«

The sensor isn't just smaller than APS, it's better dimensioned for
lens coverage. 4:3 means not having the wide, wasteful sensor format
of APS where a lens has to be larger in order to cover two wide
"sides" of the sensor. In fact, you can make a 4:3 sensor with much
greater overall area than a 3:2 sensor that spans the lens coverage
area because you aren't lacking sensor "height."

http://www.43rumors.com/canon-explai...er-than-aps-c/

On Thu, 8 Mar 2012 10:10:46 -0800 (PST), RichA <> wrote:
: The sensor isn't just smaller than APS, it's better dimensioned for
: lens coverage. 4:3 means not having the wide, wasteful sensor format
: of APS where a lens has to be larger in order to cover two wide
: "sides" of the sensor. In fact, you can make a 4:3 sensor with much
: greater overall area than a 3:2 sensor that spans the lens coverage
: area because you aren't lacking sensor "height."
:
: http://www.43rumors.com/canon-explai...er-than-aps-c/

It's not a technical issue or even a philosophical issue; it's an issue of
fashion. And the current fashion is for a relatively wider (i.e., 3:2) format.
(There are various reasons for this, all of them outside the scope of this
discussion.) In fact, the format that wastes the most space nowadays (and for
as long as I can remember, actually) is the square format popularized by TLRs
and medium-format SLRs. That's because most people crop a picture to a square
only if nothing else seems to work.

Historically, the only reason for the square format is that waist-level reflex
cameras have only one sensible orientation. I used to have a TLR (a "Minolta
Autocord", if you must know), and its viewfinder had ruled lines for
horizontal and vertical 3:2 format.

Bob

Rich <> wrote:
>Problem is, it is wasteful. A lens produces a round field. the wider the
>rectangular format of the camera, the more useful area the lens covers is
>lost. We try to maximize frame-fill when we take pictures, so why do we
>waste lens coverage?


To get the aspect ratio we want. That should be self-evident.

If we followed your mantra of not wasting lens coverage, we would all
be shooting circular images.

Still, things could be worse. Imagine if instead of real cameras, we
only had Lytro's plastic toys to shoot with.

On Mar 9, 4:18*am, Bruce <docnews2...@gmail.com> wrote:
> Rich <n...@nowhere.com> wrote:
> >Problem is, it is wasteful. A lens produces a round field. *the wider the
> >rectangular format of the camera, the more useful area the lens covers is
> >lost. *We try to maximize frame-fill when we take pictures, so why do we
> >waste lens coverage?
>
> To get the aspect ratio we want. *That should be self-evident.
>
> If we followed your mantra of not wasting lens coverage, we would all
> be shooting circular images.
>

I vote for a sensor that is square, makes the most use of the lens
illumination circle and the camera should have framelines to allow
people who want to shoot rectangular to shoot rectangular.

RichA <> wrote:
>On Mar 9, 4:18*am, Bruce <docnews2...@gmail.com> wrote:
>> Rich <n...@nowhere.com> wrote:
>> >Problem is, it is wasteful. A lens produces a round field. *the wider the
>> >rectangular format of the camera, the more useful area the lens covers is
>> >lost. *We try to maximize frame-fill when we take pictures, so why do we
>> >waste lens coverage?
>>
>> To get the aspect ratio we want. *That should be self-evident.
>>
>> If we followed your mantra of not wasting lens coverage, we would all
>> be shooting circular images.
>>
>
>I vote for a sensor that is square, makes the most use of the lens
>illumination circle and the camera should have framelines to allow
>people who want to shoot rectangular to shoot rectangular.


I voted for 3:2 with 36 MP.

In article
<8ba75839-4c72-4740-8c96->,
RichA <> wrote:

> > If we followed your mantra of not wasting lens coverage, we would all
> > be shooting circular images.
>
> I vote for a sensor that is square, makes the most use of the lens
> illumination circle and the camera should have framelines to allow
> people who want to shoot rectangular to shoot rectangular.

historically, people do not like square pictures. how many paintings,
where the artist could make it any shape they wanted, chose square?
people want rectangular aspect ratios, not square.

On Mar 9, 12:51*pm, nospam <nos...@nospam.invalid> wrote:
> In article
> <8ba75839-4c72-4740-8c96-9f70402b0...@gw9g2000vbb.googlegroups.com>,
>
> RichA <rander3...@gmail.com> wrote:
> > > If we followed your mantra of not wasting lens coverage, we would all
> > > be shooting circular images.
>
> > I vote for a sensor that is square, makes the most use of the lens
> > illumination circle and the camera should have framelines to allow
> > people who want to shoot rectangular to shoot rectangular.
>
> historically, people do not like square pictures. how many paintings,
> where the artist could make it any shape they wanted, chose square?
> people want rectangular aspect ratios, not square.

4:3 is rectangular. No one thinks (outside of a few adherents) that
3:2 is some kind of "golden ratio" they could have REALLY gone nuts
and made it 2.35:1 like widescreen movies...

RichA <> wrote:
> The sensor isn't just smaller than APS, it's better dimensioned for
> lens coverage. 4:3 means not having the wide, wasteful sensor format
> of APS where a lens has to be larger in order to cover two wide
> "sides" of the sensor. In fact, you can make a 4:3 sensor with much
> greater overall area than a 3:2 sensor that spans the lens coverage
> area because you aren't lacking sensor "height."

In fact, the best sensor format for a round lens is a round sensor.
That should be obvious --- even to you.

If you need a rectangular sensor, you want a 1:1 sensor: that has
a much greater overall area than a 4:3 sensor that spans the lens
coverage area because you aren't lacking sensor "height."


> http://www.43rumors.com/canon-explai...er-than-aps-c/

Ah, some quotes outside their context and the 4/3rds suckers
think 4:3 is king. Even though Canon uses a larger sensor.
Nincompoops.

-Wolfgang

Bruce <> wrote:

> Still, things could be worse. Imagine if instead of real cameras, we
> only had Lytro's plastic toys to shoot with.

In that case you'd be selling Lytro cameras and dissing any real
camera for not being able to handle DOF and plane of focus after
shooting and needing a slow autofocus and so on and wondering
what usage cases real cameras could ever have.

-Wolfgang

George Kerby <> wrote:
> "nospam" <> wrote:
>> RichA <> wrote:

>>>> If we followed your mantra of not wasting lens coverage, we would all
>>>> be shooting circular images.

>>> I vote for a sensor that is square, makes the most use of the lens
>>> illumination circle and the camera should have framelines to allow
>>> people who want to shoot rectangular to shoot rectangular.

>> historically, people do not like square pictures. how many paintings,
>> where the artist could make it any shape they wanted, chose square?
>> people want rectangular aspect ratios, not square.

> Nobody told Victor H.

Nobody knew "Victor H.", so nobody could tell him. As a result,
nobody knows "Victor H."'s square works.

-Wolfgang