What's the point of the 4/3?

[root]

Doesn't it really boil down to subject matter? More and more, I find that I'm looking through the viewfinder and saying, "yuh there's the shot, and I'm going to crop off the top (bottom, side . . . . whatever). That includes a lot of 1/1 and 2/1 compositions. I suppose it would be ideal to have a collection of cameras in your pack for each aspect ratio, but unless you specialize in a pariticular kind of subject/format, you end up with universal tool and specialize only when it becomes clear that your photography is going in that direction.

[frank_oddsocks]

Yes, I think it's a combination of personal preference and subject matter. The subject matter often loosely correlates with the focal length, but that depends on the photographer.

 

I wish I could crop well in the viewfinder, but I'm one of those people who gets seduced by the WYSIWYG experience and comes back with shots in the camera's aspect ratio rather than the one I wanted. I guess the ultimate is to have a set of bodies with different aspect ratios and swap lenses as required. But, for a lot of us, the panoramic body would live on the ultra-wide, and the square body on the short tele, and it's a shame the ultrawide at least doesn't come as a standalone camera in the manner of the 612 panoramics.

 

Godfrey makes a good point that you want different sensor sizes at different focal lengths, though I'd want a small sensor for greater depth of field (it's windy down here.)

[kelly_flanigan1]

In the USA; standard paper size for letters is 8.5x11 inches; for at least a century. Most all goober inkjet home printers are this size. Most all color copiers are this size. Alot of printing is done with 8.5x11 inches in the USA. Digital printing was done to color copiers before Photoshop was born. 8.5x11 is a quarter of a 17x22 sheet; the basis for "bond paper" weight. 500 sheets of 17x22 "20 Lb bond" weighs twenty pounds. If damp; the weight is more abit. <BR><BR>Before Photoshop; before color copiers; folks used tractor fed pin/hammer printers. Alot of foks went from typewriters to Pc's; and did business letters using a PC and a non-inkjet printer. Most printing was done with 8.5x11 paper; the margins in the programs for 8.5x11 inches. Even early graphics programs for B&W wrote to 8.5x11 printers. <BR><br>The darn filing cabinets in the US are built around 8.5x11 paper. The A,B,C and D size papers for engineering are foldable to 8.5x1. These are 11x17; 17x22; 22x34. These are the "engineering A,B.C, and D" sizes used by the Bell System even before World War II. All these sizes of drawings can be folded to fit a standard 8.5x11 size; which fits in a 9x12 envelope. ( Arch A,B,C,D are larger; 9x12; 12x18; 18x24; 24x36 etc.<BR><br>8.5x11 inches has been around for over 100 years.<b> Divide 11 by 8.5 and see what you get.</b> <BR><BR>Trial boards for courts are often 30x40 inches.

[neild]

Frank Oddsocks: <i>"I personally hate the 1.5 aspect ratio, and its prevalence is why I don't have a flash digital SLR."</i>

<p>

Godfrey DiGiorgi: <i>"... on a sensor, square or not..."</i>

<p>

Carl Root: <i>"... and I'm going to crop off the top (bottom, side . . . . whatever). That includes a lot of 1/1 and 2/1 compositions. I suppose it would be ideal to have a collection of cameras in your pack for each aspect ratio, but unless you specialize in a pariticular kind of subject/format, you end up with universal tool and specialize only when it becomes clear that your photography is going in that direction."</i>

<p>

Kelly Flanigan: <i>"8.5x11 inches has been around for over 100 years. Divide 11 by 8.5 and see what you get."</i>

<p>

So surely a square format sensor (on a digital camera) could be cropped to any and all of your personal preference for aspect ratio <i>while still</i> allowing one to never have to worry about whether to turn the camera on its side or not for the shot. A square fits nicely into the circular image circle of a lens - so it seems it would be OK for you guys as well as for me...

[ilkka_nissila]

Square sensors are a waste unless you always want a square image; with a 3:2 aspect ratio, you have a compromise between panoramic and a square which doesn't waste much sensor area in any case.

 

Although the A4 paper's aspect ratio doesn't perfectly match 2:3, with about 18 mm white borders it does. And that's the way I want them. Letter paper is a USA standard but the USA market, while it's big for one country, isn't really enough to cause many sensor makers to choose it.

