A hundred and five years ago, in 1913, an asthmatic photographer who worked as an engineer for the Leitz optical factory in Wetzlar, Germany, seeking a less burdensome camera to carry, invented a handy little camera that was about as small as he could make it. It used 35mm movie film, so-called because its overall width, including the sprocket-holed edges, is 35mm. The film had the sprocket holes along both edges for registration in movie cameras and projectors, and, because it traveled a vertical path in both, each discrete image was 18x24mm, a 3:4 ratio. Barnack, who fitted his creation with a 42.5mm lens*, was constrained to use the same image area width of 24mm—but, because he used the film traveling horizontally in his camera, he was able to double the other dimension, resulting in the comparatively lavish larger image area of 24x36mm, a 2:3 ratio.
The first commercial Leica was produced eleven years later, in 1924, and for a number of years, "135" or "35mm," as it was called, was also known as "miniature" format. Most professionals and serious amateurs, who scorned it, at least used what we now call medium-format film, mostly 120 and 620, paper-backed film rolled around an open spool, and they often used sheet film. I worked for an older photographer in Maryland many years ago whose own older mentor had photographed assignments using a 4x5-inch Speed Graphic, sometimes taking only six sheets of film with him to cover an event. The skill of knowing which six exposures to make, and of making every shot tell, was considered an essential part of being a professional. With 35mm cassettes, not only could you load up your camera with up to 36 exposures at once, but you could also take along an extra cassette or two. Profligate and unnecessary!
During what later came to be known as the Korean War, a photographer named David Douglas Duncan discovered some remarkable screwmount lenses made in Japan by a lens manufacturing company called Nippon Kogaku, or Japan Optical. News of these lenses, which were impressively sharper (and cheaper) than German lenses, spread like wildfire among the war photographers in Korea and from there to the consumer culture in the West, and it put Nippon Kogaku—officially known since 1988 as Nikon—on the map.
As photographers became adept at composing within the overly long rectangle of 2:3, they used certain tricks, such as using a strong central vertical to break the space into two halves. Photo by Marc Riboud.
The 24x36mm image size, which by the 1950s was becoming accepted as a standard, was also widely known as a rather awkward rectangle. It suited landscape photos, but little else—it looked too tall in verticals, and made composition difficult, especially for photographers used to the square shape common in 120 cameras. Photographers learned various tricks to compensate—for example, using a strong center vertical element to break the shape up into two halves. But many people, especially committed amateurs, remained uncomfortable with the shape of the rectangle (called the "aspect ratio").
Nikon's first rangefinder camera, first called "The Nikon" then called the Nikon 1, of 1948 (now highly collectible with less than a thousand originally produced), had attempted to "correct" the shape by making cameras that made 24x32mm negatives and transparencies. It was a prettier shape—3:4 again—but it wasn't exported, and was quickly replaced, because slide mounts had already been standardized for 24x36.
Score one for 24x36mm.
The next possibility for moving away from the standard size happened in the 1960s, when "half frame" cameras enjoyed a brief vogue. Fitting twice as many exposures on a standard-length cassette of film, it appealed to pennypinchers. It was also the first time (to my knowledge anyway) that the word "frame," implying that there was a whole frame to be divided into half, was implicitly applied to the standard 35mm size.
Over the years that followed there were many attempts made by both camera and film manufacturers to leave 135 cassettes with 24x36mm image area behind—mainly led by Kodak as the leader of the consumer film industry. These included the highly successful 126 cassette for Instamatics (the result of research that revealed that the biggest problem consumers had with 35mm was loading and unloading their cameras properly—it was also, in my view, the product that convinced Kodak it could dictate the market, a big factor in the company's eventual almost-demise). It was introduced in 1963. The miniaturized version of 126, 110, came along in 1972; then the ill-fated Disc Film of 1982; and finally the grand finale, the big multi-company consortium push to APS in 1996. But every attempt to "smallen" 35mm failed. Mom and Dad Consumer were well satisfied for years with their point-and-shoots, 35mm color negative film, one-hour photo kiosks, and double 3R or 4R prints. Didn't need no steenking Discs, that's for sure.
