Lament

[Alan7140]

As an intermittent, but long time user of Hasselblad gear (since 1972), I still get regular postings from Hasselblad, one of which which today had me finally realise that I'll just have to surrender to the "full frame" (and "equivalent aperture", equivalent focal length" etc) stuff that Internet commentary has brought into common use these days.

In their latest posting, Hasselblad rightly laud the original Hasselblad 1600f camera of 1948 for its innovative concept and design, with photos of the mock-ups and camera #0001 taken by its the latest successor, a Hasselblad H6D-100c camera. In the text, however, was a sentence which described the modular concept of the 1600f having interchangeable film backs, viewfinders and lenses which stated:

 

"It wasn’t until 10 years later that full frame producers adopted this type of modular construction."

 

I'll admit that this made me pause for a bit in trying to make sense of what they were saying. Had they said "35mm, or even 135 camera manufacturers" I would haver immediately understood, of course, but no, apparently we now have to re-label those older film cameras as "full frame" as well, and which in their day were always referred to as "35Mil", "35mm", "135" , "SLR" or even "miniature" cameras, but never, ever, referred to as "full frame". That designation originally referred to the movie industry's 35mm film standard frame size, which was closer to the later APS-C format frame size.

 

So I surrender to nonsense, after all I'm just an old has-been and obviously am now as redundant as all film cameras are themselves - although the rapidly increasing prices of used old cameras such as the Hasselblad 500 series are now approaching their original new prices, and film and photographic paper is also increasingly being manufactured and sold again, which is a bit of a conundrum.

 

That said, I did allow myself a wry smile at the praise being heaped upon the H6D-100c by Hasselblad in their article, which is a camera entirely designed and originally made by Fujifilm Japan as the GX645AF, and uses lenses designed and still mostly made by Fuji, in front of a sensor made by Sony, all cobbled together in Sweden by a company now majority-owned by DJI, China (yes, the drone manufacturer  ). I still picture Victor rolling in his grave over what has become of his family's company and its products.

 

You can read the whole article for a brief but interesting insight into a camera that started a legacy which was regarded as the benchmark commercial photographer's medium format system for over 50 years here:

Hasselblad 1600f

[Dallas]

I will never surrender to the legion of stupid beings, although I will admit to become extremely, extremely worn out by their constant blathering on all manner of subjects (not least of which is the current assault on personal freedom in the name of “following the science”).

 

I attribute the rise of social media to the gathering of the mindless. Once the first idiot posted something inane online and found another idiot to repeat their nonsense it was inevitable that these birds of the same feather would amass numbers and become the de facto voice of the world. 

 

Stuff the world, I say. 

[crowecg]

So where does you 5x7 sit?  I guess that’s not full frame as you have to cut your paper down.😁

[Alan7140]

2 hours ago, crowecg said:

So where does you 5x7 sit?  I guess that’s not full frame as you have to cut your paper down.😁

 

5x7" is a recognised format, still in limited production. I bought a box of 25 sheets of Ilford FP4 Plus not that long ago. Half-Plate & Whole Plate (not "Full Plate" as the Internet has renamed it - the Victorians were a more accurate in their descriptions) were also standardised formats that cameras and film holders were made for, obsolescent now, but commonly available right into the 1960's (and film and paper still available to special order from Ilford in both sizes). That I cut 5x7" paper down to 4¾x 6½" (Half Plate) is just a time and money saving measure over making a special order for the real thing.

 

All cameras are "full frame" in their particular format, if one gets clinical about it.

Calling manufacturers of 35mm cameras "full frame producers" as a distinctive reference to that particular 135 camera format is therefore nonsensical in terms of distinguishing them from manufacturers of other formats.

 

I really had given up with objecting aloud to the erroneous use of established photographic terminology in the light of Internet-peddled misuse anyhow, it's just that I really expected better of an article/advertorial bearing the once-revered brand name "Hasselblad" that prompted my piece. That said, I will still use the correct terminology myself, regardless, as Dallas indicates above.  

 

[Dallas]

1 hour ago, Alan7140 said:

I really had given up with objecting aloud to the erroneous use of established photographic terminology in the light of Internet-peddled misuse anyhow, it's just that I really expected better of an article/advertorial bearing the once-revered brand name "Hasselblad" that prompted my piece. That said, I will still use the correct terminology myself, regardless, as Dallas indicates above

 

I really just can't help myself when I see that term used by so-called experts and I do leave comments of correction wherever I can.

