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

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

  1. RichA

    Scott W Guest

    Matching the same frame size as 35mm film is a selling point, whether or
    not it makes sense. Don't expect Nikon or Canon to try to educate
    photographers as to why they should want a different aspect ratio.

    Currently the ratio of 3:2 works well for me since this is the ratio of
    prints that I can get at Costco, if I printed at home I might have a
    different opinion.

    I have shot a lot with both 4:3 and 3:2 and each has its good and bad
    points, in the end for me it just does not make that much difference
    which ratio the camera uses. It would be nice if the cameras had 4x5
    crop lines on the view finder however, since I do find myself shooting
    for 8x10 prints from time to time.

    Scott W, Aug 28, 2007
    1. Advertisements

  2. RichA

    Jeremy Nixon Guest

    Jeremy Nixon, Aug 28, 2007
    1. Advertisements

  3. RichA

    Jeremy Nixon Guest

    Those things all have something in common, a trait that is not shared by
    a 4:3 shape: they don't make the pictures ugly.
    Jeremy Nixon, Aug 28, 2007
  4. RichA

    RichA Guest

    RichA, Aug 28, 2007
  5. No answer?

    Well, what did I expect from a obsessive-compulsive maniac
    contrarian, certainly not reasons _for_ something ...
    stupid me.
    They enjoyed it. More good photographs.

    And what you certainly never knew, you can crop photographs.
    You could do so since, well, forever, though cutting
    Daguerreotypies was not _that_ easy to do well.
    Could it be that anyone not thinking your way must be an old
    idiot set in zir way?
    Would you care to show a new ... dear me, I _was_ thinking I
    might be talking to someone else. You won't show, right?

    Wolfgang Weisselberg, Aug 28, 2007
  6. RichA

    Jeremy Nixon Guest

    Jeremy Nixon, Aug 28, 2007
  7. RichA

    cjcampbell Guest

    Nikon did go 5:4 as a cropped mode in the D3, which works out great if
    you shoot mostly 8x10.

    No matter what the format, though, you probably would gripe.
    cjcampbell, Aug 29, 2007
  8. RichA

    Alan Browne Guest

    .... and the US.
    Alan Browne, Sep 3, 2007
  9. RichA

    Mark B. Guest

    NTSC is a 4:3 format. I'd say that makes your post hilariously ironic.

    Mark B., Sep 4, 2007
  10. RichA

    ASAAR Guest

    My, how you contradict yourself. Please tell us which direction
    television's aspect ratio is changing to as the NTSC format is
    replaced. If most professional photographic publishings are closer
    to 4:3 it might be because it's a better fit for full page prints in
    high end (usually fashion) magazines. Or because of the aspect
    ratio of MF and LF cameras. Sony's DSLR offerings aren't intended
    primarily for the pro market, and by far the greatest number of
    prints made by the non-pros would certainly be the ubiquitous 4"x6"
    format which is a perfect match for FF sensors. Can you imagine the
    howls of protest when Dad or Daughter get their 250 prints back from
    the local lab and see how much was truncated from their camera's 4:3
    images? Sony's oddball DSLR format would quickly worsen their (beta
    video, Memory Stick, root kit) reputation.

    Could you please point out where frederick said that "width is the
    only concern"? He already objected to wasting sensor space, and
    keeping the 36mm width but reducing the sensor's height to get a 4:2
    aspect ratio would seriously reduce the sensor's total area and
    would be such a stupid idea that it shouldn't have been necessary to
    cover all bases by pointing this out. Actually, you could get any
    aspect ratio you wish in a DSLR by going to a smaller sensor. How
    about one that's 1/2.5" <g>. Ok, that's too extreme, but how about
    Oly's 4/3 format? Happy now? :)
    ASAAR, Sep 4, 2007
  11. RichA

    ASAAR Guest

    You may be proud of that smart-alecky quip, but even you must
    surely admit that if it was intended to be taken seriously, it's a
    profoundly ignorant and/or stupid statement.
    ASAAR, Sep 4, 2007
  12. Good point.

    And 3:2 is marginally closer to 16:9, a less good point.
    John McWilliams, Sep 4, 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.