Go Back   Steve's Digicams Forums > Digicam Help > General Discussion

Thread Tools Search this Thread
Old Feb 5, 2004, 1:32 AM   #1
Senior Member
marokero's Avatar
Join Date: Jun 2002
Posts: 769
Default 4/3 -> Olympus only format?

I thought Fuji and Kodak had chipped in to start this format, but so far seems only Olympus has kept its word. The new S3 was just announced and it's not 4/3... oh well :roll:
marokero is offline   Reply With Quote
Sponsored Links
Old Feb 5, 2004, 2:14 AM   #2
Senior Member
Join Date: Oct 2003
Location: Indian Rocks Beach, FL
Posts: 4,036

It seemed like a good idea to get DSLRs started in the direction of lenses designed to take advantage of the smaller DSLR sensors rather than use overly large and expensive 35mm lenses that waste part of the glass. Unfortunately I donít think anyone did it well enough to cause a mass migration.

4/3 is a better format IMO for a couple of reasons. You get a little smaller lens for the same MP at the same density Ė or more Mp for the same lens at the same density. And it is closer to most print formats other than 4X6, which I think should die a natural death anyway.

They should have made the CCD a little larger so it had the same diagonal as the DSLR CMOS 3/2 sensors. And thrown in some more pixels since the sensor would have had a greater area than a 3/2 optimized for the same lens size. Iím too lazy to do the math, but they would have ended up with around a 7Mp CCD with the same density as the 6.5 Mp 3/2 taking the same optimum lens size. Instead Kodak designed a 5Mp smaller sensor so they could get some really light lenses and I donít think anyone wanted to go back to 5Mp. If the diagonal had been the same as the 3/2 sensors they could still have used smaller and lighter lenses than the 35mm lenses and still competed better in Mp.

I hope the idea isnít dead because it is a good one. 3/2 is a badge of honor to the DSLR set, but 4/3 is more efficient.
slipe is offline   Reply With Quote
Old Feb 5, 2004, 6:47 AM   #3
Senior Member
Join Date: Aug 2002
Posts: 2,162

Hi slipe, I understand what you mean about the physical constraints and efficiency for images in a pc world.

But surely we should be thinking about what looks correct pictorially and is best suited to the scene composition. I'm sure the manufacturers who are keen to save money and hit the volume market for small cameras would agree with your arguments. But then I think landscapes are often best suited to a wider format - not what we get used to via a web browser displayed in original capture aspect, I hate cropping and throwing away sensor resolution!

After I've spent some time looking at widescreen TV on a flat panel, or visit the cinema, it jarrs me that 4/3 seems more a convenience of technology for available display formats and paper sizes - rather than the angle of view my eyes seem more comfortable with.

I realise that most photographers will say there is rarely a 'standard' aspect ratio and for publication work the layout on a finished page may overide best composition for individual photos. But if there was no technology constraint in capture sensor or output device and an experienced photographers had a free hand to size their pics to give the best visual composition result - would 4/3 be a popular choice? VOX
voxmagna is offline   Reply With Quote

Thread Tools Search this Thread
Search this Thread:

Advanced Search

Posting Rules
You may not post new threads
You may not post replies
You may not post attachments
You may not edit your posts

BB code is On
Smilies are On
[IMG] code is On
HTML code is Off
Trackbacks are Off
Pingbacks are Off
Refbacks are Off

All times are GMT -5. The time now is 11:30 PM.