In my view, the big problem with all these attempts to move away from 135 was that they only offered consumer products as alternatives—that is, they went downmarket from 35mm. When APS was in development, I was surveyed for my opinion and made the case to Kodak that if it wanted to establish the new film as a standard, it would also have to provide professionals and serious amateurs with an alternative that was better than 35mm—that is, balance the downmarket APS with an upmarket alternative that was better than 35mm. Rollfilm, which dated from way back in 1899, was kludgy and inconvenient and was initially designed for indoor studio use—handling it in bright sunlight could result in light leaks, although precision manufacture in later years minimized that problem. It was still far from ideal. A variety of experts proposed cassette-loaded, horizontally-traveling film closer in size to 645, with fewer "sprocket" holes (used for registration only) along only one side. But it never came to pass.
APS ended up doomed by two things: first, it solved producers' problems mainly, and didn't offer consumers enough advantages over 35mm—or rather, its advantages weren't intuitively obvious to consumers in 1996—and second, of course, digital was on the horizon by then.
When digital began to be viable in the late 1990s, I assumed, along with many others, that we had finally met the thing that was going to end the reign of 35mm film. Which of course it did...
...But what it didn't do, obviously, was end the reign of 24x36mm as the standard size of recording substrate! Larger "chips" (sensors) were difficult and expensive to manufacture at first, and most early consumer digital cameras had smaller sensors. For more serious cameras, APS Type C sensors were initially the norm. These made more sense than 24x36mm for many reasons—cost, but also better depth-of-field (D-o-F) characteristics and the fact that smaller lenses were required to cover the format.
There was also a "focal-length multiplying effect," whereby lenses of shorter focal length could show the same field of view (FOV) of longer lenses for 35mm. When Four-Thirds came along in 2006 (or so—I don't remember the date, and the Internet is surprisingly deficient in answering the question "when was Four-Thirds introduced?"), the focal-length multiplier of 2X indicated to me that it would be hugely popular. Although I didn't use long lenses myself, I had been professionally involved with "Ad-Ams" (Kodak's term for advanced amateurs) for many years, and I was aware how seriously many photographers coveted longer and longer lenses. I assumed photographers would flock to Four Thirds and never look back, glorying in that focal-length multiplier and the newfound accessibility of long-lens angles of view.
But it turned out that the reason Ad-Ams loved big teles was for prestige, not picturetaking. They were big, expensive, and impressive, and that's why people coveted them so much. When "bridge cameras," with their absurdly long telephoto reach, removed the high status from extremely narrow angles of view, it turned out most people didn't care all that much about telephoto reach after all.
I also assumed that people would like smaller sensors because they made it easier to get better (more!) D-o-F. All through the history of photography photographers had worked to get more "pan sharpness," that is, everything in the image in focus from front to back; the manifestos of the then-radical Group ƒ/64 in the early 1930s called for sharpness from foreground to background, for example. For the first time, that got stood on its head from the early- to mid-2000s when digital cameras with 135-sized sensors started to become accessible to well-heeled amateurs and hobbyists. Cameras with 24x36mm sensors gave noticeably less D-o-F than images from smaller sensors, and this emerged as a virtue, not a liability. Of course, it didn't help that the U.S. magazine Photo Techniques had, in 1997, published a series of articles introducing to photographers in the West the idea that out-of-focus blur (something the magazine termed "bokeh," the first time that spelling had been used, significant in that it allowed the spread of the concept to be tracked) had aesthetic properties that could function indivisibly in certain pictures. Outrage and ridicule was widespread at first. But that was before people started looking around for reasons to prefer the larger sensors that they actually wanted.
Bias lurking
The very terminology became biased. Lens focal lengths, to cope with the hodgepodge of different sensor sizes, were already being given in "35mm equivalents," to the extent that many digicam lenses were marked in equivalent focal lengths—the focal lengths in 35mm terms the FOV of which they mimicked—rather than their actual, real focal lengths. Photographers might have no idea what the FOV of a 4.3mm lens on a 1/2.3" sensor might be, but they understood the FOV of a 24mm lens on 24x36mm, so the description "24mm equivalent" was descriptive for that 4.3mm lens. "Focal length multiplier," which described an advantage, was replaced with "crop factor," which implies an adulteration from completeness—to have a crop factor, you have to be "cropping"—cutting down or limiting or curtailing—something. What? Why, 24x36mm, of course. Then, when the simple concept of "35mm size" was replaced by the brainless moniker "full frame" (brainless because all deliberate standard formats are full frame—is a 4x5-inch contact print from a negative made with a 4x5-inch camera not the full frame?), it was an unmistakable signal that bias was afoot and roving the landscape. If 24x36mm is "full" sized, then it implicitly stands to reason just from the terminology that anything bigger is too much and anything smaller falls short. Support was again gathering for the substrate size that refused to die!