[neild]

Ilkka, a square sensor will not lose as much of the <i>image circle</i> of the lens as you would lose cropping a 2:3 format to a square.

[godfrey]

<i>..."Although the A4 paper's aspect ratio doesn't perfectly match 2:3, with about 18 mm

white borders it does. And that's the way I want them. Letter paper is a USA standard but

the USA market, while it's big for one country, isn't really enough to cause many sensor

makers to choose it."...</i>

<br><br>

Since nearly all digital camera sensors, other than DSLRs coming from those who have a

large investiture in 35mm lens systems, are 4:3 proportions, evidently they disagree with

you. I suspect they are unlikely to change quickly to another format.

<br><br>

Godfrey

[frank_oddsocks]

The dimensions of existing paper, whether A4 or US, ought not to count for much since guillotines are common, and in fact most darkrooms already have one. You only need to make one cut to trim down A4 or letter to the more attractive squarer formats, and you can continue to use existing printers.

 

Hardly anyone thinks an 18mm border is wide enough by itself without a matte.

 

Yes, a square sensor is ideal and I hope the way things turn out. The finder would mask (either optically or electronically) to the aspect ratio and horizontal/vertical as required, and you'd never have to futz around with the tripod. But the square is not practical with existing 35mm lenses, many of which are masked to the 1.5 aspect ratio.

[frank_oddsocks]

It's just occurred to me that using the middle 24 mm x 24 mm is really no worse than 15mm x 22 mm or whatever is currently done. I guess it isn't done because the makers quite reasonably think that someone who owns a bunch of 35mm lenses likes that format.

[bill_tuthill]

Olympus 4/3 is similar to APS in not having fulfilled its design

goals. APS was supposed to be smaller, but the Olympus Epic series

was smaller than most APS cameras, higher quality, and less expensive.

Likewise the Pentax *ist-D(s), which are smaller and lighter than

Olympus' low-end E-300, and use mainstream Sony CCD.

[godfrey]

<i>Bill Tuthill wrote:<br>

... [well, it isn't worth repeating anyway] ... </i>

<br><br>

The fortresses of conservatism seem alive and well here on photo.net. Now attacking

FourThirds with the same verve and vigor that APS was attacked with.

<br><br>

APS is a splendid format that was released late in film's era and nailed to the cross by such

conservatism. All you have to do to realize how good it was is to load an APS cartridge into

a Minolta Scan Dual II and tell the scanner to scan 40 frames at full resolution, and come

back an hour later to find 40 high quality scans, all done without missing dirt, scratches,

fingerprints, etc, without needing ICE dust and scratch removal in the scanner.

<br><br>

FourThirds is a good, sensible design for a "from the ground up" digital camera system,

even if its only Olympus who produces a full line of

bodies and lenses in the FourThirds format. Compactness is a secondary benefit, and is

mainly applicable to the lenses, not the bodies. Both the

E-1 and E-300 are very good bodies and Olympus' lens line is of excellent quality. My only

reservation is that there aren't enough lens choices yet, but given what lenses there are I

would be happy with either of them. It takes years to assemble a lens line like Canon or

Nikon have ... and people here bitch about their digital bodies and lenses, too. Oh, they

aren't all "full frame" sensors? they're not *exactly* what 35mm film cameras were before

them? obviously substandard.

<br><br>

Seems like no manufacturer can actually satisfy photo.net users. Innovation is decried,

everyone wants only what they are familiar with.

<br><br>

Sorry for the rant, and nothing against Bill specifically, but these attitudes just seem dumb

to me.

<br><br>

Godfrey

[konrad_beck1]

Frank Oddsocks wrote: "one of the Japanese makers (I think it was Nikon) made 24mm x 32mm cameras until the market forced them into line."

 

I have read this story a little bit differently: At least also Olympus tried to introduce the 24x32mm format in the post-war era when Japan was under US occupation, and it was written that it were the occupational (not market) forces who forbid the japanese to export these cameras. Why? I don't know; might be to protect the Kodak emperium (the japanese film production wasn't yet up to paar).

[bill_tuthill]

Yup, I'm so conservative that I drive a horse and carriage to work.

I just bought a new buggy whip last week!

