OH MY GOD!!! Canon goes 4/3rds!!!

Discussion in 'Digital Photography' started by RichA, Jan 9, 2012.

  1. RichA

    RichA Guest

    1. Advertising

  2. David J Taylor, Jan 9, 2012
    #2
    1. Advertising

  3. RichA

    nospam Guest

    nospam, Jan 9, 2012
    #3
  4. RichA

    RichA Guest

    On Jan 9, 11:28 am, nospam <> wrote:
    > In article
    > <>,
    >
    > RichA <> wrote:
    > >http://www.dpreview.com/news/2012/01/09/CanonG1X_Preview#specs

    >
    > it's not 4/3rds, micro or otherwise. it's bigger than 4/3rds.
    > <http://www.dpreview.com/previews/canong1x/images/sensorsizes.jpg>


    Little bigger. But to their credit, they kept the superior 4:3 format
    instead of going to the wasteful 3:2 format.
    RichA, Jan 9, 2012
    #4
  5. "RichA" <> wrote in message
    news:...
    []
    > Little bigger. But to their credit, they kept the superior 4:3 format
    > instead of going to the wasteful 3:2 format.


    Ignoring the 16:9 or 16:10 format which many display have these days.

    If you /do/ print, how does 4:3 work on 10 x 8 inch prints? Do you crop
    or leave a blank edge?

    David
    David J Taylor, Jan 9, 2012
    #5
  6. RichA

    nospam Guest

    In article
    <>,
    RichA <> wrote:

    > > it's not 4/3rds, micro or otherwise. it's bigger than 4/3rds.
    > > <http://www.dpreview.com/previews/canong1x/images/sensorsizes.jpg>

    >
    > Little bigger.


    which means it's not 4/3rds.

    > But to their credit, they kept the superior 4:3 format
    > instead of going to the wasteful 3:2 format.


    4/3rds is not named for the aspect ratio, and where a specific aspect
    ratio is 'wasteful' depends on the composition.
    nospam, Jan 9, 2012
    #6
  7. RichA

    RichA Guest

    On Jan 9, 12:26 pm, "David J Taylor" <david-
    > wrote:
    > "RichA" <> wrote in message
    >
    > news:...
    > []
    >
    > > Little bigger.  But to their credit, they kept the superior 4:3 format
    > > instead of going to the wasteful 3:2 format.

    >
    > Ignoring the 16:9 or 16:10 format which many display have these days.
    >
    > If you /do/ print, how does 4:3 work on 10 x 8 inch prints?  Do you crop
    > or leave a blank edge?
    >
    > David


    Well, it's 1.25 (8x10) versus 1.33 (4:3) so you'll have to crop a
    little, but not nearly as much as with 3:2. People don't tend to care
    about matching their screen dimensions; they care, if they do at all,
    with prints and what various venues out there use for image formats.
    Even on the web, you still see a preference for a more squared-off
    rectangle than 3:2. Unless you talk about banner ads.
    RichA, Jan 9, 2012
    #7
  8. RichA

    RichA Guest

    On Jan 9, 12:55 pm, Bowser <> wrote:
    > On Mon, 9 Jan 2012 07:52:35 -0800 (PST), RichA <>
    > wrote:
    >
    > >http://www.dpreview.com/news/2012/01/09/CanonG1X_Preview#specs

    >
    > Very interesting, but I can't see one for me. I'd rather have a m4/3
    > camera with interchangeable lenses.
    >
    > No fast primes for this Canon...
    >
    > :)


    Not unless you want a lens that weighs more than the camera body.
    RichA, Jan 9, 2012
    #8
  9. RichA

    RichA Guest

    On Jan 9, 1:20 pm, Savageduck <savageduck1@{REMOVESPAM}me.com> wrote:
    > On 2012-01-09 09:26:44 -0800, "David J Taylor"
    > <> said:
    >
    > > "RichA" <> wrote in message
    > >news:....

    >
    > []
    > Little
    >
    >
    >
    > >> bigger.  But to their credit, they kept the superior 4:3 format
    > >> instead of going to the wasteful 3:2 format.

    >
    > > Ignoring the 16:9 or 16:10 format which many display have these days.