Of course, this mainly had to do with the leading cameramakers' investment in SLR technology for the format—and, for consumers/photographers, two things. The first was the familiarity they had with the FOV of long-familiar 35mm lens focal lengths. Cameras that used 24x36mm sensors returned photographers' favorite lenses to the FOVs they were already long comfortable with. And, of course, the second was prestige. Status is a very strong motivator in the photography hobby. "Full-frame" sensor cameras were bigger and more expensive, their "image quality" at least detectably ahead of that of smaller sensors. Full-frame, as it was now called, picked up in DSLR sales to dedicated photographers of all stripes, and (even though Nikon tried hard to resist) after a while it became comfortably ensconced.
For some time it looked very much like the amateur alternative, the newer mirrorless types of cameras, would be where "FF" would not gain a foothold. Micro 4/3 was announced to great fanfare and continuing popularity (eventually killing off regular 4/3), and most other camermakers' mirrorless products were APS-C or smaller for a while. But that was not to last. When Sony began its "throwing spaghetti at the wall" marketing strategy, trying this, that, and the other thing, what was the stickiest and stuck? Full-frame mirrorless ILCs. The A7 and its proliferating heirs became one of the most successful among Sony's more serious photographic offerings.
The September Revolution
Now, with the "September Revolution" of 2018 in the history books, it's official: full-frame mirrorless (FFM as I call it—not sure if anyone else does) has been anointed with great portent and fanfare as the wave of the (near) future for mirrorless. The so-called "Bigs," Canon and Nikon, never before serious about mirrorless in any significant way (probably hoping to choke the upstart with lack of oxygen), both announced FFM systems. Panasonic, probably chafing even more at longtime rival Sony's successes, did them one better and formed a Micro-4/3-like consortium with Leica and Sigma. Finally, as if to put a ! on the proceedings, Zeiss (Zeiss?!) released a quirky, newthink fixed-lens FFM—24x36mm sensor, check—and put a coda on this remarkable month. As in the famous story of the size of the Space Shuttle Booster being based on the width of two Roman warhorses' asses, "specifications live forever."
Of course it remains to be seen if the market for mirrorless will sustain all those newcomers, and which of the new systems might thrive and which wither. But the biggest winner is a foregone conclusion: it's Oskar Barnack's 24x36 standard for substrate size. It's now far removed from antediluvian adapted movie film with unnecessary vestigial sprocket holes along both edges. But it's still that ancient, awkward 2:3 rectangle. The fateful doubling of the 3:4 movie film ratio that old Oskar (d. 1936) settled on (who knows how) way back in 1913 is alive and well—and stronger than ever.
Mike
[This article, excerpted from the first draft ms. of my future book for my Patreon subscribers, is copyrighted. You can link to it but please do not post it on forums or republish it anywhere. —MJ.]
ADDENDUM, Tuesday afternoon: I guess I have to point this out: this is not an article arguing against the 2:3 ratio. I thought it went without saying that lots of photographers prefer 2:3 and lots of great photographers in history have shot in 2:3.
Isn't that a given to anyone who knows anything about photography?
It's just that a significantly large minority of photographers (now, as well as in history) don't care for it, is all. I've personally shot 2:3 ratio cameras for most of my life. But don't take that as an endorsement. It's just a choice. You can like any aspect ratio you want to and it's okay by me.