 

Viewed as a system, the nicest aspects of the Olympus 4/3 are that

lenses pair up and take the same filters, and that post-processing

is minimal compared to Canon DSLR. However the Pentax *ist-D(s) is

smaller, lighter, equally capable, and takes standard AA batteries.

Olympus and Pentax are the only two major brands without antishake.

 

The Kodak DCS SLR/c is down to $3500 now, so I believe it won't be

too much longer until full-frame DSLR is affordable.

[godfrey]

You neglect the single biggest innovation that Olympus has pioneered: built in

sensor cleaning. This along with superb weather sealing on the E-1 and the excellent

quality of the lenses is almost enough to push me over the edge. And yes, the lack of IS

Olympus lens line is a disadvantage. I don't miss it with fast wide-normal-portrait tele

lenses, but I'd surely miss it with 200-700mm lenses... That's where the Konica Minolta

Maxxium 7D has pioneered another great feature: IS in the body so it applies to ALL

lenses.

 

The FourThirds "format" isn't an issue at all. Details of what features are provided vs

lacking are.

 

Godfrey

[neild]

Godfrey, I'm sure that other manufacturer's will be able to develop sensor cleaning too.

<p>

On another unrelated point, I for one want full-frame sensors - not because I'm conservative but because I want to use my wide angle lenses as wide angle lenses again...

[godfrey]

That I'm sure of too... but no one except Olympus has done it yet. That's what innovation

is all about. :-)

 

I understand the issues of owning a lens line and wanting to have the same field of view

choices. For you and people of like mind and need, a 24x36mm sensor is the only real

option.

 

I took a different tack in moving to digital SLRs, both because it was available to me and

because I felt it had more value: I sold off my 35mm system of Nikon bodies and lenses

and invested anew specifically with the Canon 10D sensor size in mind. My photography

over the past several decades rarely has me reaching for anything much wider than 20

-24mm field of view (I've had wider and I just don't use them enough), and that's available

for both the APS-C sized and FourThirds sensor systems. I like having a lighter, smaller f/

1.4 lens that gives me a perfect portrait tele field of view, and a bit more Dof. Same for a

300mm tele, etc.

 

Again, I just don't see the point of decrying a particular format because it's not what you

want. If it's not for you, it's not. There are other options, and any given format can have a

lot of merit for many others.

 

Godfrey

[kelly_flanigan1]

APS in film is great. Then the discovery comes that processing is manytimes 50 percent more in cost; and not all labs had the service. Imagine marketing a product that always costs one 50 percent more to use; than the masses 35mm cameras. Alot of folks got tired of always paying more for APS processing.

[godfrey]

Photofinishers hated APS because it required them to invest in new processing hardware.

Most were never set up correctly, never gave you the format's due quality. I only began to

see how good the lens on even a little Canon ELPH Jr. was when I first put a roll of my film

through a high-rez film scanner.

 

APS was killed by intransigence on the part of photofinishers made it expensive when it

shouldn't have been, photo dealers and enthusiasts who warned people away from it, and

because of the astonishing speed with which digital cameras have taken over the

consumer photography market ... not because it was a "bad" format.

 

It's dumb to harp on the format as bad ... It is a very good format with many forward

thinking advantages. It simply the last new format in film that will likely ever be

introduced.

 

Godfrey

[neild]

Godfrey, one other thing about format: an APS-sized sensor has effectively greater DOF for a given f-stop than does a larger sensor. You end up needing f/1.0 lenses on APS to recreate the shallow DOF of f/2.8 on full-frame. This is fine if you prefer greater DOF, but if you don't, it's kind of annoying in a way...

[godfrey]

<center>

<img src="http://homepage.mac.com/ramarren/photo/PAW3/large/56.jpg"><br>

<i>Man at Corner - Canon 10D + 50mm f/1.4</i><br>

</center><br>

Yeah! I tend to like the deeper DoF. I spent a lot of time shooting with Minox subminiature

format to obtain deep DoF. It's just as useful a compositional tool at shallow DoF.

<br><br>

An f/1.4-f/2.0 lens is excellent at making shallow DoF, even on an APS-C sized sensor.

Trust me. ;-)

<br><br>

Godfrey

[neild]

I also use a 10D, and that's why I bought my 50mm f/1.2!