    >
    > > If you /do/ print, how does 4:3 work on 10 x 8 inch prints?  Do you
    > > crop or leave a blank edge?

    >
    > > David

    >
    > Well reading the specs, I see you can select 1:1, 5:4, 4:3, 3:2, 16:9
    > for image ratios.
    > --
    > Regards,
    >
    > Savageduck


    But you'll lose area if you go with anything other than 4:3. The GH2
    is a good choice for 3:2 DSLR users (in the micro 4/3 line-up) since
    its sensor is a longer rectangle than 4:3.
    RichA, Jan 9, 2012
    #9
  10. RichA

    Trevor Guest

    Re: OH MY GOD!!! Canon hasn't gone 4/3rds!!!

    "David J Taylor" <> wrote in message
    news:jef80l$ul1$...
    > "RichA" <> wrote in message
    > news:...
    > []
    >> Little bigger. But to their credit, they kept the superior 4:3 format
    >> instead of going to the wasteful 3:2 format.

    >
    > Ignoring the 16:9 or 16:10 format which many display have these days.
    >
    > If you /do/ print, how does 4:3 work on 10 x 8 inch prints? Do you crop
    > or leave a blank edge?


    Well obviously you crop less than with 2:3 for an 8x10" print. But more
    importantly, if you print standard 6x4" prints which are by **FAR** the most
    common prints still being made today, how is 4:3 better than 2:3?

    Trevor.
    Trevor, Jan 10, 2012
    #10
  11. RichA

    Bruce Guest

    RichA <> wrote:

    >http://www.dpreview.com/news/2012/01/09/CanonG1X_Preview#specs



    Except it isn't Four Thirds. The sensor has a crop factor of 1.85X,
    which is about half way between Four Thirds (2.0X) and the APS-C
    sensors of Canon's DSLR range (1.6X).

    The 4:3 ratio of the sensor is identical to that of Canon's G1
    high-end compact which dated from 2000, pre-dating the first Four
    Thirds DSLR (Olympus E-1) by *more than three years*. Plus, the 4:3
    ratio was a standard for P&S digicams long before that.

    Please don't suggest that Canon is in any way following Four Thirds.
    Bruce, Jan 10, 2012
    #11
  12. RichA

    nospam Guest

    In article <>, Bruce
    <> wrote:

    > RichA <> wrote:
    > >http://www.dpreview.com/news/2012/01/09/CanonG1X_Preview#specs

    >
    > Except it isn't Four Thirds. The sensor has a crop factor of 1.85X,
    > which is about half way between Four Thirds (2.0X) and the APS-C
    > sensors of Canon's DSLR range (1.6X).


    why let facts get in the way of one of his rants?

    > The 4:3 ratio of the sensor is identical to that of Canon's G1
    > high-end compact which dated from 2000, pre-dating the first Four
    > Thirds DSLR (Olympus E-1) by *more than three years*. Plus, the 4:3
    > ratio was a standard for P&S digicams long before that.


    once again, 4/3rds is not named for its aspect ratio, but rather the
    size of the sensor.

    > Please don't suggest that Canon is in any way following Four Thirds.


    canon *can't* release anything 4/3rds unless they join the 4/3rds
    consortium, and neither canon nor nikon is going to do that (and it's
    not likely they'd want either one to join).
    nospam, Jan 10, 2012
    #12
  13. "RichA" <> wrote in message
    news:...
    > On Jan 9, 12:55 pm, Bowser <> wrote:
    >> On Mon, 9 Jan 2012 07:52:35 -0800 (PST), RichA <>
    >> wrote:
    >>
    >> >http://www.dpreview.com/news/2012/01/09/CanonG1X_Preview#specs

    >>
    >> Very interesting, but I can't see one for me. I'd rather have a m4/3
    >> camera with interchangeable lenses.
    >>
    >> No fast primes for this Canon...
    >>
    >> :)

    >
    > Not unless you want a lens that weighs more than the camera body.


    Not even then, you can't change the lens!

