DxO stomps Olympus's head in

"Rich" wrote in message
...
Not very kind, the ultra low rankings of that line compared to all the
others. I'm wondering if Olympus shouldn't be sending out feelers on
how people would feel about a 4:3 format sensor, with a larger area?

You mean like something that measures about 24 x 36mm? Hmmm....

Some things never change. During the film days, larger was better. Same
rules seem to apply now. Can't wait to see how the new 5dII measures up,
given this comparison:

http://www.dxomark.com/index.php/eng...(brand2)/Canon

Of course, these are just numbers and are only part of the story.

On Tue, 18 Nov 2008 08:07:07 -0500, "B?wser" wrote:
:
: "Rich" wrote in message
: ...
: Not very kind, the ultra low rankings of that line compared to all
: the others. I'm wondering if Olympus shouldn't be sending out feelers
: on how people would feel about a 4:3 format sensor, with a larger
: area?
:
: You mean like something that measures about 24 x 36mm? Hmmm....

Well, no. 24x36 is 3:2, not 4:3.

Isn't Olympus bucking a tide, regardless of the size of their sensors? Hasn't
4:3 been losing ground to 3:2, even in the P&S world? And does anybody but
Olympus make a 4:3 DSLR anymore?

That's not to say that 3:2 necessarily makes more sense than 4:3. Aside from
the 4x6 postcard, I can't remember any widely used print format that has ever
actually utilized the 3:2 aspect ratio.

Bob

On Sat, 22 Nov 2008 08:44:07 -0500, Robert Coe wrote:

On Tue, 18 Nov 2008 08:07:07 -0500, "B?wser" wrote:
:
: "Rich" wrote in message
: ...
: Not very kind, the ultra low rankings of that line compared to all
: the others. I'm wondering if Olympus shouldn't be sending out feelers
: on how people would feel about a 4:3 format sensor, with a larger
: area?
:
: You mean like something that measures about 24 x 36mm? Hmmm....

Well, no. 24x36 is 3:2, not 4:3.

Isn't Olympus bucking a tide, regardless of the size of their sensors? Hasn't
4:3 been losing ground to 3:2, even in the P&S world? And does anybody but
Olympus make a 4:3 DSLR anymore?

That's not to say that 3:2 necessarily makes more sense than 4:3. Aside from
the 4x6 postcard, I can't remember any widely used print format that has ever
actually utilized the 3:2 aspect ratio.

4x6 was a common format for years and years since it was the "upgrade"
size over 3x5 that you could check off on the development package you
sent to film processors for your prints. The fact that it was bigger
and didn't require the processor to "creatively" crop my shots were
great advantages. That's the size I got for all my prints, and I have
boxes and boxes of them.

How many common print sizes are there for 4:3? All the other widely
used ones I can think of besides 4x6 (3x5, 5x7, 8x10) require cropping
for both 4:3 and 3:2. And only 8x10 is "closer" in ratio to 4:3 so
that less percentage of your picture must be cropped. The rest of the
super common print formats are all closer to 3:2.

Once you start talking about larger print sizes than 8x10 (and even
for 8x10 if you're cheap like me) you're probably going to want to do
some creative cropping anyway rather than just use all that paper to
run off a whole roll of film or print all the pictures on your card.

Steve