Jump to content

Canon S90 - no 3:2 mode - Give me one reason why.


oofoto

Recommended Posts

<p>I gave up on prints and did a photo book instead so I can print whatever ratio I like all with border and title.<br>

I just took a moment to ask myself if what I was about to post is going to be useful to the person who asked the question. I think when someone stumbles upon this exchange four years from now via a Google search, they are going to say 'that was worth my time to read'.</p>

Link to comment
Share on other sites

I thought this issue was important when Paul first posted, but lately I have been shooting 4:3 to give myself more latitude for cropping, then posting 3:2 to the web. My kayak bobs up and down more than it rocks from side to side, so I seldom need to crop sides. Wish my camera had "zoom bracketing" for the current setting and adjacent ones. Exposure bracketing was needed with my old Canon SD800, but the Fuji F200EXR always seems to nail the exposure. (Zoom bracketing is possible with CHDK!)

 

The EX1 / TL500, which Samsung touts as their LX3 killer, doesn't have 3:2 either. Same sensor as the S90 and G11, but looks more attractive to shoot, if it ever reaches American shores. The swivel LCD has 614k pixels.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

<p>Yeah Bill you're right about the Samsung TL500 also not having a native 3:2 aspect ratio....too bad because I would have sold my S90 in a heartbeat and bought the TL500 if it did. I guess most people just post on the internet and don't care about prints....but for me I use the S90 for family vacation snapshots and I'm old-school...I like the prints.</p>
Link to comment
Share on other sites

  • 2 weeks later...
<p>3x4 is fine. Personally I prefer square. Ansel preferred 4:5. Can't make everyone happy.. That said, the S90 is clearly aimed at photographers. They didn't waste time or money trying to deliver HD video. They didn't try to cram 14M pixels in. They didn't put in a bad optical viewfinder like my old G10 (and I'm a film guy mostly so I like viewfinders!). They put in as fast a lens as they could. They put in controls that really allow manual control. Sweet. </p>
Link to comment
Share on other sites

  • 1 month later...

<p>---------"I just took a moment to ask myself if what I was about to post is going to be useful to the person who asked the question. I think when someone stumbles upon this exchange four years from now via a Google search, they are going to say 'that was worth my time to read'." - Paul Marbs-----------</p>

<p>HAHaHA! wow. i googled "canon s90 use, forum" because i was on the fence about purchasing a s90.<br>

I'll keep it short, but i am going to say 'that was worth my time to read'!</p>

<p>humbly,<br>

a new s90 owner</p>

 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

  • 4 weeks later...

I wonder if the S95 will blur the heck out of high ISO as the S90 did, or try to offer a little more detail albeit with noise as the G11 did. Can't wait to see samples. It is going to be hard to beat the LX5 at high ISO, given samples on this Swedish review site (click Testbilder):

 

http://www.cyberphoto.se/?http://www.cyberphoto.se/info.php?article=LX5

Link to comment
Share on other sites

  • 10 years later...
<p>I gave up on prints and did a photo book instead so I can print whatever ratio I like all with border and title.<br>

I just took a moment to ask myself if what I was about to post is going to be useful to the person who asked the question. I think when someone stumbles upon this exchange four years from now via a Google search, they are going to say 'that was worth my time to read'.</p>

It wasn't not even 11 years later.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Why is this strange thread still going it was misguided from the start. Even if it had a 3:2 option it would be a in camera crop from the native 4:3 which could be achieved in post. Not to mention the fact that 4:3 makes more sense any way, it more closely matches all the standard paper sizes.

BTW I still have a S95 a great little camera, on reflection I should have accepted the trade in value offered all those years ago because I've not used it since.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Create an account or sign in to comment

You need to be a member in order to leave a comment

Create an account

Sign up for a new account in our community. It's easy!

Register a new account

Sign in

Already have an account? Sign in here.

Sign In Now
×
×
  • Create New...