Fotokina 2014

[BJL]

Holy moley! Saw off the lens hood and Nikkor 14-24 has a usable image circle of ~75mm?

At what focal length? All of them or just the long end?  It is fairly standard for "zooming in" to essentially enlarge the image, including enlarging the whole image circle, so that a 14-24mm designed to cover a the 43.2mm image circle of 24x26mm format even at the wide end almost naturally covers 43.2*24/14 = 74.2mm at the along end.  Close enough to 75mm!

If so, not there is nothing "oversized" about the image circle choice.

[Telecaster]

As for using the term 35mm to describe the format, imaging how ridiculous and confusing that could be. "Hey look at my 85mm 35mm lens" or "Hey look at my new 35mm 35mm lens" 

It ain't perfect but it worked fine from c. 1935 through 2003 or so. How old are you?     Anyway I'll let the subject rest…we 21st century snappers dig our "full frame."

-Dave-

[jjj]

Except these lenses aren't equivalent; only the angle of view is equivalent.

Try reading all of a post before replying.
I had already talked about angle of view being equivalent between lenses and that being what should be compared, not simply focal length in the part you snipped out. I then gave the specific examples you are now carping about to illustrate the point and how the relationship between focal lengths and angle of view for 35mm film cameras are understood by virtually everyone.

[jjj]

As for using the term 35mm to describe the format, imaging how ridiculous and confusing that could be. "Hey look at my 85mm 35mm lens" or "Hey look at my new 35mm 35mm lens" 

It ain't perfect but it worked fine from c. 1935 through 2003 or so. How old are you?     Anyway I'll let the subject rest…we 21st century snappers dig our "full frame."

Uh, I'm in favour of the term full frame.  And it wasn't really used in ye olde days as explained below.

Yet "35mm" is how the 36x24mm still camera format was commonly described for decades (at least in English speaking countries), without ever being confusing, and as far as I know it was not considered ridiculous.

Yes the camera format was described as 35mm, not the lenses. You usually referred to the lenses by manufacturer. e.g. Nikon lenses, Olympus lenses etc which as they only worked on 35mm film cameras, describing the lenses as 35mm lenses was redundant.

But I am a fan of the usage in at least some European countries: 36x24mm, or "36x24" for short (since there is little likelihood of being misinterpreted as 36x24cm or such.)  Shorter to type and more precise than "full frame".

Not as sort as the more usual FF though.  And as FF means 36x24, it's just as precise and way less clunky/geeky.

[telyt]

Try reading all of a post before replying.

How rude.

[NancyP]

The implication was that significant shift and tilt were available at both ends of the FL range of the Nikkor 14-24. Go to the Hartblei links.

[ErikKaffehr]

Hi,

There is nothing like full frame 4/3 or full frame APS-C. The are all normally full frame. I would say that it is OK to talk about full frame 135, which was a designation used for 35 mm film.

With MF it is a bit more complex, as there used to be 6x6, until Pentax invented 6x7, Fuji 6x8 and Mamiya 6x4.5. So now we have cropped frame 645 (like the IQ-250), full frame 645 (like the IQ-280), but full frame 645 is still a cropped format on 6x6 or anything larger.

Best regards
Erik

APS-C, FF 135 and 645 with 1.1X crop.

Uh, I'm in favour of the term full frame.  And it wasn't really used in ye olde days as explained below.
Yes the camera format was described as 35mm, not the lenses. You usually referred to the lenses by manufacturer. e.g. Nikon lenses, Olympus lenses etc which as they only worked on 35mm film cameras, describing the lenses as 35mm lenses was redundant.

Not as sort as the more usual FF though.  And as FF means 36x24, it's just as precise and way less clunky/geeky.

[Telecaster]

Yes the camera format was described as 35mm, not the lenses. You usually referred to the lenses by manufacturer. e.g. Nikon lenses, Olympus lenses etc which as they only worked on 35mm film cameras, describing the lenses as 35mm lenses was redundant.

Describing the format has been exactly the focus here. What do the focal lengths of lenses have to do with it? (I don't remember the difference between "the 35mm format" and "a 35mm lens" causing confusion. You can figure it out from the context.)

-Dave-

[NancyP]

Another way of referring to the 24mm x 36mm frame size format is "135". Anyone who dates from the film era will recognize this - films were labeled (emulsion type) - 135 -(number of exposures in the roll, usually 20, 24, 36).

[LKaven]

Describing the format has been exactly the focus here. What do the focal lengths of lenses have to do with it? (I don't remember the difference between "the 35mm format" and "a 35mm lens" causing confusion. You can figure it out from the context.)

This is a thread about Photokina 2014.

[ErikKaffehr]

Hi,

Thanks for reminding! Seriously!

What I found were interesting from my viewpoint were the Loxia lenses and some discussions with Sigma. It is also nice to have seen Leica born again.

The new Samsung camera is probably impressive.

A third product that evokes some of my interest is the Hartblei Master Cam.

Best regards
Erik

This is a thread about Photokina 2014.

[Telecaster]

I'll re-post my link to Thom Hogan's fine post-Photokina article:

http://www.dslrbodies.com/newsviews/the-lost-photokina.html

A quote: "Most images these days don’t need to be anything other than 8mp 16:9."

-Dave-

[MoreOrLess]

I'll re-post my link to Thom Hogan's fine post-Photokina article:

http://www.dslrbodies.com/newsviews/the-lost-photokina.html

A quote: "Most images these days don’t need to be anything other than 8mp 16:9."

-Dave-

He seems to be wanting to have his cake and eat it bashing Canon for releasing the 7D mk2 we all expected and at the same time bashing Nikon for NOT releasing the D400 many expected.

Part of what were seeing I would say is that Leica treats Fotokina more seriously than the big Japanese brands, yes the latter will save up announcements that would likely have happened around the same time for it but Leica seems to save up a great deal of its new announcements for along time either side of it, the new S for example isn't going to ship for another 6 months.

[LKaven]

There is a new interview with Samsung on the technical innovations in the NX1.  I excerpted some of the interview in a thread here:

http://www.luminous-landscape.com/forum/index.php?topic=93839.0

Even the most jaded among you will be amazed I think.  It will help to define the future of digital photography.

[BJL]

Another way of referring to the 24mm x 36mm frame size format is "135". Anyone who dates from the film era will recognize this - films were labeled (emulsion type) - 135 -(number of exposures in the roll, usually 20, 24, 36).

The name "135" describes a format for rolls of film, not a frame size: a total width of 35mm wide including sprocket holes and frame numbers, with about 24mm of that for images.  That 135 film has been used for a variety of frame formats, from 24x18mm to 36x24mm to panoramic shapes, so it is a poor choice for describing a sensor format.

[jjj]

How rude.

No, rude is not bothering to listen to what someone says when talking or not reading what someone says before replying. Too much friction and misunderstanding on forums would be avoiding if people were less careless in their reading of other's posts.

[jjj]

Describing the format has been exactly the focus here. What do the focal lengths of lenses have to do with it? (I don't remember the difference between "the 35mm format" and "a 35mm lens" causing confusion. You can figure it out from the context.)

Point missed entirely. There was no confusion then for reasons explained above. Try reading posts before replying, no point responding to you otherwise.

[LKaven]

Photokina 2014 people.  This argument about format naming conventions is going nowhere the long way.

[jjj]

Photokina 2014 people.  This argument about format naming conventions is going nowhere the long way.

Not surprising, seeing as people seem to not be reading posts before replying on matter.