What Rich can do...

On 9/7/2011 6:06 PM, RichA wrote:
Moved to a 4:3 format. This would have allowed for smaller, higher
quality lenses than are needed to support an APS 3:2 format since a
4:3 format occupying the same sensor area would be less wide, putting
less pressure on the lens design to support such a width. Plus, it
would have made more sense because most 3:2 images end up cropped at
the sides for 70% of their applications anyway. That extra side waste
has made it much more difficult and expensive for Sony (and then Nikon
and Canon) to do mirror-less systems which has/will result in poorer
quality lenses overall. Time to ditch the ancient film format.

What issue would that be? What Sony lens (E Mount, I assume) do you own?

"Bowser" wrote in message
news
On 9/7/2011 6:06 PM, RichA wrote:
Moved to a 4:3 format. This would have allowed for smaller, higher
quality lenses than are needed to support an APS 3:2 format since a
4:3 format occupying the same sensor area would be less wide, putting
less pressure on the lens design to support such a width. Plus, it
would have made more sense because most 3:2 images end up cropped at
the sides for 70% of their applications anyway. That extra side waste
has made it much more difficult and expensive for Sony (and then Nikon
and Canon) to do mirror-less systems which has/will result in poorer
quality lenses overall. Time to ditch the ancient film format.

What issue would that be? What Sony lens (E Mount, I assume) do you own?

For lens designers, the easiest (ideal) format is 1:1.

"Charles" wrote in message
...
[]
For lens designers, the easiest (ideal) format is 1:1.

Yes, but today many displays are 16:9 or approximations thereof, and many
prints are still 6:4.

David

"David J Taylor" wrote in
:

"Charles" wrote in message
...
[]
For lens designers, the easiest (ideal) format is 1:1.

Yes, but today many displays are 16:9 or approximations thereof, and
many prints are still 6:4.

David



If the be all and end all of outputs was 2 meg displays and tiny prints,
then in addition to 3:2 formats, we should have stopped at 3 megapixels.

"Rich" wrote in message
...
[]
If the be all and end all of outputs was 2 meg displays and tiny prints,
then in addition to 3:2 formats, we should have stopped at 3 megapixels.

No, because you may wish to crop. For example, if only half the linear
size is needed for a particular image, a quarter of the sensor area, then
a 12 MP sensor/lens is required for a 3 MP result. Many people are
delighted with HD TV on large screens, and that's only just over 2 MP.

David