Discussion in 'Open Discussion' started by slackercruster, Jul 18, 2012.
Do you prefer the 4/3 ratio be used in a 35mm FF dslr?
The question doesn't make sense.
First, when you say "35mm full frame", you're referring to a film format, not a digital format. There are some digital cameras using what we call a "full frame sensor" but they're not 35mm cameras because the 35mm measurement refers to the width of the film and digital cameras don't use film so they can't be 35mm anything.
Second, the terminology "full frame" refers to a sensor of specific dimensions, those of a 35mm full frame film negative which is 24mm x 36mm in size. If you change the aspect ratio you also change the dimensions and then you've got a new sensor size which isn't going to be called full frame. It will be called something else because no one would want to use the term "full frame sensor" to refer to sensors of 2 different sizes because that would be confusing. The new sized sensor would be given some other name so we would never see a sensor with 4:3 aspect ratio being called "full frame".
So, as I said, your question as currently framed doesn't make sense.
I think what you're asking is whether people would want to see a digital single lens reflex camera that uses the same lenses as current DSLRs but with a 4:3 aspect ratio sensor designed to utilise the same image circle as the sensors in current full frame DSLRs.
My reaction is why would you want such a camera? You're not going to gain any advantage over full frame dslrs because there will be no size advantage to the sensor. All you get is a different aspect ratio and you can crop the existing full frame to 4:3. Sure you lose a few pixels but if you had a 4:3 sensor that could replace the FF sensor size, people would be cropping images from it in order to present their pictures in other aspect ratios also. There's no real gain there for anyone.
Way to over-complicate things David.
Basic question is whether people prefer 4:3 as an aspect ratio and would like to see a 'fullframe' camera (i.e. DSLR with a sensor roughly the size of a piece of 35mm film, a term that is perfectly understood by 99% of forum users, however technically imperfect the description might be) with a 4:3 aspect ratio sensor.
My answer: I would prefer a 3:2 aspect ratio sensor in MFT cameras, if anything. Although since I can create a simple cropping macro it's sort of moot. I really dislike 4:3 as an aspect ratio for stills - too squat. 3:2 is great, 1:1 is great, and I do love my panoramas, though. 4:3? Not so much at all.
I like the 4:3 ratio. But 6x6 is where it's at.
I would prefer circular sensors.
You could make use of all available light.
You could crop landscape or portrait without turning the camera.
You could set the camera to always give a leveled horizon.
// Lieber Kleinbild als kein Bild.
I'd also prefer m4/3 to be 3:2.
I originally disliked the 4:3 ratio and it's a large part of what kept me away fom micro four thirds cameras. When I first got my OMD I compulsively cropped it's output back to 3:2
Then I realised it's very similar to MF 6x7 which I'm perfectly happy with ... so I got over it.
That said I have no desire for a 4:3 output fom my D700 ... full frame digital is 24 x 36mm and that's the way it should remain.
Mine don't like 4:3 too. I suppose it was set because of PC screen proportions at the moment, first digicams I had all were 4:3 (very first was Olympus 1.3MP BTW). Everything changed since that...
And I like the idea of circulat sensor very much, pheaukus! I'm pretty sure we'll see such cam one day... is it patented already BTW?
Panasonic has got it right in their GH and LX cameras with multi-aspect sensors. Let the user decide which aspect ratio works best.
This. Or a least a square sensor that uses as much of the image circle as possible.
To those who want a 3:2 sensor in an m43 camera, I have your answer: A GH series Panasonic. Unlike every other m43 camera, choosing 3:2 (or 16:9) doesn't just crop pixels off the top and bottom. Panasonic GH cameras have a wider than standard sensor, so you actually get extra pixels on the sides. As close as anyone makes to the circular sensor in a small body.
But regardless of the sensor format, I crop my photos to fit the subject matter, not the sensor aspect ratio or "standard" print sizes. I see no point in leaving extraneous area in my image just because the sensor is wider (or taller) than the image I'm trying to make.
Agreed, though even they don't go to 1:1.
If I had to use 1 aspect ratio though, it would be 3:2. I don't find 4:3 really suits my style of landscapes.
Rokton Circular Sensor, announced April 1st 2010 :tongue:
Thanks for the clarification of my poor wording of the question.
The advantage is in the cropping. If you find you like 6x 6, then 4 x 3 is not far off and a nice compromise.
I try not to depend on cropping to fix a pix. Sure, you can crop something to death, but I prefer to try and get it somewhat right from the start. So I was just asking which ratio you prefer.
My favorite formats are 6x6 and 4x5, so I really like the 4/3 ratio as opposed to the 3:2, which is too long for my taste. That said, it's easy enough to crop a 3:2 image on the long end, thus keeping that option without having to crop a 4:3 sensor.
Some here think 4/3 is too "squat", but except perhaps for landscape, 3:2 has always been a big pain to me. I just don't see in that geometry, one reason I avoided aps-c sensors. I'd have wasted there touted advantage in size by cropping it.
My vote also goes to a multi-aspect sensor ranging from 16:9 (for video and panorama), up to square. My favorite aspect ratios for print are 4:5 and 3:4. For vertical shots, anything more stetched than 3:4 looks very thin.
And remember, even though the original 35 mm film format is 2:3, that choice has always been considered odd, because most cut sheet paper was close to 3:4 or 4:5.
I really don't like the 3:2 format. It is either too narrow or not long enough. I shoot full frame, meaning I don't crop, so the format of the camera is very important for me. Fortunately, medium-format digital is mostly 4:3--the Leica S2 and one Phase One back has a 3:2 sensor. So, you can actually have a larger 4:3 sensor than a 35mm/FF camera. Still, it would be nice to have a 4:3 sensor closer to the 35mm format camera.
BTW, 1:1 sensors (6x6) were made by Hasselblad and Phase One. They are bigger than a 35mm frame and about 16MP. They make beautiful images, but more limited in ISO and noise than modern sensors.
BTW, sensor size or dimension has nothing to do with how much light a system gets. That is like saying a 4-lane highway is better than a 3-lane highway because I can go faster on it, when the number of lanes has no impact on speed.
Everything else being equal, a larger sensor surface area will be hit by more photons. It will literally capture more light.
This way it surely looks like a joke. But autoleveleing and portrait/landscape button switching both could be real selling points if marketed right. E.g. Samsung looks like company brave enough to make thing like that. And they are not selling battery grips AFAIK
Irrelevant. Cameras form images, they are not photometric devices.
I like your sense of humor :smile:
(Just in case)
Separate names with a comma.