On The Rocks - Episode Two Just Published

[Kevin Raber]

Our NEW On The Rocks video series Epsidoe Two has just been published. This episode we discuss sensor sizes. You can see the episode HERE

[coloniadelsacramento]

Enjoyed this episode, particularly find them useful when you isolate a single topic and discuss that, such as today's "sensors."  Focus helps. 

[platinumjstrain]

Certainly enjoyed Episode 2. For reasons that Jody may remember, I loved his crack about full frame equaling 8x10, since for a long time I used an 8x10 for landscape and architecture (and my wife wants me to get back to it). Kevin, I do not believe you and I have ever met, but in terms of experts from Roberts, you could not have picked better. Phil is my "go to" and Jody is the "go to" for professionals (which I am not). Keep these up. Jim

[toconnorphotography]

You have greatly improved the sound.  Each presenter was easy to understand where as in the first episode that was not the case.  Great job!

[Kevin Raber]

Improving and learning as we go.  Thanks.  Look for 2 more episodes in May. 

[wwlee]

Kevin, these are great!  Fun, informative... wish I was sitting there participating with a big whisky in hand!
Will

[Geoff_H]

Certainly enjoyed Episode 2. For reasons that Jody may remember, I loved his crack about full frame equaling 8x10, since for a long time I used an 8x10 for landscape and architecture (and my wife wants me to get back to it). Kevin, I do not believe you and I have ever met, but in terms of experts from Roberts, you could not have picked better. Phil is my "go to" and Jody is the "go to" for professionals (which I am not). Keep these up. Jim

Seems I'm one of the dinosaurs I kind of resent the use of Full Frame referring solely to the 35mm format equivalent, every format is Full Frame, if you are going to isolate one size it has to be the largest format.  One question to Roberts, is there any reason why you chose to show the Fuji's with Vertical grips attached it gave the impression they are bigger than the Canikon cameras.  It was good to see you were enjoying yourselves as well, how can I get to sample the Hotel Tango Bourbon???

Geoff

[Kevin Gallagher]

Kevin, these are great!  Fun, informative... wish I was sitting there participating with a big whisky in hand!
Will

THIS!!!

[Kevin Raber]

The Fuji shown was mine and I shoot with the grip.  It’s just the way I had it on the table that day.  And, it is kind of big with the grip.  I’ll have more on the Fuji in an upcoming article.

[Rand47]

Like the format.  Lots of fun. Thanks!

[semi-rant]
While I “get” where the idea of full frame came from - it’s not particularly helpful.  Funny how we went from 24x36mm being “miniature” to it being some kind of Holy Grail.  What is really bass-ackwards in my view is talking about crop factor in comparing lenses.  How the heck did we wind up with such a convoluted way to make comparisons - based upon an arbitrary base starting point of “miniature” film stock? How about angle of view as the basis of comparison?  This way of comparing lenses is both more meaningful (in terms of what the lens sees and will capture) and is sensor/film format agnostic.  Most folk learning photography today have never used film, and they’ve never used 35mm as their “starting point” in thinking about cameras.  Why not teach/explain from the get-go about angle of view and aperture maximum comparisons? When you talk crop factor, you still end up having to teach about angle of view anyway, so skip the irrelevant step.
[\semi-rant]

Illustrative conversations:

“Nice photo!”
“Thanks...”
“Is that a crop, or is that full frame?”
“Uh... do you mean did I use a sensor other than 24x36mm? Or do you mean did I use less of the image than my sensor originally captured in my editing?”

——

“Nice camera!”
“Thanks . . . “
“Is that full frame?”
“So far it seems to capture everything I see through the viewfinder.”
“No, stupid, I mean is the sensor 24x36mm in size, or have they cropped it?”
“No, I think they made it this way on purpose.  The sensor is the size it was originally designed to be - as far as I can tell.”
“Man, you’re really dense . . . If it isn’t 24x36mm is has been cropped!”
“Well, it’s 44x33mm so I guess they must have cropped larger?”
“You’re so stupid I don’t even want to talk to you anymore . . . “
——

“Great photo!”
‘Thanks...”
“What lens did you shoot that with?”
“90mm”
“Are you sure?  It looks like you shot it with a wide angle, not a short telephoto!”
“I’m pretty sure what lens I used...”
“I’m a very advanced full frame user, and I’m pretty sure that was a wide angle and not a short telephoto!”
“Right.”
“Right what?”
“It was shot with a 90mm wide angle.”
“You’re so stupid, I don’t even want to talk to you any more . . .”

