Tag Archives: aps-c

Equipment, Tests

Format Size Comparison Data

Image Leave a comment

The following charts summarize various data that are useful when comparing formats, either film or digital. (Not all possible comparisons are shown.) Some additional background regarding some of the traditional film formats known as “medium format” is found at the end of this post.

Basic Formats Data

Comparisons Normalized to Full Frame Format

Comparisons Normalized to miniMF 33×44 Format

Comparisons Normalized to 645 Medium Format Film

Comparisons Normalized to Full Frame at 4:3 Crop

Comparisons of Square Formats Normalized to 6×6 Medium Format Film

Comparions Normalized to 6×17 “Panoramic” Medium Format Film

Visual Comparison

The following illustration shows the relative sizes of some common digital and film formats. (Not all variations are shown.) The leftmost group includes common digital formats. The next group — indicated in yellow — includes common traditional formats collectively known as “medium format” film. At the far right is 4×5 “large format” film.

A chart showing the relative sizes of several digital and film photography formats ranging from micro-four-thirds to 4x5 film
A chart showing the relative sizes of several digital and film photography formats ranging from micro-four-thirds to 4×5 film

Notes on this illustration:

  • 645 film is shown in both the “landscape” and “portrait” orientations in order to make clear that it shares the 56mm dimension with the other types of medium format film. (The portrait version is partially hidden the landscape version.)
  • There are multiple variations on “large format film.” Shown here is the most common 4″ x 5″ size, the smallest of the large format film formats typically still in use.

About Medium Format Film

While those of us who have “done photography” for a long time are familiar with the traditional “medium formats,” those without that perspective may be less (or not at all) familiar with the meaning of the term. Medium format” traditionally (for many decades) referred to film formats using (primarily) 120/220 film with a 6cm (60mm) physical width. While details of these formats are included in the tables above, here is a brief contextual overview:

  • 645 format (1) is the smallest of the traditional common film medium formats. It is named based on “6cm x 4.5cm.” In actual use the frame size is slightly smaller than the 6cm film width at about 56mm. (This is typical of film medium formats — the “6” always refers to the physical film width, not the smaller actual image size.)
  • 6×6 format produces a square image of approximately 56mm x 56mm, and is the next larger film medium format above 645.
  • 6×7 format uses the 56mm width-determined dimension for its shorter side, and thus has a larger area than 6×6. (It approximately replicates the 5:4 aspect ratio of LF film.)
  • 6×9 format also keeps the 56mm dimension its shorter side, but expands the longer dimension to produce a 3:2 aspect ratio – like 35mm film and full frame digital.
  • 6×17 format (also known as “panoramic format”) is the largest common medium format. It also uses the 56mm dimension for its short side but greatly extends the long dimension to produce a 3:1 aspect ratio.

(1) While Pentax names its miniMF digital cameras using the “645” term, they do not use 645 format sensors. They use 33mm x 44mm sensors, just like Fujifilm, Hasselblad, and others. Additional note: On a few occasions, Fujifilm has referred to 33mm x 44mm format as “super full frame.”

(For comparison purposes, note that the dimension that is 56mm on 645 film format is 44mm on miniMF. When comparing to the other medium formats, the analogous comparison is between 56mm and 33mm.)

G Dan Mitchell is a California photographer and visual opportunist. His book, “California’s Fall Color: A Photographer’s Guide to Autumn in the Sierra” is available from Heyday Books and Amazon.

Blog | About | Flickr | Facebook | Email

Links to Articles, Sales and Licensing, my Sierra Nevada Fall Color book, Contact Information.

All media © Copyright G Dan Mitchell and others as indicated. Any use requires advance permission from G Dan Mitchell.

Equipment, Reviews

More Thoughts About the Fujifilm X-E1

6 Comments

(Note: Chuq von Rospach recently tried out a Fujifilm X-Pro1 and wrote about shoot he did with the camera, musing about whether or not it would work for him as a landscape photography camera. I wrote a lengthy comment in reply and since I think it might be useful to others considering these interesting Fujifilm mirrorless cameras, I have decided to share the comment again here, with a few edits. Do note that the X-Pro1 that he used is not the same camera as the X-E1 that I use.)

I’ve been using the Fujifilm X-E1 Digital Camera quite a bit for the past few months. This camera is a mirrorless “rangefinder style” body with an electronic viewfinder. There is also a model with a hybrid electronic and optical viewfinder, the Fujifilm X-Pro1. A decent set of Fujinon lenses is now available with more on the way – see a list at the end of this post. (There’s an earlier report here at my blog – see Fujifilm X-E1: From DSLR to Mirrorless – that article gives a bit more background about these cameras and their unique X-trans sensor.  It needs updating now that I have a lot more usage of the camera under my belt, and I plan to write this real review soon.)

I think that the main issue with trying to use the X-Pro1 or the X-E1 as a landscape/nature camera is that this is not really what it is best suited to doing. That said, it could make an excellent lightweight and small backpacker’s or hiker’s camera for those who aren’t trying to do in their photography what I’m trying to do, but who want the potential of very good image quality. The image quality from this camera is quite good considering its diminutive size and weight, but not what you’ll get from a full frame DSLR for sure.

I find that this camera is great for street shooting and other sorts of “on the go” photography done without the tripod, where small size/weight is critical, and where you might want to work somewhat quickly. (Although the AF system is not well suited to shooting particularly active subjects, though there are ways to make it more effective.)

I’m just back from four days in Portland, Oregon, where I used it to shoot urban subjects (mostly) and was grateful for its small size, which allowed me to carry it , along with other non-camera stuff, in a small messenger bag – which, not incidentally, works much better as carry-on luggage that what I must take when I shoot my DSLR. My full frame DSLR would have made for such a large bundle on this trip that the messenger bag wouldn’t have worked, but I could carry this camera (with the 35mm f/1.4 and the 14mm f/2.8) and my small laptop plus all of those other assorted things that typically come along on such a jaunt. Continue reading More Thoughts About the Fujifilm X-E1 →