I agree with that 4:3 format. My Oly has it. It translates to a 10 x 7.5
inch print which gives a 1/2 inch border all around on 11 x 8.5 paper.
That fits a standard 9.5 x 7.5 inch matte cutout nicely so I can just
buy prematted frames. Also it uses the whole image making my 5mp camera
equal to a 6mp 3:2 camera for that size print. Quit a convenient format,
actually.
graywolf
http://www.graywolfphoto.com
http://webpages.charter.net/graywolf
"Idiot Proof" <==> "Expert Proof"
-----------------------------------
Godfrey DiGiorgi wrote:
On Mar 1, 2006, at 10:01 AM, William Robb wrote:
Nop, but appr. 5mm more in each direction!
That ought to count for something - 60% more, actually.
It doesn't count as full frame, which I believe is what you were
implying in a previous post.
I could be wrong about your intent though.
"Full frame" is a misnomer. What people really mean is 35mm format or
24x36mm sensor dimensions. Saying anything else just proves that "full
frame" is a hopeless mish-mash of suppositions and posturing.
Larger sensors are quieter, yes. There is a balance between noise,
resolution density, sensitivity, power consumption, cost, etc etc etc,
when designing a sensor. With the freedom to design a sensor to meet
any specific need at will, why stick to *ONE* format and make it a holy
grail? It's dumb.
Were I designing a camera, I'd go with a 4:3 proportion sensor that was
about 18x24mm or 21x28mm in size as being ideal. The vast majority of
existing lenses for 35mm film and 16x24mm sensors would cover it
perfectly, you get the benefits of using more of the lens' image
circle, less overall loss when cropping to classic proportions (11x14,
5:4, 3:2, square), and the chip size would enable 10-16Mpixels with
very good noise and resolution capabilities.
Godfrey