Rand

[KLaban]

^

 

[Telecaster]

I like referring to my Pentax 645D as "fuller frame." 

-Dave-

[Kevin Raber]

we'll have to do an On The Rocks on the new vocabulary of photography and format sizes.  Fuller Format sounds good.

[Rand47]

I like referring to my Pentax 645D as "fuller frame." 

-Dave-

:-)  +1 for my 6x9 . . .

Rand

[Kevin Raber]

So, you mean bigger fuller frame?

[Rand47]

we'll have to do an On The Rocks on the new vocabulary of photography and format sizes.  Fuller Format sounds good.

Kevin,

I hope you caught my mini-rant as humorous, and not a cut on the fine video segment . . .   But I thought the video very accurately reflected the idiocy we've all subjected ourselves to on this.  Believe it or not, I've had variations on the faux conversations I wrote above!  LOL   I help out at a local camera club, and many of the members are newbies to photography.  I watch in horror as some "veterans" lead them down the rabbit hole of "full frame / crop sensor," then focal lengths and how they "don't compare at all" in terms of field of view on a given sensor format.  It gets hilarious.  After observing for the first year it finally dawned on me that us "old timers" were first teaching these digital natives all about "how it used to be" and then once they have a firm grasp on that, we tell them it's a lot different with digital because there are different sensor sizes, so you have to add this "crop factor" to get to an equivalent focal length.  Then once they understand this equivalency, we can now tell them about field of view so that they have one actually relevant comparator, and one totally fictitious one that they can now "unlearn."  It's a hoot if you think about it.  Then there's the "larger sensors gather more light" ... Really?  Yeah, it's just like if you drive your convertible car with the top down from a big state like Pennsylvania into Rhode Island (a "crop state") less light will fall on you!  Really?  Humm... not the best way to explain it.  Oh, it's "energy" kinda like solar panels. Bigger area, more energy gathered (signal).  And on it goes . . .   LOL

I think you guys could put together some really fun, humorous stuff, poking fun at us all! 

Rand

[Rand47]

So, you mean bigger fuller frame?

In the immortal words of "Obie Wan K-Schewe," "Exactamundo!"

Rand

[Stephen Scharf]

Like the format.  Lots of fun. Thanks!

[semi-rant]
While I “get” where the idea of full frame came from - it’s not particularly helpful.  Funny how we went from 24x36mm being “miniature” to it being some kind of Holy Grail.  What is really bass-ackwards in my view is talking about crop factor in comparing lenses.  How the heck did we wind up with such a convoluted way to make comparisons - based upon an arbitrary base starting point of “miniature” film stock? How about angle of view as the basis of comparison?  This way of comparing lenses is both more meaningful (in terms of what the lens sees and will capture) and is sensor/film format agnostic.  Most folk learning photography today have never used film, and they’ve never used 35mm as their “starting point” in thinking about cameras.  Why not teach/explain from the get-go about angle of view and aperture maximum comparisons? When you talk crop factor, you still end up having to teach about angle of view anyway, so skip the irrelevant step.
[\semi-rant]

Illustrative conversations:

“Nice photo!”
“Thanks...”
“Is that a crop, or is that full frame?”
“Uh... do you mean did I use a sensor other than 24x36mm? Or do you mean did I use less of the image than my sensor originally captured in my editing?”

——

“Nice camera!”
“Thanks . . . “
“Is that full frame?”
“So far it seems to capture everything I see through the viewfinder.”
“No, stupid, I mean is the sensor 24x36mm in size, or have they cropped it?”
“No, I think they made it this way on purpose.  The sensor is the size it was originally designed to be - as far as I can tell.”
“Man, you’re really dense . . . If it isn’t 24x36mm is has been cropped!”
“Well, it’s 44x33mm so I guess they must have cropped larger?”
“You’re so stupid I don’t even want to talk to you anymore . . . “
——

“Great photo!”
‘Thanks...”
“What lens did you shoot that with?”
“90mm”
“Are you sure?  It looks like you shot it with a wide angle, not a short telephoto!”
“I’m pretty sure what lens I used...”
“I’m a very advanced full frame user, and I’m pretty sure that was a wide angle and not a short telephoto!”
“Right.”
“Right what?”
“It was shot with a 90mm wide angle.”
“You’re so stupid, I don’t even want to talk to you any more . . .”

Rand

ROTFLMAO!

Brilliant, absolutely brilliant. I think I will print this out and put it up next to my workstation.

[bwalker]

Great job Kevin!! This video series is truly enjoyable! What a great format!!

Billy Walker