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

<p>Why do Canon do it? Why?<br>

If they're not removing RAW or flip screens or f/2 lens or crippling features or removing HD video to annoy the camera buying public they now ruin a potential design innovation classic.<br>

The S90 looks to have most things you could ask for from a pocket camera but why only 4:3 and 16:9? No 3:2.<br>

I never use 4:3 mode now unless using my old A80. It's a horrible format IMO. I use 3:2 and 16:9 where appropriate and of course 16:9 is usually ridiculous in portrait orientation.<br>

So can anybody give me a technical reason why Canon would do this? I can't believe the image circle wouldn't fill this mode.<br>

They don't deserve our money. That's just my $449 worth.</p>

So buy an LX3 instead?

<p>I have an LX3 but that's not the point.</p>

 

Oskar Barnack of Leitz was obviously wrong about the 3:2 format in 1913, which is why 35mm film was such an unsuccessful format. Canon knows best!

 

While we are on the topic, allow me to complain about the lack of HD video. Perhaps the Sony chip (probably) inside the S90 and G11 does not allow HD video.

<p>Really the funniest thread I have read for some time ... LOL</p>

<p>Really the funniest thread I have read for some time ... LOL</p>

<p>Bill,<br /> You can read the specs on the Sony sensor yourself. It doesn't support HD video.</p>

<p>http://www.sony.net/Products/SC-HP/cx_news/vol57/pdf/icx685cqz.pdf</p>

<p>[[so can anybody give me a technical reason why Canon would do this?]]</p>

<p>Paul, see above.</p>

 

<p>JC this is really not funny for many people! The G10 had 3:2 according to <a href="http://www.dpreview.com/reviews/specs/Canon/canon_g10.asp">http://www.dpreview.com/reviews/specs/Canon/canon_g10.asp</a><br>

OK maybe a technical reason but this is really poor in 2 cameras at this price point and IMO not good enough. No HD and only a 4:3. This explains why the SD video is not widescreen either. 16:9 mode would be at a reduced resolution also.</p>

 

Aha: The "ICX685CQZ also provides readout modes [to] acquire VGA resolution images at 30 frames/sec [or] 60 frames/sec."

 

If Canon provides 16:9 cropped 3648x2048, there is no technical reason they can't provide 3:2 cropped 3648x2432, is there? Fuji does it on the F200EXR.

<p>too bad they didn't make the sensor square.</p>

<p>paul, they did it just to annoy you. it's really quite simple: you dont like the specs, dont buy the camera.</p>

Bummed it's not FF...

You can upgrade from IE to Firefox (FF) at any time.

<p>You call FF an upgrade?</p>

From IE7 most definitely. Perhaps not from Safari. Haven't tried IE8. My favorite aspect of Firefox is that you can set font-override to Palatino or something better than (cough) Arial.

FF = Full Frame

<p>I guess this is a technical issue, because they allow 16:9 format, and only guide lines for a 3:2 ratio.<br>

They didn't forget the 3:2 format ;)<br>

Maybe a firmware could fix that?</p>

Julien, according to the specs on dpreview.com, 3:2 is not available. Highest resolution 3648x2736 is 4:3 and next highest resolution 3648x2048 is 16:9.

<p>It does seem a bit strange that they offer a 16:9 crop mode but not a 3:2...but then they give you on-screen 3:2 guide lines. Maybe Canon is just trying to *&@# with our minds :-)</p>

<p>As I plan on shooting the S90 in RAW, I don't find the lack of 3:2 a deal breaker, but I can see why JPEG shooters would be annoyed (given that it does 16:9).</p>

<p>*&@# with our wallets more like</p>

<p>LOL @ Paul. Yeah, you have a point :-/</p>

<p>If Oskar Barnack, had the films we have today, the Leica might well have had a 4:3 format as the standard 35mm film aperture is 18 x 24mm (3:4). I had an Olympus Pen F half frame and am now an Olympus E series user because of the format.<br>

I for one have no use for 3x2. If you closely examine the artistic merits of 3:2 they are pretty weak. Before Oskar's choice of 35mm film, photography was pretty much 4x5, 8x10 and so on.<br>

Some time check out a museum's painting collection, it seems to me most are other than 3:2.<br>

My standard presentation format is a 6x8 image centered on 8.5x11 paper or 12x16 on 17x22. I find these formats fit most subjects well.<br>

David</p>

<p>just crop during video editing,</p>

<p>If you use the 2:3 overlay and compose within those lines, any kiosk print will be cropped correctly for a 2:3 ratio automatically. Personally, I'd have made the 9:16 ratio an overlay instead of a cropped down capture as well. This is kind of like complaining that a 6X6 doesn't always have a 645 mask available.<br>

The spin dial on the back being non-clickstopped or non-lockable is the only flaw I can find in the camera.<br>

Love mine.</p>

<p>I completely feel your pain. I recently went to order 50 prints from holidays on MPix and had to crop every single image I took no matter what paper option I chose. To me this is a big deal as I always take great care in my compositions and fill the frame from edge to edge...to have to cut away portions of the image to fit a print makes me twitch...and not in a good way.<br>

I ended up getting 4x5 prints as they required the least amount of cropping. Coming from a background of 35mm the 4:3 aspect ratio on the S90 just doesn't work for me. Try buying a frame for a 4x5 print...<br>

Oh well, I didn't realize there was a grid overlay to represent 3:2 so I'll try using that going forward.</p>