Canon and Nikon FFs, they both FAILED part of this task

Why did they not go 4:3? As I've stated before, MOST professional
photographic publishings are closer to 4:3 than that ancient 3:2
format. There was nothing, absolutely nothing constraining them here
except having to please an aging group of pros whose teeth were cut on
manual SLRs. It's time to LEAVE the characteristics of 35mm still
film behind. It is more outdated than the television NTSC format,
which IS being replaced. Sony has a chance, a real chance now to
differentiate themselves by doing this. But they won't.

RichA wrote:
Why did they not go 4:3? As I've stated before, MOST professional
photographic publishings are closer to 4:3 than that ancient 3:2
format. There was nothing, absolutely nothing constraining them here
except having to please an aging group of pros whose teeth were cut on
manual SLRs. It's time to LEAVE the characteristics of 35mm still
film behind. It is more outdated than the television NTSC format,
which IS being replaced. Sony has a chance, a real chance now to
differentiate themselves by doing this. But they won't.

If they went 4:3 then they wouldn't be FF(Full Frame) it's bad enough
that Canon has three different digital formats (FF, 1.3x, and 1.6x)

Not Disclosed wrote:
RichA wrote:
Why did they not go 4:3? As I've stated before, MOST professional
photographic publishings are closer to 4:3 than that ancient 3:2
format. There was nothing, absolutely nothing constraining them here
except having to please an aging group of pros whose teeth were cut on
manual SLRs. It's time to LEAVE the characteristics of 35mm still
film behind. It is more outdated than the television NTSC format,
which IS being replaced. Sony has a chance, a real chance now to
differentiate themselves by doing this. But they won't.

If they went 4:3 then they wouldn't be FF(Full Frame) it's bad enough
that Canon has three different digital formats (FF, 1.3x, and 1.6x)

Also, the "absolutely nothing constraining them" is a myth.
Going deeper than 24mm sensor height may have meant a
change was needed to mirror / box / lens mount. Going
narrower than 36mm to achieve that ratio would have been a
waste of space, like some of the OP's contributions around here.

"RichA" wrote:

It is more outdated than the television NTSC format,
which IS being replaced.

NTSC, which had a 4:3 aspect ratio, is being replaced by
formats with a 16:9 aspect ratio. That's even further away
from square than 3:2. So you're using an example that
directly contradicts your claim.

With the current mounts, there's no real advantage to 4:3.
You still have to crop to print, as a 4:3 aspect ratio doesn't
fit standard paper sizes, either in the U.S. or elsewhere.

While 645 medium format cameras were frequently marketed as
having an "ideal aspect ratio," in practice I have not found
that to be the case.

--
Michael Benveniste --
Spam and UCE professionally evaluated for $250. Use this email
address only to submit mail for evaluation.

Not Disclosed wrote:
RichA wrote:
Why did they not go 4:3? As I've stated before, MOST professional
photographic publishings are closer to 4:3 than that ancient 3:2
format. There was nothing, absolutely nothing constraining them here
except having to please an aging group of pros whose teeth were cut on
manual SLRs. It's time to LEAVE the characteristics of 35mm still
film behind. It is more outdated than the television NTSC format,
which IS being replaced. Sony has a chance, a real chance now to
differentiate themselves by doing this. But they won't.

If they went 4:3 then they wouldn't be FF(Full Frame) it's bad enough
that Canon has three different digital formats (FF, 1.3x, and 1.6x)


All cameras are full frame. Some cameras can mount a lense that doesn't cover
its sensor or film frame, but that is a different story. 4:3 would be as full
frame as any other. It however, would not be 35mm format.

--
Thomas T. Veldhouse

We have more to fear from the bungling of the incompetent than from the
machinations of the wicked.

Michael Benveniste wrote:
With the current mounts, there's no real advantage to 4:3.
You still have to crop to print, as a 4:3 aspect ratio doesn't
fit standard paper sizes, either in the U.S. or elsewhere.

While 645 medium format cameras were frequently marketed as
having an "ideal aspect ratio," in practice I have not found
that to be the case.


I like composing photographs with the current 3:2 ratio. I pretty sure that
"more square" would reduce my options the way I shoot and I think "less
square" would be too extreme [but perhaps that is just my taste ... 16:9 would
make for some pretty ellongated verticals].

--
Thomas T. Veldhouse

We have more to fear from the bungling of the incompetent than from the
machinations of the wicked.

"RichA" wrote in message
ups.com...
Why did they not go 4:3? As I've stated before, MOST professional
photographic publishings are closer to 4:3 than that ancient 3:2
format. There was nothing, absolutely nothing constraining them here
except having to please an aging group of pros whose teeth were cut on
manual SLRs. It's time to LEAVE the characteristics of 35mm still
film behind. It is more outdated than the television NTSC format,
which IS being replaced. Sony has a chance, a real chance now to
differentiate themselves by doing this. But they won't.


NTSC is a standard, not a format.

Toby

"Michael Benveniste" wrote in message
...
"RichA" wrote:

It is more outdated than the television NTSC format,
which IS being replaced.

NTSC, which had a 4:3 aspect ratio, is being replaced by
formats with a 16:9 aspect ratio. That's even further away
from square than 3:2. So you're using an example that
directly contradicts your claim.

Just to be clear, the various flavors of NTSC, PAL and SECAM refer to how a
video signal is processed to fit within a certain bandwidth, not its format.
There is 4:3 and 16:9 NTSC, the same goes for PAL. Newer _standards_ such as
the various flavors of so-called HD (720P and 1080i for instance) have all
opted for the 16:9 format, but they could just as well be in 4:3 or 1:1
square, for that matter.

Toby

"Thomas T. Veldhouse" wrote:

I like composing photographs with the current 3:2 ratio. I pretty sure
that
"more square" would reduce my options the way I shoot and I think "less
square" would be too extreme [but perhaps that is just my taste ... 16:9
would
make for some pretty ellongated verticals].

I use a Nikon Pronea S as my "car camera." Like all APS film cameras,
the base frame size (H-format) has a 16:9 aspect ratio.

Except for the 4x7" prints I occasionally get from the minilab, I
doubt I've ever printed an uncropped shot from that camera, even
using roll paper on an Epson 2200.

--
Michael Benveniste --
Spam and UCE professionally evaluated for $250. Use this email
address only to submit mail for evaluation.

RichA wrote:
Why did they not go 4:3? As I've stated before, MOST professional
photographic publishings are closer to 4:3 than that ancient 3:2


The real move forward would be ISO-216 "A" proportions.

--
-- r.p.e.35mm user resource: http://www.aliasimages.com/rpe35mmur.htm
-- r.p.d.slr-systems: http://www.aliasimages.com/rpdslrsysur.htm
-- [SI] gallery & rulz: http://www.pbase.com/shootin
-- e-meil: Remove FreeLunch.