X for x-it?

Discussion in 'Digital Photography' started by android, Oct 18, 2011.

  1. android

    android Guest

    Will this be the beginning of the end for the the EOS full frame? Are we
    going to see 4k studio/movie mirrorless at the november presentation. Is
    Canon gonna copy the Leica S2 format? There are questions!

    --
    moved files are either renamed or copied and destroyed

    --- Posted via news://freenews.netfront.net/ - Complaints to ---
     
    android, Oct 18, 2011
    #1
    1. Advertising

  2. android

    RichA Guest

    On Oct 18, 10:56 am, android <> wrote:
    > Will this be the beginning of the end for the the EOS full frame? Are we
    > going to see 4k studio/movie mirrorless at the november presentation. Is
    > Canon gonna copy the Leica S2 format? There are questions!
    >
    > --
    > moved files are either renamed or copied and destroyed
    >
    > --- Posted via news://freenews.netfront.net/ - Complaints to ---


    God I hope FF in its current format DIES. Away with 3:2, on to 4:3.
     
    RichA, Oct 18, 2011
    #2
    1. Advertising

  3. android

    Bruce Guest

    RichA <> wrote:
    >On Oct 18, 10:56 am, android <> wrote:
    >> Will this be the beginning of the end for the the EOS full frame? Are we
    >> going to see 4k studio/movie mirrorless at the november presentation. Is
    >> Canon gonna copy the Leica S2 format? There are questions!
    >>
    >> --
    >> moved files are either renamed or copied and destroyed
    >>
    >> --- Posted via news://freenews.netfront.net/ - Complaints to ---

    >
    >God I hope FF in its current format DIES. Away with 3:2, on to 4:3.



    Don't be silly. It ain't gonna happen.

    The Leica S2 is 3:2, by the way.
     
    Bruce, Oct 18, 2011
    #3
  4. "RichA" <> wrote in message
    news:...
    []
    > God I hope FF in its current format DIES. Away with 3:2, on to 4:3.


    Don't you mean move up to 16:9?

    David
     
    David J Taylor, Oct 18, 2011
    #4
  5. android

    Bruce Guest

    "David J Taylor" <> wrote:
    >"RichA" <> wrote in message
    >news:...
    >[]
    >> God I hope FF in its current format DIES. Away with 3:2, on to 4:3.

    >
    >Don't you mean move up to 16:9?



    Now that's a good idea!

    My partner uses a Panasonic FZ38 superzoom, but the previous camera
    was a Panasonic LUMIX DMC-LX2. It was a delight to use, with an ultra
    wide angle (and ultra sharp) Leica branded zoom lens plus a 16:9 10 MP
    sensor and rear LCD screen.

    Alas, the 16:9 sensor was dropped for the subsequent LX3 and LX5 in
    favour of a !0 MP 4:3 sensor.
     
    Bruce, Oct 18, 2011
    #5
  6. android

    Robert Coe Guest

    On Tue, 18 Oct 2011 21:08:50 +0100, Bruce <> wrote:
    : "David J Taylor" <> wrote:
    : >"RichA" <> wrote in message
    : >news:...
    : >[]
    : >> God I hope FF in its current format DIES. Away with 3:2, on to 4:3.
    : >
    : >Don't you mean move up to 16:9?
    :
    :
    : Now that's a good idea!

    I don't think so. In portrait orientation it would be useful only for
    photographing cell towers and flagpoles.

    Bob
     
    Robert Coe, Oct 19, 2011
    #6
  7. android

    nospam Guest

    In article <4e9e26a4$0$13392$>, Trevor
    <> wrote:

    > > Don't you mean move up to 16:9?

    >
    > Why, you only want to look at your photo's on a TV screen? What happens
    > with portrait format?


    turn the tv on its side.
     
    nospam, Oct 19, 2011
    #7
  8. android

    Trevor Guest

    "RichA" <> wrote in message
    news:...
    >God I hope FF in its current format DIES. Away with 3:2, on to 4:3.


    Good luck with your quest to get every photo kiosk in the world to drop
    6"x4" prints in favour of 5.33"x4"! :)

    Trevor.
     
    Trevor, Oct 19, 2011
    #8
  9. android

    Trevor Guest

    "David J Taylor" <> wrote in message
    news:j7kfpr$6jm$...
    > "RichA" <> wrote in message
    > news:...
    > []
    >> God I hope FF in its current format DIES. Away with 3:2, on to 4:3.

    >
    > Don't you mean move up to 16:9?


    Why, you only want to look at your photo's on a TV screen? What happens
    with portrait format?

    Trevor.
     
    Trevor, Oct 19, 2011
    #9
  10. android

    Trevor Guest

    "nospam" <> wrote in message
    news:181020111839527545%...
    >> > Don't you mean move up to 16:9?