*The Ur-Leica, now very likely the world's most valuable camera (although that proposition has not been tested—it's a treasured artifact owned by Leica Camera AG) indeed has a 42.5mm lens, not 50mm, according to Malcolm Taylor, the British Leica technician who was entrusted by Leica to clean and service it. This seems to be contradicted by Oskar Barnack himself in his own statements, but Malcolm Taylor has confirmed it in several interviews, including this one, in which he says, "The first stage of work on the Ur Leica was to look on the lens which to my surprise, and that of Dr Wangorsch [at that time the curator of the Leica Museum in Wetzlar —Ed.], was a 42.5mm, ƒ/4.5. It was a wide field Summar (a 6-element variant of the original Zeiss Planar) that had been designed by Carl Metz. The wide field nature of this lens may explain why later photographers have been unable to recreate the exact perspective of Barnack’s original Wetzlar photographs, [because they were] assuming the Ur Leica had a 50mm lens."
Original contents copyright 2018 by Michael C. Johnston and/or the bylined author. All Rights Reserved. Links in this post may be to our affiliates; sales through affiliate links may benefit this site.
B&H Photo • Amazon US • Amazon UK
Amazon Germany • Amazon Canada • Adorama
(To see all the comments, click on the "Comments" link below.)
Featured Comments from:
Hans Muus (partial comment): "Great article; look forward to your book! I seem to have read a couple of times, in a now distant past, that Barnack's invention was initially intended as a light metering instrument for movie-making: using the same film and processing as used for the movie proper and developing the test exposures quickly on the set."
Mike replies: I've heard that too, and I don't quite buy it, and I'll tell you why. The reason is, why would he double the frame size if it were merely for testing? Setting it up as what we now know as "half frame"—images the same size as the movie negative, 18x24mm—would have allowed more test exposures and fewer films to develop per test, and been the same resolution as the movie. The idea that the Ur-Leica was intended as a test device sounds like a "back-formation" to me—an idea someone came up with later to justify the little camera as being acceptably serious and purposeful. Of course I'm just guessing.
Jakub: "Nice article and bodes well for your book. Like many others (I'm sure) I caught your little joke about Photo Techniques not helping. From Wikipedia:
The English spelling bokeh was popularized in 1997 in Photo Techniques magazine, when Mike Johnston, the editor at the time, commissioned three papers on the topic for the March/April 1997 issue; he altered the spelling to suggest the correct pronunciation to English speakers, saying "it is properly pronounced with bo as in bone and ke as in Kenneth, with equal stress on either syllable."
Mike replies: The common pronunciation today is "BO-kuh," not "bo-keh" as described above. But as we learned with "Nikon" recently, whatever conventional pronunciation develops culturally becomes proper, so I'm cool with it.
It's worth remembering that the concept—that the out-of-focus areas in a photograph sometime contribute to the aesthetic whole—was received with a good deal of indignation and hostility at first. I got long handwritten letters admonishing me to pay attention to the sharp parts and not look at what you're not supposed to look at!
Gordon Lewis: "What you implied but not say explicitly is that the persistence of 24x36 in the digital world was motivated as much or more by legacy film lenses. Pros did not want to have to buy a whole new set of lenses for 'cropped' formats and didn't like having their expensive wide-angle zooms transformed into normal range zooms. Manufacturers, in turn, did not want to have to build out two competing lens lines. What I find ironic is that so many photographers will bitch and moan about a lack of 'innovation,' but when it's actually introduced (mirrorless m43, for example) they will fiercely stick to their tried-and-true 24x36 DSLRs."
Paul Christensen: "What a great photo by Marc Riboud! For those interested and in the neighborhood, there will be a retrospective of his work at the Suermondt Ludwig Museum in Aachen which opens this Friday. More information (unfortunately only in German) here."
Jim Richardson: "In many ways owning a FF camera performs the same function as knowing the secret handshake of an exclusive club: it lets you into the brotherhood."
Ed Bacher: "Great post. And... you made the top 10 in Hacker News today. I can send you a screenshot in case the page has changed."
Good article and many interesting comments! This small subject subject seems enough for a three days conference. So many things I did not know that I did not know.
From the graphic design point of view Barnack’s ‘Kleinbild’ is a very useable format. One and a half square. Very easy to cut up, to stack or lay-out.
However, if we could start all over again I would prefer the brilliant ratio of the DIN-standard for paper sizes: 1: √2 (1:1.41). That’s between 2:3 (1:1.5) and 3:4 (1:1.33). When divided in two (done in the right way of course) the height/width relation will remain the same. Doesn’t work with any other aspect ratio.
