FF?

[louisa_edwards]

<p>What does FF mean in the photography world?<br>

Every time I see it I think "Franz Ferdinand", but I am postivie that it is not correct! LOL</p>

<p>Sorry if this shouls be posted in the newb section, I like it here.</p>

[phule]

<p>Full Frame.</p>

[franklin_polk]

<p>It means "Full Frame", i.e. a sensor that is 24x36mm, as opposed to the smaller sensors that are in most DSLRs.</p>

[personalphotos]

<p>It's something of an erroneous expression that means the sensor size is the same size as a 35mm film negative (24mm x 36mm). Before digital, FF (Full Frame) was never discussed and many would have said FF was actually Medium or large format.</p>

[dan_lenski]

<p>"Full frame [DSLR]" = <a href="http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Full-frame_digital_SLR">a DSLR camera with a larger sensor than most models, as big as a standard frame of 35mm film</a></p>

[mountainvisions]

<p>I don't usually ask for applause, medals, monuments, or plaques. I rarely even ask for a cookie but I have to say, I am vindicated. I'm guessing Louisa is about 17-19, maybe 20?</p>

<p>I've been saying for a few years, at least 18-24 months that ONLY the the old folks care about a format that relates to 24x36, and that is because you grew up on it, and you own legacy glass that just burns you doesn't have the same FOV that it did on your old film cameras.</p>

<p>Most people who are teens and 20s never loaded a roll of film, they never even picked up a film camera, and so this magical 24x36, aka...FF is a meaningless term and number. These people aren't married to the FOV of certain focal lengths on a particular format. As a matter of fact, you might be able to argue, that going to FF will "mess up" their perspective of what a 20mm lens should look like through the view finder. Worse, unlike you and I, they had digital wides to choose from, so they aren't begging for FF so they can use existing legacy glass to get that wide angle FOV.</p>

<p>I can't tell you old peeps enough, marketers are no longer looking at you for revenue. They are looking at the 25-35 demo with the expendable cash to drive sales now and 10 years down the road. If you look that demo is exactly what Pentax claims to be shifting focus to, the internet savy, non technophobe, 20-35yo!</p>

<p>For this reason you will see that APS-C and 4/3s continues to be sold, and continues to drive a large portion of the market. <br /> <br /> Yeah, Canon and Nikon had to go FF to battle it out with each other. And Sony needed a splash itself as it's DSLR division has (i believe but could be wrong) never turned a profit in any quarter or year.</p>

<p>So in some ways, the battle is now for Canon and Nikon to convince enough people that FF is necessary so they can again differentiate their product. Unfortunately the price gap is still big enough, that convincing people is more than a battle of the brands and formats, but a battle of the bank accounts of consumers! And at a time when both consumers and producers are tightening the belts, when terms "world depression" are being tossed around, I don't see Canon and Nikon releasing a $750-1000 FF camera to steal the show while taking a big loss!</p>

[snik75]

<p>Oh no, Justin, there goes my rationale for "investing" in an FA 31mm lense that will be "worth so much more" when the FF Pentax DSLR comes out. I'll have to sell it to my wife in some other way.</p>

[trw]

<p>People who need to justify their purchase of a FF camera emphazise that they have one stop more sensitivity with the same noise. Sadly, they forget that they then have to stop down one more stop to get the same depth of field, since they have to use a longer lens to get the same field of view/perspective. This means that they have to shoot at a stop higher ISO than if they'd used APS-C in the first place.</p>

<p>Unless you regularly use VERY wide lenses, or often shoot wide open with fast lenses for depth-of-field control, you don't need a full-frame camera.</p>

[andrewg_ny]

<p>En lieu of a $700 semi-pro full-frame K-mount D-SLR, I'll settle for a cookie or two this year.</p>

<p>I'm going to fire up iTunes and listen to the other FF now, thanks to Louisa's suggestion.</p>

 

[xpiotiavos]

<p>"and so this magical 24x36, aka...FF is a meaningless term and number"</p>

<p>ah, but you underestimate the power of canikon advertising!! I'm 22, and I can't tell you how many times I've had to explain to people my age that FF is not actually better than "normal" DSLRs. Not only does my demographic know what FF is, most of them are convinced it's superior!</p>

<p>we are indeed slaves to marketing. and, unfortunately, the marketing folks know it.</p>

[roseberry guitars]

<p>I don't know what the big fuss is about "Full Frame". I've got a whole display case full of them and not one cost me more than $300.00, not even the one I purchased brand new. Minolta SRT's, XE's and XD'd, Pentax Spotmatic, Nikon FE, a couple old Zeiss Ikon Contax 's to name a few. Then there is my collection of <strong><em>REALLY BIG</em></strong> Full Frame cameras, the Ikoflex's, Autocords, 6x6 and 6x9 folders. Got rid of my <strong><em>REALLY REALLY BIG</em></strong> Full framers, the 4x5 sheet film view cameras..too much trouble.</p>

<p>It's crazy to pay thousands for one of those Canikon FF's. You can find perfectly good FF camera on fleabay for 20 bucks. Those digital companies sure have the general public hood winked into beliveing that they are selling us something "special". Those things have been around for decades!</p>

[s_arena]

<p>FF are the letters that you post in your subject line if you want to get the most replies on any Pentax message board. Simply posting the letters "FF" is like hanging fly paper.</p>

[steven_moseley1]

<p>Hiya,</p>

<p>Justin:<br>

I am a little fed up with so many people making the assumtion (wrongly in my case) that all the FF users and the FF wanabees are because of the format....this is not true in all cases.</p>

<p>The reason I want a FF DSLR is because the APS viewfinders (all of them) are so small, tiny and tunnel like....I will say this clearly:</p>

