Full Frame with 4:3 AR?

<p>Hi.<br>

I'm not find of the 4:3 AR. For some reason, I like either squarish or 3:2 and wider. That said, 4:3 is popular in many places: the 6x4,5 format s 4:3, so is that held frame format, and so are most compact and bridge cameras, not to mention (m)43. So I was wondering why I see no one, anywhere, pining for a 25.8x34.4 sensor. That would have a diagonal of exactly 43mm, so it could make the best of every past and future FF lens (well, a 30.5x30.5 could make the most of them, but square format isn't considered general purpose; I've seen someone once suggest a 30.5x36 sensor, so that you could choose AR at will, but that would still mean a lot of unused sensor regardless of the chosen AR).<br>

I can only think that manufacturers don't go for it because, for the same diagonal, a 4:3 sensor has a larger area than a 3:2 one (hence getting more out of the lenses), which means there will be fewer sensors per wafer, but following that logic why aren't lower-end cameras 3:2 as well?<br>

As I said, I'm not fond of 4:3, but I'm fond of diversity and a 4:3 sensor able to use FF lenses fully would be interesting. Heck, I think there are 25.8 usable vertical mm in a 135 film strip, so why not have 5% more shots per roll, with each shot having 2.7% larger area? Does anyone know of past 135 film cameras using more than 24mm vertical?</p>

<p>I don't know that it would be easy to get more than 24mm between the sprockets on 135 film, but what you are looking for in old cameras might be an 828 film format (40 × 28 mm) camera, or even the 127 size that you refer to (4x4 cm super slide).<br>

Films are still available it these old formats, I think, but only with difficulty. They were discontinued by the major makers a long time ago.</p>

<p>What about an Instamatic 500? 126 cartridges are available, as is unperforated 35mm film to reload with.</p>

If you crop a full frame shot to 4:3 you're using 24x32mm of the sensor. That's 40mm diagonal. I can't really see any

camera company going that far out of their way to add 3mm. If you really want a big 4:3 sensor, get a Pentax 645D or a

Phase One.

<p>Hi folks,<br>

@JDM, the films I look at give about 25.9mm from sprocket to sprocket. Other may be different. I'll have a look at current crops.<br>

@Nick, @JDM, sure, other film formats do it. I was wondering about non-standard use of 135 film. (126 film rules!)<br>

@Andy, 3m diagonal is not peanuts (I had to reread you a couple of times to get what you were saying). Are there great challenges in making 25.8x34.4 sensors? Sensors come in very many sizes. I though I was clear that I don't even like 4:3. It's not that I want it, it's just that I'm curious.</p>

 

<p>This question came up recently and the simple answer is that the aspect ratio of the camera is pretty much irrelevant. When 2 1/14-square (6x6) was king for wedding and portrait photographers but customers wanted their 8x10s and 11x14s, photographers used thin tape to show the proportions on the groundglass. They composed to fit the proportions and cropped accordingly when they printed by didn't worry about the proportions of the negative.<br /><br />You can do basically the same today. Not as easy to mark the viewfinder in a DSLR but if you get the image of your proportions in your head you can shoot with what you've got and crop as you see fit.<br /><br />If you're shooting for yourself, you can do whatever you like. If you are shooting for paying clients, better to shoot the full sensor and have the flexibility to crop not only the way you like it but the way the client likes it.<br /><br />No, the manufacturers are not going to come out with a sensor to fit everyone's preferences. Between full frame, the crop frame variations and all mirrorless formats, there are already too many for the less-dominant ones to be economically viable in the long term. </p>

I don't think I'm being successful putting my question thru. Never mind, it's not very important. I thought of putting this in

the OT forum, but that seems to be for moving OT threads to rather than starting new ones.

<p>First, I will mention that there are people out there who modify the film opening on Stereo Realist cameras to equal the size of the Belplasca Stereo. Presumably this could be done with some film cameras to squeeze in another mm or so.<br>

Also, just this morning I found a 1966 proposal for a re-doing of the 35mm film format from <em>Modern Photography</em>.<br>

Here it is for historical interest. <br>

Fifty years ago or more, there was a German TV ad in which a little fish said "Too Late!" (zu spät!). Somehow I am reminded of it here.</p><div></div>

<p>It is interesting to wonder why, when smaller sensors for digital were being developed, there was not an immediate move to 4:3. Or why, for that matter, APS film was not so proportioned. I can only assume that enough people like the 35 mm. aspect ratio, are used to it, and want their images to have it, that the manufacturers decided to stick with it. </p>

<p>After all, this whole thread begins with the statement that you prefer it. So do I. Perhaps it's just as simple as that. Maximizing pixels makes sense only if you're going to keep the format they come in. If you're going to crop your resulting images back to 3:2, nothing is gained. </p>

<p>Didn't one of Canon early 135 camera use a 24x30 (or 24x32) frame, moving 7 sprocket holes per view instead of 8 ?<br /> Paul</p>

My question was not about changing 35mm film, but making a different usage of the film and lenses as they are.

The other, and original, question, could be recast as why are small sensors 4:3. Would there be something specific to

smaller sizes that would favour that ratio? Maybe formats aren't so free form, after all a number of sensors aren't exactly

the nominal ratio. And Panasonic has a history of not-quite-4:3 sensors so that 3:2 mode isn't so wasteful...

<p>I answer to myself : no, it was the first Nikon rangefinder ! see :<br>

http://www.mir.com.my/rb/photography/companies/nikon/htmls/models/htmls/nikon1_S.htm<br>

Paul</p>

 

<p>Seems to me that DSLRs follow 3:2 of 35mm SLRs, intentionally. If one company changes that, they have to explain why they are changing it. <br>

As far as APS, APS cameras allow one to choose the aspect ratio, though the camera always takes the full image. The selection is recorded on the film, and used in printing. APS allows for APS-C (3:2), APS-H (16:9) and APS-P (3:1) panoramic. APS-H is the full image, APS-C trims the ends, and APS-P trims the top and bottom.<br>

By the way, disposable panoramic cameras expose a 12x36mm image with a 24mm lens.</p>