 

But in a positive light it's a sure-fire way of sorting the dimwits from the knowledgeable when it comes to photography. As soon as you hear it spoken you know that the plonker saying it has about as many clues as a minion. Actually, I think I should make a Fotozones YT video about this. I'll title it "Micro Four Thirds Is A Full Frame System". Bound to attract a huge amount of views.  

[crowecg]

Then you can also have the issue of Schroedinger’s full frame.  The camera can be full frame or not.  If I set my Fuji to shoot 3:2 it is full frame, but if I change it to 16:9 or 1:1, it is no longer full frame.😜

 

Another point with the full frame argument is watching 35mm users suddenly start arguing size doesn’t matter when you bring up the Fuji gfx system.

[crowecg]

16 hours ago, Dallas said:

 

Actually, I think I should make a Fotozones YT video about this. I'll title it "Micro Four Thirds Is A Full Frame System". Bound to attract a huge amount of views.  

I was going to say ‘go for it’, but then do you really want the attention?  Whilst some people would appreciate the content and discussion, there will probably be a lot who aren’t smart enough to understand or those who equate camera size with social standing or photographic ability who will respond with abuse and anger.

 

That is the sad thing about the online world, you get clicks for being controversial rather than being the best.  But controversial brings with it conflict and argument.

[Alan7140]

9 hours ago, crowecg said:

Then you can also have the issue of Schroedinger’s full frame.  The camera can be full frame or not.  If I set my Fuji to shoot 3:2 it is full frame, but if I change it to 16:9 or 1:1, it is no longer full frame.😜

 

Another point with the full frame argument is watching 35mm users suddenly start arguing size doesn’t matter when you bring up the Fuji gfx system.

 

Not really - if you set your Fuji to 16:9 it no longer is using the full APS-C frame - it's actually cropping top and bottom, ergo it is now an actual "crop sensor", although the genius' of the Internet will insist on calling the full 3:2 APS-C size of the Fuji sensor a "crop sensor". 😁

[Dallas]

8 hours ago, crowecg said:

I was going to say ‘go for it’, but then do you really want the attention?  Whilst some people would appreciate the content and discussion, there will probably be a lot who aren’t smart enough to understand or those who equate camera size with social standing or photographic ability who will respond with abuse and anger.

 

That is the sad thing about the online world, you get clicks for being controversial rather than being the best.  But controversial brings with it conflict and argument.

 

Quite right, Chris. A few years ago I may have been amped to do just that kind of content but as you say now, the resultant aggression and mischief from keyboard warriors challenging you isn't worth the slog. 

[Hugh_3170]

Love this thread. 

 

Misuse of the term "Full Frame" is also one of my gripes - a shared view here is seems.

 

Some thoughts:

• The 135/FX/24x36mm format should not be called Full Frame - it should be called DOUBLE MOVIE FRAME!  It was Oscar Barnack that first put two 18x24mm movie frames together to create the UR Leica and what became known as the Kodak 135 format.
• Thus the DX and APS-C formats are more deserving of being called Full Frame, but that would in turn create its own issues and confusion little different to the present mess.
• And lastly:  if you acquire a digital camera whose sensor can only deliver a partial frame worth of working pixels, then it is clearly not full frame and is defective and you should immediately return it to the seller and demand a full refund!

 

My other gripe are statements like "the lens has an equivalent focal length of 50mm (on full frame)", when something like "the lens has a field of view similar to a 50mm lens on a 135/24x36mm format camera" would be better.  The focal length of a lens is just that - it is not dependent on the format of the camera to which it is mounted - it desn't even need to be on a bloody camera at all and its focal length will still remain the same.

 

End of rant - jut my 0.02c worth.

 

 

[Hugh_3170]

This link may be of interest to those that are interested in delving into format sizes:

 

http://www.photoethnography.com/ClassicCameras/filmformats.html

 

The Japanese initial use of a 24 x 32mm format on 35mm movie film was a different approach by Nikon and Minolta rangefinder camera designers, although a 24 x 30mm  would have made for an even better 8x10 fit.

 

Edit:  24 x 32mm is just the 3:4 ratio seen in many digital cameras these days and older computer screens.  Ahead of the times?

Edited 24 December, 2021 by Hugh_3170

[pluton]

When I write (on forums) in reference to the traditional 35mm camera frame size, I always refer to it as '24x36'.

However, at my job, I deal all day with professional cinematographers who routinely refer to the 24x36 frame as 'full frame'. That's what it's called in their small world. I have learned what they mean, and we move on with the days work.  

Edited 22 December, 2021 by pluton