Steve'sDigicams

BlueStreaker · Jan 22, 2006, 12:04 PM

I am ready to purchase my next prosumer or dSLR camera. (Currently using the Konica/Minolta A2.) I like the more "wide angle" 3:2 aspect ratio and do not understand why Kodak would introduce their new CCD for dSLR's (Olympus EVOLT E-500) and P880 with the 4:3 ratio. I like everything else about the P880 and E-500.

It seems that the 4:3 ratio was created to match the computer monitor aspect ratio but film cameras have used the 3:2 ratio for 4 X 6 prints. That said, TV and computer screens will all probably be "widescreen" in a few years. So why would anyone want to invest in the 4:3 aspect ratio photography now? Seems to create more forground that must usually be cropped out anyway.

E.T · Jan 22, 2006, 3:22 PM

BlueStreaker wrote:

Quote:

That said, TV and computer screens will all probably be "widescreen" in a few years.

While TVs might all use that aspect ratio it's quite completely useless for PC, in PC use you need more size in vertical direction.
Just have you ever tried those low screen laptops? Height of picture is crappy while damned gadget is broad as what and needs huge bag for carrying.
And for desktop PC use low screen's resolutions would have to be considerably over HDTV's highest resolution to give vertical space somehow comparable to standard 4:3 screens.

Also 4:3 sensor happens to use more effectively that area where lens "draws" picture.

kassandro · Jan 22, 2006, 5:08 PM

In order to use the lense optimally, sensors should have a square format. That wouldn't cost much more and then there would no more be any necessity for holding a camera vertically. I personally have a shake problem, when I hold the camera vertically, especially my Coolpix 8400. Because a square sensor is optimal, a 3:2 or even a 16:9 sensor is worse than a 4:3 sensor.

BlueStreaker · Jan 22, 2006, 9:26 PM

Is the technology of 4:3 better than 3:2 then? Is it an issue of physics that the 4:3 aspect ratio is a better digital format than 3:2? Has Steve or anyone else covered this subject?

Steven R · Jan 22, 2006, 10:34 PM

The 4/3 system was a joint development between Kodak and Olympus. There are various technical reasons for the development. 4/3 lens were is first to be developed solely for digital; they were not adapted from existing 35mm lenses. There are several sites which discuss the technical side of why the 4/3 system was developed. This is one of them:

http://www.four-thirds.org/en/index_01.htm

Panasonic is working on a 4/3 dSLR that willhave lenses that will be interchangeable with Olympus 4/3 lens. At this point, the 4/3 companies include: Olympus, Kodak, Fuji, Panasonic, Sanyo, and Sigma.

Thread Tools	Search this Thread
Show Printable Version Email this Page	Search this Thread: Advanced Search

Steve'sDigicams

Recent Camera Reviews

Most Active Forums

Most Popular Deals

Latest Feature Articles

Jan 22, 2006, 12:04 PM	#1
BlueStreaker Junior Member Join Date: Jan 2006 Posts: 6	I am ready to purchase my next prosumer or dSLR camera. (Currently using the Konica/Minolta A2.) I like the more "wide angle" 3:2 aspect ratio and do not understand why Kodak would introduce their new CCD for dSLR's (Olympus EVOLT E-500) and P880 with the 4:3 ratio. I like everything else about the P880 and E-500. It seems that the 4:3 ratio was created to match the computer monitor aspect ratio but film cameras have used the 3:2 ratio for 4 X 6 prints. That said, TV and computer screens will all probably be "widescreen" in a few years. So why would anyone want to invest in the 4:3 aspect ratio photography now? Seems to create more forground that must usually be cropped out anyway.

Jan 22, 2006, 5:08 PM	#3
kassandro Senior Member Join Date: Oct 2004 Posts: 448	In order to use the lense optimally, sensors should have a square format. That wouldn't cost much more and then there would no more be any necessity for holding a camera vertically. I personally have a shake problem, when I hold the camera vertically, especially my Coolpix 8400. Because a square sensor is optimal, a 3:2 or even a 16:9 sensor is worse than a 4:3 sensor.

Jan 22, 2006, 9:26 PM	#4
BlueStreaker Junior Member Join Date: Jan 2006 Posts: 6	Is the technology of 4:3 better than 3:2 then? Is it an issue of physics that the 4:3 aspect ratio is a better digital format than 3:2? Has Steve or anyone else covered this subject?

Jan 22, 2006, 10:34 PM	#5
Steven R Senior Member Join Date: Apr 2005 Location: Tampa, Florida Posts: 5,929	The 4/3 system was a joint development between Kodak and Olympus. There are various technical reasons for the development. 4/3 lens were is first to be developed solely for digital; they were not adapted from existing 35mm lenses. There are several sites which discuss the technical side of why the 4/3 system was developed. This is one of them: http://www.four-thirds.org/en/index_01.htm Panasonic is working on a 4/3 dSLR that willhave lenses that will be interchangeable with Olympus 4/3 lens. At this point, the 4/3 companies include: Olympus, Kodak, Fuji, Panasonic, Sanyo, and Sigma.