    >>
    >> Why, you only want to look at your photo's on a TV screen? What happens
    >> with portrait format?

    >
    > turn the tv on its side.


    Gets a bit tedious when you have a mixture of portrait and landscape! :)

    Trevor.
     
    Trevor, Oct 19, 2011
    #10
  11. "Trevor" <> wrote in message
    news:4e9e26a4$0$13392$...
    >
    > "David J Taylor" <> wrote in
    > message news:j7kfpr$6jm$...
    >> "RichA" <> wrote in message
    >> news:...
    >> []
    >>> God I hope FF in its current format DIES. Away with 3:2, on to 4:3.

    >>
    >> Don't you mean move up to 16:9?

    >
    > Why, you only want to look at your photo's on a TV screen? What happens
    > with portrait format?
    >
    > Trevor.


    90% of my photos are viewed on either computer monitors or TV screens.
    Very rarely print these days, and likely if I do it's between 3:2 and 4:3.
    Portrait, as with TV, simply doesn't work well, so you are stuck with
    landscape. You can always crop a 16:9 portrait image of course, just as
    you can crop any format (and maybe you /should/ crop if your display
    format isn't fixed).

    David
     
    David J Taylor, Oct 19, 2011
    #11
  12. android

    Bruce Guest

    Robert Coe <> wrote:

    >On Tue, 18 Oct 2011 21:08:50 +0100, Bruce <> wrote:
    >: "David J Taylor" <> wrote:
    >: >"RichA" <> wrote in message
    >: >news:...
    >: >[]
    >: >> God I hope FF in its current format DIES. Away with 3:2, on to 4:3.
    >: >
    >: >Don't you mean move up to 16:9?
    >:
    >:
    >: Now that's a good idea!
    >
    >I don't think so. In portrait orientation it would be useful only for
    >photographing cell towers and flagpoles.



    Ha! The LX2 could also shoot 3:2 and 4:3, obviously by reducing the
    number of pixels, but that was fine for a p+s. ;-)

    It was sheer delight for landscapes. A digital XPan?
     
    Bruce, Oct 19, 2011
    #12
  13. > Well that's you, but not everybody.

    Of course, everyone has different needs.

    > I shoot far more portrait format than landscape, and viewing on a
    > computer monitor is only to edit, and viewing on a TV is not something I
    > even bother with. Each to his own of course, but it seems those needs
    > are already well satisfied by a raft of P&S camera's.
    > Why on earth would anyone need a Full Frame 4:3 or 16:9 DSLR to simply
    > view on a computer monitor or TV given all their limitations?
    >
    > Trevor.


    P&S are not adequate for my needs (except when a very small camera is
    required) as they lack the speed of operation, quality viewfinder, and
    high-ISO capability. But equally I don't need a full-frame DSLR with the
    associated bulk, weight and costs. APS-C (and perhaps 4/3) would suit me
    nicely. EVFs are coming along nicely, although not quite there as yet,
    and I have a bag of Nikon DX lenses I'm not intending to replace any time
    soon.

    Cheers,
    David
     
    David J Taylor, Oct 20, 2011
    #13
  14. android

    Trevor Guest

    "David J Taylor" <> wrote in message
    news:j7mc5p$ulv$...
    >>>> God I hope FF in its current format DIES. Away with 3:2, on to 4:3.
    >>>
    >>> Don't you mean move up to 16:9?

    >>
    >> Why, you only want to look at your photo's on a TV screen? What happens
    >> with portrait format?

    >
    > 90% of my photos are viewed on either computer monitors or TV screens.
    > Very rarely print these days, and likely if I do it's between 3:2 and 4:3.
    > Portrait, as with TV, simply doesn't work well, so you are stuck with
    > landscape. You can always crop a 16:9 portrait image of course, just as
    > you can crop any format (and maybe you /should/ crop if your display
    > format isn't fixed).



    Well that's you, but not everybody. I shoot far more portrait format than
    landscape, and viewing on a computer monitor is only to edit, and viewing on
    a TV is not something I even bother with. Each to his own of course, but it
    seems those needs are already well satisfied by a raft of P&S camera's.
    Why on earth would anyone need a Full Frame 4:3 or 16:9 DSLR to simply view
    on a computer monitor or TV given all their limitations?

    Trevor.
     
    Trevor, Oct 20, 2011
    #14
  15. android

    Whisky-dave Guest

    On Oct 20, 8:19 am, "Trevor" <> wrote:
    > "David J Taylor" <> wrote in messagenews:j7mc5p$ulv$...
    >
    > >>>> God I hope FF in its current format DIES.  Away with 3:2, on to 4:3.

    >
    > >>> Don't you mean move up to 16:9?

