth in advertising and all . . .

Eric

[BJL]

"5x4" would be misleading as to the shape, since 48x36 has precisely the proportions of 4x3.
[a href=\"index.php?act=findpost&pid=53642\"][{POST_SNAPBACK}][/a]

True. Though "truth in advertising" did not stop the name "6x7" being used for a format that is actually 56x70mm, almost exactly 4:5!

For those who believe the "Full Frame" refers specifically and uniquely to 36x24mm, how about calling 48x36mm "Double Frame", or "Double Wide", as in a large transportable home?

[Zuikoholic]

For those who believe the "Full Frame" refers specifically and uniquely to 36x24mm, how about calling 48x36mm "Double Frame", or "Double Wide", as in a large transportable home?
[a href=\"index.php?act=findpost&pid=53656\"][{POST_SNAPBACK}][/a]

I for one prefer to refer to all full-frame formats as 'full-frame' (or FF if you prefer). It is usually made clear what system is being referred to (35mm format or medium format are the only relevant choices anyway, aren't they?).

As for '35mm format' I guess we could call it 135 format (with medium format being referred to as 120 format, or 220 format perhaps) - but no-one ever seems to use this terminology (APS was fortunate in having its own name that everyone can remember - funny, as this format in film is virtually - or entirely? - extinct).

[BJL]

I for one prefer to refer to all full-frame formats as 'full-frame' (or FF if you prefer) ... 35mm format or medium format are the only relevant choices anyway, aren't they? ...
[a href=\"index.php?act=findpost&pid=53659\"][{POST_SNAPBACK}][/a]

There is at least one other digital SLR format in which the sensor records the full frame, because the sensors are of the size for which the lenses were designed: FourThirds (18x13.5mm). And all fixed lens digital cameras are Full Frame, I suppose.

I sometimes like to use "FF" to stand for "Film Format": digital cameras with sensors matching one of the film formats and thus matched to existing lenses for those formats. For now, 36x24mm is the only such FF option.

I also like the custom I have seen in some European magazines of referring to formats by explicit frame dimensions such as 36x24mm. Names like 35mm and 135 are slightly ambiguous, because that same film format was also used by the "single frame" format of 24x18mm.