[Brightcolours]

It has been lovely seeing butthurt comments saying FF is big enough and there are more lenses and lenses are faster on FF anyway and the price difference is too much and you can get a similar resolution on FF anyway. Simply lovely.

It is true that these heavily cropped MF sensors are only a little bigger than FF. And that the MF lenses are limited in aperture size and focal length range. So, for a more limited group of photographers/artists.

[Klaus]

It is true that these heavily cropped MF sensors are only a little bigger than FF. And that the MF lenses are limited in aperture size and focal length range. So, for a more limited group of photographers/artists.

 

Fortunately we all know that the Fuji GFX has a sensor that is 70% larger than FF so it doesn't fall into the measly category of "a little bigger".

[toni-a]

Fortunately we all know that the Fuji GFX has a sensor that is 70% larger than FF so it doesn't fall into the measly category of "a little bigger".

If You are looking for a bigger sensor, Forget fuji, there's a 100MP sensor which is much larger, dunno why all This enthusiasm for a 50 MP sensor while there's a 100MP and much larger sensor

[Klaus]

If You are looking for a bigger sensor, Forget fuji, there's a 100MP sensor which is much larger, dunno why all This enthusiasm for a 50 MP sensor while there's a 100MP and much larger sensor

 

Sure, so as it turns out FF is really small ... ;-)

 

Or to cite wikipedia:

"Historically the 35mm format was sometimes called <b>miniature format </b> or <b>small format,</b> terms meant to distinguish the it from the medium and large formats."

[JJ_SO]

If You are looking for a bigger sensor, Forget fuji, there's a 100MP sensor which is much larger, dunno why all This enthusiasm for a 50 MP sensor while there's a 100MP and much larger sensor

 

Why am I not surprised? 

 

At first, Toni-a, Fuji and Hasselblad passed the FF stuff which doesn't bring a lot of advantages compared to APS-C in Fuji's opinion. Historically, both manufacturers didn't fool around a lot with 135 size, so they were free to call an own sensor MF or else. While Nikon and Canon afaik never tried to go MF, at least not digital. So, both of them have 5 dozen lenses each and millions of users who don't wnat to give them up.

 

Your larger sensor comes roughly at 5× the costs of Hasselblad or Fuji mirrorless and that one includes also the mirror of a Mamiya 645 basis (56 × 42 mm). Lenses not included. It's not about MP, because then you could say from Canon is already a 50 MP sensor available. It's really about sensor size, not MP.

 

It's about a new concept of mirrorless camera with larger sensor, THAT's what you don't get.

 

BC, you didn't list the artificial sharpness. Age? Typing in a hurry?  

If Sigma could do a back for Mamiya or Hasselblad with only 50...60 MP, each fullcolour pixel would be 7.2 µm compared to 4.9 µm for 36 MP FF. If Sigma would use the quattro concept, the green and red pixels could be 14 µm. Even if this back would not have a higher amplification than 1600 ISO it would leave Bayer sensors in dust. And dust is, what they collect until a Foveon MF picture would be displayed by Sigma's sluggish software  <_<

[thxbb12]

 

 

Sure, so as it turns out FF is really small ... ;-)


Or to cite wikipedia:

"Historically the 35mm format was sometimes called miniature format  or small format, terms meant to distinguish the it from the medium and large formats."

 

 

This is exactly why I find the term full frame annoying. The meaning is utterly meaningless but somehow it stuck up to this day (for historical reasons from the digital era).

[Brightcolours]

Fortunately we all know that the Fuji GFX has a sensor that is 70% larger than FF so it doesn't fall into the measly category of "a little bigger".

lol. It is similar difference as MTF to APS-C.  So fortunately we all know it is merely a 0.8x crop difference, just like APS-C is a little bigger than MFT, these small "MF" crop formats are also just a little bigger than MFT. 

[JJ_SO]

Not true: The Olympus Pen originally was half the size of 135 "Standard", 18×24 mm. FF was then going back from half size (=APS-C) to Fullsize. But I agree, the term is plain stupid and makes only sense if I can use a part of any sensor, like going squarish or panoramic. Full size to me means using what the sensor offers as maximum.

[Brightcolours]

Why am I not surprised? 

 

At first, Toni-a, Fuji and Hasselblad passed the FF stuff which doesn't bring a lot of advantages compared to APS-C in Fuji's opinion. Historically, both manufacturers didn't fool around a lot with 135 size, so they were free to call an own sensor MF or else. While Nikon and Canon afaik never tried to go MF, at least not digital. So, both of them have 5 dozen lenses each and millions of users who don't wnat to give them up.

 

Your larger sensor comes roughly at 5× the costs of Hasselblad or Fuji mirrorless and that one includes also the mirror of a Mamiya 645 basis (56 × 42 mm). Lenses not included. It's not about MP, because then you could say from Canon is already a 50 MP sensor available. It's really about sensor size, not MP.

 

It's about a new concept of mirrorless camera with larger sensor, THAT's what you don't get.

 

BC, you didn't list the artificial sharpness. Age? Typing in a hurry?

If Sigma could do a back for Mamiya or Hasselblad with only 50...60 MP, each fullcolour pixel would be 7.2 µm compared to 4.9 µm for 36 MP FF. If Sigma would use the quattro concept, the green and red pixels could be 14 µm. Even if this back would not have a higher amplification than 1600 ISO it would leave Bayer sensors in dust. And dust is, what they collect until a Foveon MF picture would be displayed by Sigma's sluggish software  <_<

It actually is not so much about sensor size, remember the equivalence discussions? It is more about equivalent lenses. 

And yes, every sensor with no AA filter will have issues with fake sharpness and false detail. But that is not a small MF versus full frame 135 format, it is about AA filters or not.

[Brightcolours]

Not true: The Olympus Pen originally was half the size of 135 "Standard", 18×24 mm. FF was then going back from half size (=APS-C) to Fullsize. But I agree, the term is plain stupid and makes only sense if I can use a part of any sensor, like going squarish or panoramic. Full size to me means using what the sensor offers as maximum.

APS-C is not half sized 135 format. APS-C is from APS film. 25.1 × 16.7 mm was APS-C(lassic 3:2 aspect ratio). APS-C offered 3 formats with the same APS film, APS-C, APS-H and APS-P.

The term full frame is not weird at all, it means full frame 135 format. It makes sense to say it uses the full frame, lens wise, to distinguish from cameras which make use smaller parts (like there have been Canon "APS-H" 1.3x crop, Canon "APS-C" 1.6x crop, Konica-Minolta "APS-C" 1.5x crop, Sigma "APS-C" 1.7x crop).

You can also talk about full frame 6x7 MF format for instance for cameras which use lenses from that format but have smaller sensors, or 645 format or what have you.