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

Discussion in 'Nikon' started by RichA, Aug 27, 2007.

  1. RichA

    RichA Guest

    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 It is more outdated than the television NTSC format,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, Aug 27, 2007
    1. Advertisements

  2. 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, Aug 27, 2007
    1. Advertisements

  3. RichA

    frederick Guest

    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.
    frederick, Aug 27, 2007
  4. 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, Aug 27, 2007
  5. 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, Aug 27, 2007
  6. 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, Aug 27, 2007
  7. RichA

    Toby Guest

    NTSC is a standard, not a format.

    Toby, Aug 27, 2007
  8. RichA

    Toby Guest

    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, Aug 27, 2007
  9. 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, Aug 27, 2007
  10. RichA

    Alan Browne Guest

    The real move forward would be ISO-216 "A" proportions.
    Alan Browne, Aug 27, 2007
  11. RichA

    RichA Guest

    Yes, I was actually trying to refer to its inferior quality rather
    than it's physical dimensions, but that is part of it.
    RichA, Aug 27, 2007
  12. RichA

    RichA Guest

    Oh well, then wny not make it 4:2 instead if width is the only
    concern? 3:2 makes no sense today.
    RichA, Aug 27, 2007
  13. It's the most commonly available paper size everywhere but the third world.

    David J. Littleboy
    Tokyo, Japan
    David J. Littleboy, Aug 27, 2007
  14. Why should they?
    So _your_ selection of photographic publishings is all that
    matters? Fancy that, here I thought there were more important

    How did they cope in the bad, old, analog time, anyway, when
    everything was 3:2 or square?
    So which photographic publishings cope well with circular formats?

    Because *that* is the native format of all the optics. Or maybe
    use an octogonal shape, for simplicicity. Or at least a square
    shape --- 4:3 is _soo_ outdated, every new TV is 16:9.

    Wolfgang Weisselberg, Aug 27, 2007
  15. RichA

    frederick Guest

    Because if it was wider than 36mm, then it would have
    probably had unacceptable light fall off in the corners.
    frederick, Aug 27, 2007
  16. RichA

    Jeremy Nixon Guest

    Because they don't want them to suck, of course.
    Jeremy Nixon, Aug 28, 2007
  17. RichA

    RichA Guest

    RichA, Aug 28, 2007
  18. RichA

    RichA Guest

    That's it everyone! Throw out ALL your medium format gear.
    RichA, Aug 28, 2007
  19. RichA

    RichA Guest

    They suffered with it. More waste.
    When 3:2 is dead and gone, the people who mindlessly support it can
    join those who crowed against:
    -Dust removal.
    -Live View.
    -Telecentric lens design
    -The elimination of the old SLR shape.
    RichA, Aug 28, 2007
  20. RichA

    Toby Guest

    It is definitely inferior to PAL standard definition in most respects other
    than frame rate. Broadcast techs say NTSC is an acronym for "Never Twice the
    Same Color". Both were valiant attempts to fit a lot of data into very
    limited bandwidth. I agree that it is good to get past that.

    Toby, Aug 28, 2007
    1. Advertisements

Ask a Question

Want to reply to this thread or ask your own question?

You'll need to choose a username for the site, which only take a couple of moments (here). After that, you can post your question and our members will help you out.