    >
    > >> Why, you only want to look at your photo's on a TV screen?  What happens
    > >> with portrait format?

    >
    > > 90% of my photos are viewed on either computer monitors or TV screens.
    > > Very rarely print these days, and likely if I do it's between 3:2 and 4:3.
    > > Portrait, as with TV, simply doesn't work well, so you are stuck with
    > > landscape.  You can always crop a 16:9 portrait image of course, justas
    > > you can crop any format (and maybe you /should/ crop if your display
    > > format isn't fixed).

    >
    > Well that's you, but not everybody. I shoot far more portrait format than
    > landscape, and viewing on a computer monitor is only to edit, and viewingon
    > a TV is not something I even bother with. Each to his own of course, but it
    > seems those needs are already well satisfied by a raft of P&S camera's.
    > Why on earth would anyone need a Full Frame 4:3 or 16:9 DSLR to simply view
    > on a computer monitor or TV given all their limitations?
    >
    > Trevor.


    I think we need a new format, I suggest 13 3/8th : 7 3/4qrts :)
     
    Whisky-dave, Oct 20, 2011
    #15
  16. David J Taylor <> wrote:
    > "RichA" <> wrote in message
    > news:...
    > []
    >> God I hope FF in its current format DIES. Away with 3:2, on to 4:3.


    > Don't you mean move up to 16:9?


    No, if he thought, he'd move up to a round sensor, which you can
    crop as you like and still get all the data your lens offers.

    -Wolfgang
     
    Wolfgang Weisselberg, Oct 28, 2011
    #16
  17. "Wolfgang Weisselberg" <> wrote in message
    news:...
    > David J Taylor <> wrote:
    >> "RichA" <> wrote in message
    >> news:...
    >> []
    >>> God I hope FF in its current format DIES. Away with 3:2, on to 4:3.

    >
    >> Don't you mean move up to 16:9?

    >
    > No, if he thought, he'd move up to a round sensor, which you can
    > crop as you like and still get all the data your lens offers.
    >
    > -Wolfgang


    Made from Metal, of course!
     
    David J Taylor, Oct 28, 2011
    #17
  18. android

    android Guest

    In article <>,
    Wolfgang Weisselberg <> wrote:

    > David J Taylor <> wrote:
    > > "RichA" <> wrote in message
    > > news:...
    > > []
    > >> God I hope FF in its current format DIES. Away with 3:2, on to 4:3.

    >
    > > Don't you mean move up to 16:9?

    >
    > No, if he thought, he'd move up to a round sensor, which you can
    > crop as you like and still get all the data your lens offers.
    >
    > -Wolfgang


    It's probably easier to make rectangular ones, since they're cut from a
    cake.
    It hip to be square though! ;-@

    --
    moved files are either renamed or copied and destroyed

    --- Posted via news://freenews.netfront.net/ - Complaints to ---
     
    android, Oct 29, 2011
    #18
  19. android <> wrote:
    > Wolfgang Weisselberg <> wrote:
    >> David J Taylor <> wrote:
    >> > "RichA" <> wrote in message


    >> >> God I hope FF in its current format DIES. Away with 3:2, on to 4:3.


    >> > Don't you mean move up to 16:9?


    >> No, if he thought, he'd move up to a round sensor, which you can
    >> crop as you like and still get all the data your lens offers.


    > It's probably easier to make rectangular ones, since they're cut from a
    > cake.


    The wafers are circular, though ...

    -Wolfgang
     
    Wolfgang Weisselberg, Nov 1, 2011
    #19
  20. android

    android Guest

    In article <>,
    Wolfgang Weisselberg <> wrote:

    > android <> wrote:
    > > Wolfgang Weisselberg <> wrote:
    > >> David J Taylor <> wrote:
    > >> > "RichA" <> wrote in message

    >
    > >> >> God I hope FF in its current format DIES. Away with 3:2, on to 4:3.

    >
    > >> > Don't you mean move up to 16:9?

    >
    > >> No, if he thought, he'd move up to a round sensor, which you can
    > >> crop as you like and still get all the data your lens offers.

    >
    > > It's probably easier to make rectangular ones, since they're cut from a
    > > cake.

    >
    > The wafers are circular, though ...
    >
    > -Wolfgang


    That's so true; but it seems easier to cut straight lines don't you
    think. More practical to assemble. You would however get more chips out
    of cake/wafer if they were circular. I mearly assume that it's easier
    and cheaper to use squares going outside the circle of confusion to get
    the desired result.

    --
    moved files are either renamed or copied and destroyed

    --- Posted via news://freenews.netfront.net/ - Complaints to ---
     
    android, Nov 2, 2011
    #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. Giuen
    Replies:
    0
    Views:
    1,156
    Giuen
    Sep 12, 2008
Loading...

Share This Page