24x36 always felt a bit like a long towel to me. People must have different perceptions. I once had a colleague who was convinced that his field of view was just as high as wide, therefore he preferred square images. I told him that this was probably because his eyes were so close together.
I have used many design principles. Grids built up from squares, the Golden Ratio or the Japanese Tatami to name a few. Nice for the aesthetics, but the purpose is of course is also that you need a structure to be able to produce things easily. A system should serve you, not the other way around.
After many years in the imaging industry it has become a sport to guess what kind of camera or film was used for a photograph. In the days of film it was easy to see what the differences of the various formats or emulsions were. Small, medium and large formats all had their own specific character. But in this digital age? First I look at the aspect ratio and then at colors and contrast. Compared to to old days the formats we use now are relatively close. For me color reproduction and quality of optics seem far more important nowadays than the size of the sensor. Has anyone of you had a photography assignment yet that could only be done with full frame and not with let’s say Micro Four Thirds?
Posted by: s.wolters | Wednesday, 03 October 2018 at 04:50 AM
Plus One for Gordon Lewis...I'm in the Micro 4/3rd's boat precisely because I can shoot square or 4:3 (4X5)....the 35mm full frame format, as a long-time f-i-l-m advertising photographer, is virtually worthless to me!
I've said repeatedly, 30 years ago, if you took all the professional photographers in the world, and did a survey on what they photographed with, the only people using 35mm would have been photo-journos; even your wedding photographer was shooting 120! It would have been a small segment of the professional market, BUT, it was the segment that amateurs identified with, because they were in the pages of the magazines, and being commented on.
Posted by: Crabby Umbo | Wednesday, 03 October 2018 at 06:32 AM
The thing about formats is this: people do tend to compose to suit the viewfinder image.
That said, setting a given film or sensor size to a viewfinder image format other than the native is not actually achieving a helluva lot: you're just chucking away real estate. You haven't gained anything that cropping in post can't do, and to suggest that folks can't see their pic well enough without masking is a bit offensive - I think.
I also think that 135 is pretty good, generally, for all kinds of horizontal compositions, but when it comes to verticals, I find that if I'm shooting people pix, then yes, it feels too thin. For other purposes, not at all: things just get trimmed by the native format to suit your overall intention.
Obviously, yet another reason for the square, if large enough, because then you can crop to suit your whim, though even then, I always found it easier to make vertical crops than horizontals.
Posted by: Rob Campbell | Wednesday, 03 October 2018 at 06:39 AM
Who crops?
Some of us used to file out our negative carriers to show we had got it right in camera (because there was a nice black line round the uncropped picture).
Posted by: Hugh | Wednesday, 03 October 2018 at 12:02 PM
Some Panasonic cameras allow multiple aspect ratios that all utilize the full image circle via an oversized sensor. They call it "multi-aspect sensor." Recent examples include the GH5s and the LX100 II. Note that in this case, no aspect ratio can use all of the sensor pixels.
Posted by: Jack | Wednesday, 03 October 2018 at 12:04 PM
For years I have reminded people by writing almost exactly all those things, as people don't know history of 135 format and how 36x24mm frame was taken in use with it. How a half-frame PEN cameras made the word "full frame" as it was Olympus who used in their marketing "half frame" and "full frame" differential. Later Canon to pick up that for their EOS 1D marketing as APS-C failed.
The 4:3 is not from the television, nor is from 110 format (using 17.3x13mm frame), but from the art history from centuries.
Olympus, that has been behind half frame, 4/3" formats, as well behind OM system, 4/3 system and current m4/3 system, did not do those because they just wanted small, but they could do formats that deliver more than good enough quality and in smaller great size for mobility and so on have cameras more often with you.
4:3 use is great as you have more freedom to frame the shot, and then trim it later for best size. Not so you are locked to 4:3 in final image, but you have more freedom and possibilities at final image.
The 3:2 IMHO is restricting as people use viewfinders as defining framing tools, instead as just format guidelines to avoid cropping something out. 1:1 ain't the best for anything else than avoiding rotating camera 90 degrees to vertical as you can frame maximal height as width, and then crop top better fitting size later.
3:2 waste height when horizontal, and width when vertical and rotate camera often, but 4:3 waste least from either edge for final cropping, but requires more often to rotate camera than 1:1.