    David
    David J Taylor, Jan 10, 2012
    #13
  14. RichA

    RichA Guest

    On Jan 9, 11:46 pm, Bruce <> wrote:
    > RichA <> wrote:
    > >http://www.dpreview.com/news/2012/01/09/CanonG1X_Preview#specs

    >
    > Except it isn't Four Thirds.  The sensor has a crop factor of 1.85X,
    > which is about half way between Four Thirds (2.0X) and the APS-C
    > sensors of Canon's DSLR range (1.6X).
    >
    > The 4:3 ratio of the sensor is identical to that of Canon's G1
    > high-end compact which dated from 2000, pre-dating the first Four
    > Thirds DSLR (Olympus E-1) by *more than three years*.  Plus, the 4:3
    > ratio was a standard for P&S digicams long before that.
    >
    > Please don't suggest that Canon is in any way following Four Thirds.


    I will say it is gratifying that Canon finally offered something
    besides boring black DSLRs and run of them mill P&S's. Now, they need
    to join the others in offering a non-DSLR with interchangeable lenses.
    RichA, Jan 10, 2012
    #14
  15. In article <090120122118290252%>, nospam
    <> writes
    >
    >once again, 4/3rds is not named for its aspect ratio, but rather the
    >size of the sensor.
    >

    ....and its only right in an Irish accent anyway. ;-)
    --
    Kennedy
    Yes, Socrates himself is particularly missed;
    A lovely little thinker, but a bugger when he's pissed.
    Python Philosophers (replace 'nospam' with 'kennedym' when replying)
    Kennedy McEwen, Jan 10, 2012
    #15
  16. RichA

    Bruce Guest

    RichA <> wrote:
    >On Jan 9, 11:46 pm, Bruce <> wrote:
    >> RichA <> wrote:
    >> >http://www.dpreview.com/news/2012/01/09/CanonG1X_Preview#specs

    >>
    >> Except it isn't Four Thirds.  The sensor has a crop factor of 1.85X,
    >> which is about half way between Four Thirds (2.0X) and the APS-C
    >> sensors of Canon's DSLR range (1.6X).
    >>
    >> The 4:3 ratio of the sensor is identical to that of Canon's G1
    >> high-end compact which dated from 2000, pre-dating the first Four
    >> Thirds DSLR (Olympus E-1) by *more than three years*.  Plus, the 4:3
    >> ratio was a standard for P&S digicams long before that.
    >>
    >> Please don't suggest that Canon is in any way following Four Thirds.

    >
    >I will say it is gratifying that Canon finally offered something
    >besides boring black DSLRs and run of them mill P&S's. Now, they need
    >to join the others in offering a non-DSLR with interchangeable lenses.



    Perhaps entering an already crowded market that is not growing
    especially quickly is the last thing that Canon needs. The "boring
    black DSLRs" are at least profitable, and Canon makes some P&Ss that
    are as far from "run of the mill" as it gets - the PowerShots, the G
    Series and especially the G1X.

    It would not be a complete surprise if Canon later made an
    interchangeable lens camera based on the G1X, or at least one using
    its sensor ...
    Bruce, Jan 10, 2012
    #16
  17. "Bruce" <> wrote in message
    news:...
    []
    > It would not be a complete surprise if Canon later made an
    > interchangeable lens camera based on the G1X, or at least one using
    > its sensor ...


    That's my feeling as well, and I would not be surprised to see an EF-S
    lens adaptor as well. A pity that Nikon went the route it did.

    David
    David J Taylor, Jan 10, 2012
    #17
  18. RichA

    Bruce Guest

    "David J Taylor" <> wrote:
    >"Bruce" <> wrote in message
    >news:...
    >[]
    >> It would not be a complete surprise if Canon later made an
    >> interchangeable lens camera based on the G1X, or at least one using
    >> its sensor ...

    >
    >That's my feeling as well, and I would not be surprised to see an EF-S
    >lens adaptor as well.



    That would be essential.


    >A pity that Nikon went the route it did.



    Nikon achieved exactly what it set out to achieve with the 1 System.

    Whether Nikon's aspirations for the 1 System were right is moot.
    Bruce, Jan 10, 2012
    #18
  19. RichA

    RichA Guest

    On Jan 10, 12:36 pm, Bruce <> wrote:
    > RichA <> wrote:
    > >On Jan 9, 11:46 pm, Bruce <> wrote:
    > >> RichA <> wrote:
    > >> >http://www.dpreview.com/news/2012/01/09/CanonG1X_Preview#specs

    >
    > >> Except it isn't Four Thirds.  The sensor has a crop factor of 1.85X,
    > >> which is about half way between Four Thirds (2.0X) and the APS-C
    > >> sensors of Canon's DSLR range (1.6X).