<p>I WANT a DECENT sized viewfinder...that is why I want FF.</p>

<p>It is perfectly possible to make the APS viewfinders much better, but for some reason no-one, not Nikon, not Canon, not Pentax...none of them wants to improve the viewfinders...and yet Olympus have proven with the E-3 that you can do it. The E-3 viewfinder is the best this side of FF and beats all the APS viewfinders, including the K20D for both size and lack of tunnel-vision. You just need a decent magnification and 100% coverage (or near)</p>

<p>Why, why, will not Pentax make a DSLR (APS) with 98-100% coverage AND 1.0 or 1.1X magnification? If they did that, that for me would be fine.</p>

<p>cheers Steve.</p>

[musings]

<p>Steve, I bought a magnifying eyepiece loupe for my K10D and have been *extremely* happy with it. Give it a try and see if that helps. I agree that FF would help with some of the viewfinder issues across all DSLR manufacturers, but I am not willing to trade that for the disadvantages of FF (cost and size being the two biggest). If I make a jump in body size, it will be for a 67ii or a 645N...</p>

[steven_moseley1]

<p>"Unless you regularly use VERY wide lenses, or often shoot wide open with fast lenses for depth-of-field control, you don't need a full-frame camera"</p>

<p>....or unless you (like me) want a decently large viewfinder.....!</p>

[steven_moseley1]

<p>Jeff...</p>

<p>thanks for that, I am aware of the pentax eyepiece mag, but many users say it is not possible to see all the viewfinder clearly without moving you eye around quite substantially and that these mags are a definite poor compromise...</p>

[louisa_edwards]

<blockquote>

<p>I'm guessing Louisa is about 17-19, maybe 20?</p>

 

</blockquote>

<p>Oh it's that obvious eh? I'll be 22 in August, but I'm mature for my age! Haha</p>

[musings]

<p>Don't let anyone run you off, Louisa...we need young talent in the Pentax forums! :-)</p>

[jtk]

<p>I don't think Canon or Nikon are "having" to go FF...in fact that's only one of their formats. I noticed a recent report claiming D90 (APS) outperformed D700 (FF) in every significant way...although they forgot to compare 40"X60" prints :-)</p>

<p>Might be vaguely relevant to remember Olympus's so-called "half frame" film cameras...18X24mm. The slr version was beautiful but miserable because of its squinty, dark prism (think 4/3 up until E3). The pocket camera (non-slr) versions were great but offered no advantage over 24X36 except for more exposures per roll (72)... which meant more hassle with labs. That's the same format as 4/3, incidentally.</p>

<p>Taking that further, "half frame" was really the original "full frame" for motion picture cameras (the original intent of 35mm), and today's "full frame" was originally considered "double frame." :-)</p>

[louisa_edwards]

<p>I don't run so don't worry! Hehe</p>

<p>I maybe be young but I might not have much talet LOL</p>

[mountainvisions]

<blockquote>

<p>Oh it's that obvious eh? I'll be 22 in August, but I'm mature for my age! Haha</p>

 

</blockquote>

<p>Darn it...and I went the other way with your maturity! Hey, look at it like this, when you're 31, if someone thinks you are still 26 you'll be happy! Likewise at 40, 35 will be flattering!</p>

[mountainvisions]

<blockquote>

<p>ah, but you underestimate the power of canikon advertising!!</p>

 

</blockquote>

<p>Well yes and no. I don't underestimate it, but if you read down, I note that it's more than a simple issue of convincing the mind that it's better. With 10% unemployment in the US and even people like myself in a "safe" job actually not taking my job for granted, it's about convincing peoples bank accounts that a $3000 (approx) camera is vastly better than a $750 or $1500 one. If this was 10 years ago, with the prices as they are now I bet you could make many people shell out the extra cash, but for now I bet most people go with value over perceived benefit if they buy or upgrade at all.</p>

<p>Basically, what I'm saying is, it's just not a good time to be banking on people jumping off the cliff just because marketing says to do it!</p>

<p> </p>

[mountainvisions]

<p>@ Steve,</p>

<p>I'm not disagreeing there are some advantages to the viewfinder. However, I firmly believe that if Pentax and Oly sat down together and figured out how to make a APS-C viewfinder nearly on par with a $3000 FF viewfinder that they would be able to do it.</p>

<p>Quite frankly I don't find the K10D viewfinder to be that much off the K1000 I was recently using from Javier. Was the K1000 better, you bet, I just didn't pick it up and go, oh my god, I'm selling my K10D ASAP.</p>

<p>Also, i believe the mirror is on it's way out. We'll be using digital viewfinder screens fairly shortly. As long as those screens are capable of showing real time changes, the mirror is completely a liability in every way. It's fragile, it's noisy, it creates vibration, and it has some effect of frame rate in top end cameras.</p>

<p>So if you can sit tight, there is no need to feed the FF flames simply for a viewfinder that in all likelihood is going to be a relic in a few years tops!</p>

[louisa_edwards]

<blockquote>

<p>Hey, look at it like this, when you're 31, if someone thinks you are still 26 you'll be happy! Likewise at 40, 35 will be flattering!</p>

 

</blockquote>

<p>As it is right now, I could pass for 15 :(<br>

I went back to my high school on Monday to pick up my transcript (horrid flash backs) and a teacher stopped me in the hall, told me I should get to class.</p>

[mountainvisions]

<p>I have a recurring nightmare, well once or twice a year, that there was some clerical error, and I have to go back to high school. Gotta say, if I was paid a million dollars I wouldn't do it. I'd gladly go back to college for a much smaller sum, like room and board!</p>