Today 16:9 is a standard, that is meaning you can't use any other ratio than 16:9 (and it is btw width first, then height, so 36x24mm or 3:2 instead 24x36mm and 2:3, unless you mean vertical rotations vs horizontal aka standard) and it means you are either wasting megapixels on screen or from sensor, and both 3:2 and 4:3 are as bad because neither will fit to 16:9, so either do native 16:9 and waste sensor megapixels, or do what ever is best for the photo itself and waste screen and sensor megapixels. Either way the sensor has far more than the screen does and you waste megapixels anyways, so no better not to waste composition for that and use what ever image ratio there is and crop freely regardless 16:9 ratio of display.
Point is, anyone should avoid using viewfinders as composition rules, instead first find the best perspective (move camera location) and then zoom (change focal length) to be larger than the composition is, so you can later on trim the image to final size, what ever it then will be. Meaning using a 27mm instead 32mm or 78mm instead 85mm.
Such thing as well allows one to see "outside" of the game like with a rangefinder viewfinder that has crop guidelines inside the whole view, as you should have the timing and composition in mind before you even raise camera on eye and leave the framing to darkroom/Lightroom.
Why do we have the "full frame" even today so strong? Nikon and Canon mount is to thank for it. The glass those users had, couldn't change physically the system (mount), they couldn't get around their minds of specific focal length meaning about usual field of view, so they can't neither get around 50mm is 46° as they can't get around 3:2 is 36x24mm.
Legacy has forced people to think on very restricted formats and view, instead being free to use any framing and any focal lenghts to get the moment, story, emotion and memory.
Fear to lose details is one of the worst problems one might have as they can't get over the formats, focal lenghts, ratios etc.
Posted by: Fri13 | Wednesday, 03 October 2018 at 12:30 PM
The first Barnack cameras had no space between images on the film, (perhaps sometimes actually overlapping a smidgen),so the horizontal size was decreased just a little to provide such a space.
Posted by: Bill Mitchell | Wednesday, 03 October 2018 at 01:17 PM
Something worth noting: Every attempt to supplant Barnack's standard has failed.
Barnack, like Jobs, changed the course of civilization. They never set out to do so.
Posted by: misha | Wednesday, 03 October 2018 at 02:34 PM
35mm and 135 are not interchangeable terms.
The 135 format, originally introduced by Kodak, specifies 35mm double-perf film factory packaged in a ready to use cassette that did not need any special action performed by the camera body to open any door, as was the case with the Leica cassettes. They created it to make retail sales of ready to use film more practical and to go along with their then new Retina camera. It was designed so that it would also work in Leica cameras. Without the felt lip style cassette, it isn't "135".
As noted by others, there have been other 35mm wide film formats. 135 was the first, and most long lived, of Kodak's 3 film formats based on 35mm wide film. The paper backed, single perf formats, both 828 and 126, used a thinner film base with 126 also using a double sided plastic package that eliminated any threading issues. The Bantam Special from Kodak was a decidedly up-market camera and it used the film's perferation to auto-stop the film advance. Few, if any, other 828 cameras from any manufacture used the per, instead relying on the "number in the ruby window" approach.
Agfa's Rapid format was an interesting approach that offered an easy loading 35mm format. It was used originally in a 24x36mm format camera and was later resurrected for a line of 24x24 models to compete with Kodak's 126 Instamatics.
Posted by: dwig | Wednesday, 03 October 2018 at 05:05 PM
I disagree with your characterization of 3:2 as "overly long." 3:2 is much closer to the golden ratio. If anything, it's a tad short. 4:3 is just flat ugly. It's all wrong, hurts my eyes. For my 1st digital cam I chose the Olympus e-1. Never liked it.
Posted by: Al C. | Wednesday, 03 October 2018 at 09:21 PM
"the Internet is surprisingly deficient in answering the question "when was Four-Thirds introduced?"
Here's your answer: https://www.dpreview.com/reviews/olympuse1
"The camera system and '4/3 System' has a public history (although in private it is likely to have started much earlier) stretching back to February 2001 when Kodak and Olympus announced they would be joining forces to 'develop digital camera technology'."
Posted by: misha | Wednesday, 03 October 2018 at 11:08 PM
Crabby Umbo: only photjournalists?
