Something has been “bugging” me recently.
“35mm Full frame equivalent”
If you are into photography you know what I mean. If you’re not then you won’t care I guess.
Why do camera magazines in particular and also many enthusiasts feel the need to convert the focal length of lenses used with their (non full-frame) cameras when captioning their images? For anyone who has never used a full-frame camera it is probably meaningless or at least not something they can visualise easily. I suspect that many readers really don’t give a FF and that those to whom it matters will be knowledgeable enough to work it out for themselves.
I came to digital photography from film SLR cameras so it could be argued that I come with baggage as it were. Turns out that those film cameras I used for 30+ years were full frame all along. Who knew? Based on this arbitrary standard therefore my newly acquired Canon 400D had what was called a “crop sensor”. Clearly I had a lot to learn as I transitioned from analog to digital.
I took up digital photography around 2002/2003 and certainly do not remember converting to “FFE”, it just wasn’t a thing back then – and I really don’t think I was worse off for it not being a thing either. But now it seems to matter. Why?
So here’s my point. I suspect that many people coming to photography these days have never shot with film and more likely than not started their photographic endeavours with what are now known as crop-sensor digital cameras. For them there is no FF baggage, no FF background as it were. If they are in the majority (and I have done zero research on this) then wouldn’t it be more logical to caption images captured on a FF camera with the APS-C equivalent? And if so which standard – 1.5x, 1.6x, 2x? Or should we just let those who are interested work it out for themselves? It’s hardly Olympic standard mental arithmetic after all.
I guess if you are paid by the word though you might consider the extra wordage necessary?