Archived posting to the Leica Users Group, 2008/09/23
[Author Prev] [Author Next] [Thread Prev] [Thread Next] [Author Index] [Topic Index] [Home] [Search]You got it! s.d. On Sep 23, 2008, at 11:05 AM, Mark Rabiner wrote: > Last I've heard that term used it was used to connote the shape of > the thing > fitting an 8x10 print. I think it was 6x7 instead 6x9. As ways of > slicing up > the Brownie film pie. > > > > mark@rabinergroup.com > Mark William Rabiner > > > >> From: slobodan dimitrov <s.dimitrov@charter.net> >> Reply-To: Leica Users Group <lug@leica-users.org> >> Date: Tue, 23 Sep 2008 10:40:55 -0700 >> To: Leica Users Group <lug@leica-users.org> >> Subject: Re: [Leica] R10 in development >> >> So, if I said "ideal format" you wouldn't know what it meant? >> s.d. >> >> On Sep 23, 2008, at 10:22 AM, Ken Iisaka wrote: >> >>> Indeed. Although I don't yet consider myself an old fart, I have >>> used a >>> variety of format so I just picked and chose appropriate lenses for >>> each of >>> the format. There is no notion of "full-frame" AFAIC. >>> >>> I've used: >>> >>> Minox (8x11mm) >>> 110 (13x17mm) >>> Four-Thirds (13.5x18mm) >>> Canon digital (15.1x22.7mm) >>> Half-frame 35mm (18x24mm) >>> Leica M8 (18x27mm) >>> Leica 35mm (24x36mm) >>> 126 (28x28mm) >>> 127 (36x38mm) >>> 645 (42x56mm) >>> 66 (56x56mm) >>> 67 (56x68mm) >>> 69 (56x84mm) >>> 45 (96x122mm) >>> >>> So, I don't know what "full-frame" really means. :) :) >>> >>> I don't really care about my M8 being "cropped." With a 35mm >>> Summilux-ASPH, >>> it's better than M6 with Noctilux. >>> >>> On Tue, Sep 23, 2008 at 8:36 AM, Lottermoser George >>> <imagist3@mac.com>wrote: >>> >>>> ; ~ ) indeed >>>> >>>> I would like people >>>> to speak >>>> simply and accurately >>>> in terms of size >>>> >>>> as an elder-fart >>>> we always referred to 8x10, 6x6, 6x9, 35mm etc. >>>> in harmony with focal length of lens >>>> never heard of "full frame" (a term totally without meaning) >>>> 'til digital sensors arrived >>>> >>>> tell me the specific >>>> sensor size (or film dimension) >>>> and lens focal length >>>> I can visualize >>>> the field of view >>>> with that information >>>> >>>> this "crop factor" "full frame" "35mm equivalent" >>>> stuff just turns a simple thing into double speak >>>> >>>> Fond regards, >>>> George >>>> >>>> george@imagist.com >>>> http://www.imagist.com >>>> http://www.imagist.com/blog >>>> http://www.linkedin.com/in/imagist >>>> >>>> >>>> >>>> On Sep 23, 2008, at 9:54 AM, Douglas Sharp wrote: >>>> >>>> Hi George >>>>> I suggest calling "normal" format "Double-cine" or "Barnack" >>>>> format :-) >>>>> (I refrain from writing "OB" format, OB is the best selling >>>>> brand of >>>>> Tampons in Germany) >>>>> Cheers >>>>> Douglas >>>>> >>>>> >>>>> Lottermoser George wrote: >>>>> >>>>>> never understood >>>>>> "normal" >>>>>> (except as a city in Illinois) >>>>>> >>>>>> never met a normal person >>>>>> never met a normal lens >>>>>> >>>>>> glass plate, tintype cameras: >>>>>> 6.5 x 8.5 inches Full-plate >>>>>> 4.5 x 5.5 inches Half-plate >>>>>> 3.125 x 4.125 inches Quarter-plate >>>>>> 2.5 x 3.5 inches Sixth-plate >>>>>> 2 x 2.5 inches Ninth-plate >>>>>> 1.625 x 2.125 inches Sixteenth-plate >>>>>> .5 x 1 inch Gem >>>>>> >>>>>> film cameras that I've actually used: >>>>>> 12 x 20 inches >>>>>> 11 x 14 inches >>>>>> 8 x 10 inches >>>>>> 5 x 7 inches >>>>>> 4 x 5 inches >>>>>> 3.25 x 4.25 inches >>>>>> 2.25 x 3.25 inches >>>>>> various polaroid formats from 8x10 to sx70 >>>>>> 2.25 x 2.75590553 inches >>>>>> 2.25 x 2.25 inches >>>>>> 24 x 36 mm >>>>>> 16 mm >>>>>> >>>>>> film cameras I've not used: >>>>>> half frame >>>>>> minox (what ever size that is) >>>>>> variwide (what ever size that is) >>>>>> and many other specialized formats >>>>>> >>>>>> Digital sensor cameras (a partial list): >>>>>> 4 x 3 mm >>>>>> 4.536 x 3.416 mm >>>>>> 4.8 x 3.6 mm >>>>>> 5.27 x 3.96 mm >>>>>> 6.4 x 4.8 mm >>>>>> 7.176 x 5.319 mm >>>>>> 8.8 x 6.6 mm >>>>>> 12.8 x 9.6 mm >>>>>> 18 x 13.5 mm >>>>>> 22.7 x 15.1 mm >>>>>> 23.7 x 15.6 mm >>>>>> 25.1 x 16.7 mm >>>>>> 36 x 24 mm >>>>>> 30 x 45 mm (Leica S2) >>>>>> 56 x 41.5 mm >>>>>> >>>>>> "normal" format >>>>>> and related lenses >>>>>> have never existed >>>>>> in the world of photography >>>>>> for more than a short time >>>>>> >>>>>> "normal" = whatever >>>>>> camera/lens you're making >>>>>> a photograph with >>>>>> >>>>>> Fond regards, >>>>>> George >>>>>> >>>>>> george@imagist.com >>>>>> http://www.imagist.com >>>>>> http://www.imagist.com/blog >>>>>> http://www.linkedin.com/in/imagist >>>>>> >>>>>> >>>>>> >>>>>> On Sep 23, 2008, at 1:40 AM, Mark Rabiner wrote: >>>>>> >>>>>> To me a normal lens is what spells it out. >>>>>>> >>>>>> >>>>>> >>>>>> _______________________________________________ >>>>>> Leica Users Group. >>>>>> See http://leica-users.org/mailman/listinfo/lug for more >>>>>> information >>>>>> >>>>>> >>>>> _______________________________________________ >>>>> Leica Users Group. >>>>> See http://leica-users.org/mailman/listinfo/lug for more >>>>> information >>>>> >>>> >>>> >>>> _______________________________________________ >>>> Leica Users Group. >>>> See http://leica-users.org/mailman/listinfo/lug for more >>>> information >>>> >>>> >>> >>> >>> -- >>> Ken Iisaka >>> first name at last name dot org or com >>> >>> _______________________________________________ >>> Leica Users Group. >>> See http://leica-users.org/mailman/listinfo/lug for more information >> >> >> _______________________________________________ >> Leica Users Group. >> See http://leica-users.org/mailman/listinfo/lug for more information > > > > _______________________________________________ > Leica Users Group. > See http://leica-users.org/mailman/listinfo/lug for more information