Nomenclature and conventions of photography
For those who write in a blog of photography is vital to know that we speak the same language as you, and are able to transmit the message in the best possible way. When the articles are highly technical, precision sometimes clashes with the rhetoric, and we are forced to find synonyms, paraphrase or take all possible herds not bore you with the same words over and over again.
To avoid repeating over and over again the same arguments (“a lens is a store that sells glasses”, “all forms are complete”, etc..), I wanted to clarify some of the most common questions about nomenclature can be found on our blog, or any other on the same topic.
35mm format, cuts and equivalence
Almost all manufacturers talk about full format when referring to the camera systems that use a sensing element 24 × 36mm, which coincides with the motion picture and photography most commonly used: the famous 35mm reels.
Using this size as a reference, we define the remaining smaller standards (such as APS-C, 1.5 or 1.6 times less) or larger (like medium format, twice the size). Rolling over the definition, it is also commonly used as a basis for comparing objectives, meeting with expressions like “an APS-C 18mm equivalent to 28mm.”
Not dwell on this issue because we have already tried several times, but we can summarize by saying that these “equivalences” are just tricks that help us get a quick idea of what to expect from each team.
In general, we consider therefore that “full frame” is equivalent to “35mm format, and when we speak of” focal equivalent “we mean the focal length in 35mm format, would have the same angle vision, and is obtained by multiplying the “crop factor” having our system.
Hastening further, if it ever escapes us in what format works indicate a goal, and can not be deduced from the context, suppose that we always talk about 35mm sensors.
Possibly Related Articles:
Leave a Reply
You must be logged in to post a comment.