"I've said repeatedly, 30 years ago, if you took all the professional photographers in the world, and did a survey on what they photographed with, the only people using 35mm would have been photo-journos..."
In my view, you have been labouring under a huge misconception!
I spent my career doing fashion, calendars and advertising photography. I was never a PJ.
I used more 135 film in those days than I ever did 120, despite having a pretty extensive, top-grade arsenal in both formats; we chose horses for courses. Almost anybody who has experience of shooting freestyle, not-to-layout model shots will tell you: it's about the build-up during the shooting, done by shooting a lot just to help the model and yourself get to the point where it all comes together, and trying that on 120 leads to a very slow and interrupted process. Statistically, getting one good shot out of the thirty-six was good going. It didn't matter: that one shot was the holy grail; it was what film was for.
Rob
Posted by: Rob Campbell | Thursday, 04 October 2018 at 03:31 AM
“But it turned out that the reason Ad-Ams loved big teles was for prestige, not picturetaking. They were big, expensive, and impressive, and that's why people coveted them so much. When "bridge cameras," with their absurdly long telephoto reach, removed the high status from extremely narrow angles of view, it turned out most people didn't care all that much about telephoto reach after all.”
Seriously? You might want to tweak this. No serious wildlife or sports photographer uses m43 for performance, focus tracking and image quality reasons. The only mirrorless camera with sufficient performance is the Sony A9. I own an Olympus EM1.2 and it sucks for action photography compared to top end DSLRs. The advent of diffraction optics has people flocking to smaller super telephoto lenses.
Posted by: Rory | Thursday, 04 October 2018 at 06:42 AM
Gee thanks Mike. This post is the essence of why this is my favorite site. Good luck finding this kind of writing anywhere else on the interwebs.
Posted by: markoshawn | Thursday, 04 October 2018 at 06:43 AM
I simply can't understand why Canikon have not released cameras with 36x36mm sensors. The lenses already cover the 36mm image circle, and the shooter could choose to shoot in any rectangular ratio or a full-res square. What a huge win that would be!
Posted by: Chris Stump | Thursday, 04 October 2018 at 10:24 AM
Remember the fad for printing 35mm "full-frame"? People went to the extent of filing out negative carriers so the actual image edge showed, you got a black border around the image so everybody could tell you were printing full frame. Now, one concern working with such small negatives was that enlargement made the grain worse, and this gave you the minimum grain for any image size. However, having known a few of these people, there was an almost religious fervor sometimes involved that can't be explained by anything so small.
I crop nearly all the time. First, I'm mostly documenting things rather than taking art shots for art's sake, so I can't always pick and choose all the variables and have to then make the best of what I captured. Second, I don't think all great images are the same aspect ratio :-). And I don't care to pass up any near-greats I stumble upon because they don't happen to match the aspect ratio of my camera.
The people I know, starting with myself, exalted in the longer reach of our old lenses (particularly our 70-200/2.8 lenses) with APS-C cameras. I don't think it goes up infinitely from there -- but for weddings and music jam sessions and and even studio work, 200mm isn't long enough. Most of us couldn't (or at least didn't) afford a 300/2.8 so going past 200 involved a huge increase in shutter speed (or ISO). I didn't even miss the loss on the wide end of the 70-200 that much. And my current Olympus 40-150/2.8 in M43 is about perfect -- that's 80-300 equivalent (except slow; really want it f/2).
If it wasn't advanced amateurs, who was using early 35mm gear, other than a few rare pros? It wasn't casual snapshooters!
Posted by: David Dyer-Bennet | Thursday, 04 October 2018 at 09:46 PM
I suspect that most amateur photographers don't own 13 or 17 inch printers. The largest that they can print at home is 8 1/2 x 11 (I assume that this is true for A4 size for your country). 8x10 frames are easily available (I have no idea about print and frame sizes outside the U.S.).
With just a software change, it seems that any mirror-less camera could do an in-camera crop for 8x10. A learning photographer could frame the photo in the size he/she intended to print it and could easily frame and hang their best work.
Camera, paper and frame all the same ratio. Crop in camera instead of Lightroom. I think that I would like that.
CRM
Posted by: C.R. Marshall | Saturday, 06 October 2018 at 10:56 PM