What Sony could have done to address the lens quality issue

Discussion in 'Digital Cameras' started by RichA, Sep 7, 2011.

  1. RichA

    RichA Guest

    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.
    RichA, Sep 7, 2011
    1. Advertisements

  2. RichA

    Bruce Guest

    You have completely ignored the consumer HD video market which demands
    a 16:9 aspect ratio.
    Bruce, Sep 10, 2011
    1. Advertisements

  3. RichA

    Trevor Guest

    Not to mention the fact that the VAST majority of prints from either format
    are still done at 6"x4", which means it's the 4:3 shots that are cropped
    most of the time, NOT the 3:2 ones. And those that DO make enlargements on a
    regular basis are LESS likely to buy small sensor cameras.

    Trevor, Sep 14, 2011
  4. RichA

    Bruce Guest

    Good point.
    Bruce, Sep 14, 2011
  5. RichA

    Alfred Molon Guest

    The prints are made in the format of the camera. Most, if not all
    printing shops have no problem handling images with a 4:3 aspect ratio.
    Alfred Molon, Sep 14, 2011
  6. RichA

    Trevor Guest

    But most of the consumer shops simply crop the 4:3 image to fit a 6x4"
    print. (I have to add white space in PS and trim the print myself if I
    specificaly want a 4"x5" print with consumer kiosks, something the average
    user never does, then they wonder why they have lost so much of the original
    So IF you start with a smaller 4:3 sensor and crop back to 6x4 anyway, you
    lose even MORE quality. Not that it matters much for the average user and
    6x4" prints, but it does mean the original argument is invalid.

    Trevor, Sep 15, 2011
  7. RichA

    Alfred Molon Guest

    No - you get prints in 4:3 aspect ratio. The photos are not cropped.
    Printing machines have no problems with the 4:3 format, which by the way
    is the format of the overwhelming majority of cameras (DSLRs make only a
    few % in total numbers).
    Alfred Molon, Sep 15, 2011
  8. RichA

    Bruce Guest

    Maybe they do things differently in Germany? Or at least at the print
    shop that Alfred uses.
    Bruce, Sep 15, 2011
  9. RichA

    Bowser Guest

    What issue would that be? What Sony lens (E Mount, I assume) do you own?
    Bowser, Sep 15, 2011
  10. RichA

    Charles Guest

    "Bowser" wrote in message

    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, Sep 15, 2011
  11. []
    Yes, but today many displays are 16:9 or approximations thereof, and many
    prints are still 6:4.

    David J Taylor, Sep 16, 2011
  12. RichA

    Rich Guest

    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, Sep 18, 2011
  13. []
    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 J Taylor, Sep 18, 2011
    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.