On Mar 1, 2006, at 6:45 PM, Peter Loveday wrote:
Yep. Of course, square (28mm x 28mm?) would be even less waste; you could then crop to 4:3 or 3:2 or stick with square. No real disadvantage, except being a larger sensor that means lower yield and higher cost... but then, we're already talking larger sensors :) I guess the best use of coverage would be a circular sensor, but thats just silly :)
There's an advantage to 4:3 over 1:1: most prints are rectangular and the cropping required it better suited to 4:3 proportion with less average losses. 4:3 makes losses for both a 1:1 and a 2:3 format less than cropping 3:2 or 1:1.
And then you pick up the advantages of lower cost and have more room to play with for in-body image stabilization. (I can imaging image stabilization mechanisms knowing which particular lens was in use and operating within limits imposed by the lenses.)
Godfrey Godfrey