    >
    > >> The 4:3 ratio of the sensor is identical to that of Canon's G1
    > >> high-end compact which dated from 2000, pre-dating the first Four
    > >> Thirds DSLR (Olympus E-1) by *more than three years*.  Plus, the 4:3
    > >> ratio was a standard for P&S digicams long before that.

    >
    > >> Please don't suggest that Canon is in any way following Four Thirds.

    >
    > >I will say it is gratifying that Canon finally offered something
    > >besides boring black DSLRs and run of them mill P&S's.  Now, they need
    > >to join the others in offering a non-DSLR with interchangeable lenses.

    >
    > Perhaps entering an already crowded market that is not growing
    > especially quickly is the last thing that Canon needs.  The "boring
    > black DSLRs" are at least profitable,


    The mirrorless interchangeable lens market isn't growing? If that is
    your benchmark for non-growth, why sell P&S's at all? There is
    negative growth in that market. Also, which (honestly) do you think
    is more profitable, selling a body like a Nikon D300s for $1150 or a
    Panasonic GH2 for $1000? If by profitable you mean as a system, then
    I would probably agree, given Nikon's breadth and sales of lenses and
    other accessories, but there is no way a D300s body is as cheap as a
    GH2 or a V1 to manufacture.
    RichA, Jan 11, 2012
    #19
  20. RichA

    Bruce Guest

    RichA <> wrote:
    >On Jan 10, 12:36 pm, Bruce <> wrote:
    >> Perhaps entering an already crowded market that is not growing
    >> especially quickly is the last thing that Canon needs.  The "boring
    >> black DSLRs" are at least profitable,

    >
    >The mirrorless interchangeable lens market isn't growing? If that is
    >your benchmark for non-growth, why sell P&S's at all? There is
    >negative growth in that market. Also, which (honestly) do you think
    >is more profitable, selling a body like a Nikon D300s for $1150 or a
    >Panasonic GH2 for $1000? If by profitable you mean as a system, then
    >I would probably agree, given Nikon's breadth and sales of lenses and
    >other accessories, but there is no way a D300s body is as cheap as a
    >GH2 or a V1 to manufacture.



    Perhaps entering an already crowded market that is not growing
    especially quickly is the last thing that Canon needs. The "boring
    black DSLRs" are at least profitable.


    [I thought it was worth repeating that text because you obviously had
    not read it before allowing your knee-jerk reaction to write a reply
    for you.]
    Bruce, Jan 11, 2012
    #20
    1. Advertising

Want to reply to this thread or ask your own question?

It takes just 2 minutes to sign up (and it's free!). Just click the sign up button to choose a username and then you can ask your own questions on the forum.
Similar Threads
  1. BD

    Canon 70-300IS - OH MY GOD.

    BD, Oct 27, 2005, in forum: Digital Photography
    Replies:
    34
    Views:
    1,027
    David J Taylor
    Nov 10, 2005
  2. Rich

    Panasonic FX30..why not use 2/3rds sensor???

    Rich, Dec 12, 2005, in forum: Digital Photography
    Replies:
    8
    Views:
    408
    HornBlower
    Dec 14, 2005
  3. Siddhartha Jain

    The charge of the 4/3rds brigade

    Siddhartha Jain, Feb 27, 2006, in forum: Digital Photography
    Replies:
    0
    Views:
    367
    Siddhartha Jain
    Feb 27, 2006
  4. Paul D. Sullivan

    Good results with Oly 4/3rds compared to Canon EF lenses?

    Paul D. Sullivan, Jan 26, 2007, in forum: Digital Photography
    Replies:
    26
    Views:
    621
    Mark²
    Jan 27, 2007
  5. RichA

    OMG! Canon AF lenses, AF mode on micro 4/3rds!!!

    RichA, Jan 19, 2011, in forum: Digital Photography
    Replies:
    9
    Views:
    508
    Robert Coe
    Jan 23, 2011
Loading...

Share This Page