What Sony could have done to address the lens quality issue

Discussion in 'Digital Photography' 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
    1. Advertising

  2. RichA

    Bruce Guest

    On Wed, 7 Sep 2011 15:06:41 -0700 (PDT), RichA <>
    wrote:
    >
    >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.



    You have completely ignored the consumer HD video market which demands
    a 16:9 aspect ratio.
    Bruce, Sep 10, 2011
    #2
    1. Advertising

  3. RichA

    Trevor Guest

    "Bruce" <> wrote in message
    news:...
    > On Wed, 7 Sep 2011 15:06:41 -0700 (PDT), RichA <>
    > wrote:
    >>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.

    >
    >
    > You have completely ignored the consumer HD video market which demands
    > a 16:9 aspect ratio.



    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.
    Trevor, Sep 14, 2011
    #3
  4. RichA

    Bruce Guest

    "Trevor" <> wrote:
    >"Bruce" <> wrote in message
    >news:...
    >> On Wed, 7 Sep 2011 15:06:41 -0700 (PDT), RichA <>
    >> wrote:
    >>>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.

    >>
    >>
    >> You have completely ignored the consumer HD video market which demands
    >> a 16:9 aspect ratio.

    >
    >
    >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.



    Good point.
    Bruce, Sep 14, 2011
    #4
  5. RichA

    Trevor Guest

    "Alfred Molon" <> wrote in message
    news:...
    >> 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.

    >
    > 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.



    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
    photo)
    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.
    Trevor, Sep 15, 2011
    #5
  6. RichA

    Bruce Guest

    "Trevor" <> wrote:
    >"Alfred Molon" <> wrote in message
    >news:...
    >>> 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.

    >>
    >> 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.

    >
    >
    >But most of the consumer shops simply crop the 4:3 image to fit a 6x4"
    >print.



    Maybe they do things differently in Germany? Or at least at the print
    shop that Alfred uses.
    Bruce, Sep 15, 2011
    #6
  7. RichA

    Charles Guest

    Re: What Rich can do...

    "Bowser" wrote in message
    news:p...

    On 9/7/2011 6:06 PM, RichA wrote:
    > 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.


    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
    #7
  8. Re: What Rich can do...

    "Charles" <> wrote in message
    news:j4tq4m$afp$...
    []
    > For lens designers, the easiest (ideal) format is 1:1.


    Yes, but today many displays are 16:9 or approximations thereof, and many
    prints are still 6:4.

    David
    David J Taylor, Sep 16, 2011
    #8
  9. Re: What Rich can do...

    "Rich" <> wrote in message
    news:p...
    []
    > 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.


    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
    David J Taylor, Sep 18, 2011
    #9
    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. John

    Could this be done?

    John, Dec 18, 2004, in forum: Firefox
    Replies:
    1
    Views:
    439
    :: BRIAN ::
    Dec 18, 2004
  2. Eugene

    Could i have done this better ?

    Eugene, Jan 16, 2007, in forum: Digital Photography
    Replies:
    17
    Views:
    392
    Mark²
    Jan 17, 2007
  3. Karen  Parker
    Replies:
    32
    Views:
    966
    Karen Parker
    Aug 27, 2004
  4. Karen  Parker
    Replies:
    7
    Views:
    324
    JohnO
    Aug 26, 2004
  5. Woofu

    Re: Anyone could've done the Wereo

    Woofu, Nov 13, 2009, in forum: Computer Support
    Replies:
    0
    Views:
    356
    Woofu
    Nov 13, 2009
Loading...

Share This Page