Forgot Password
Pentax Camera Forums Home
 

View Poll Results: Would you like the 4/3 ratio extended to FF digital?
No, leave 35mm FF dslr ratio alone 1257.14%
Yes, change the 35mm FF dslr ratio to 4/3 29.52%
Possibly...but not sure? 14.76%
No opinion 628.57%
Voters: 21. You may not vote on this poll

Reply
Show Printable Version Search this Thread
07-18-2012, 04:56 PM   #1
Veteran Member




Join Date: Jan 2012
Location: NE, USA
Posts: 1,302
Would you like the 4/3 ratio extended to FF digital?

Would you like the 4/3 ratio extended to FF digital? Or are you satisfied with the current ratios?

07-18-2012, 07:46 PM   #2
Site Supporter




Join Date: Feb 2011
Posts: 4,892
I've gone back and forth. I like 4:3 because it's easier to print, and 3:2 because it's easier to stitch.
07-18-2012, 10:02 PM   #3
Veteran Member
Laurentiu Cristofor's Avatar

Join Date: Nov 2009
Location: WA
Photos: Albums
Posts: 3,044
Why not go for a square format?
07-18-2012, 10:43 PM   #4
Senior Member




Join Date: May 2010
Location: Sydney
Photos: Albums
Posts: 211
I often find the square format perfect for flowers.

07-19-2012, 07:19 AM   #5
Pentaxian
RonHendriks1966's Avatar

Join Date: Jan 2009
Photos: Gallery
Posts: 8,556
I would like a large 4/3th sensor.
07-20-2012, 08:04 PM   #6
Pentaxian
Edgar_in_Indy's Avatar

Join Date: May 2010
Location: Indiana, USA
Photos: Gallery
Posts: 2,555
Square would be best. We pay good money for our lenses, we may as well use as much of the glass as we can. With a square sensor, you could always set the aspect ratio to your favorite rectangle, whether that be the 3:2 or 4:3 or even 16:9. Or you could just crop to any desired aspect ratio in post-processing. How could anybody be against this???

I would almost guarantee that if one of the big camera makers came out with a square sensor in a DSLR, it would create waves. With how incredible all of the modern cameras are in terms of image quality, they're going to have to look for new ways to set themselves apart from the competition, and a square sensor would definitely do it.

I came from an Olympus DSLR, and I continue shoot with an Olympus PEN, and whenever I'm editing my images, I'm always struck with how the images from my Pentax DSLR basically have the tops and bottoms masked off when compared to the images from my Olympus. Those are pixels I'll never get back!
07-20-2012, 08:50 PM   #7
Site Supporter




Join Date: Mar 2010
Location: SW Washington
Posts: 814
QuoteOriginally posted by Edgar_in_Indy Quote
Square would be best. We pay good money for our lenses, we may as well use as much of the glass as we can. With a square sensor, you could always set the aspect ratio to your favorite rectangle, whether that be the 3:2 or 4:3 or even 16:9. Or you could just crop to any desired aspect ratio in post-processing. How could anybody be against this???
People who want wide angles to stay wide?

The maximum size square that fits in a FF image circle is 30x30mm, meaning you effectively lose 1/6 of the horizontal field of view (or vertical if you shoot portrait). Crop it to 3:2 and you lose vertical as well, making it effectively a 1.2x cropped sensor for people who prefer that to square (which I'd venture make up a majority), only you add extra post-processing steps and lose pixels.

Last edited by Cannikin; 07-20-2012 at 08:59 PM.
07-20-2012, 08:59 PM   #8
Pentaxian
Edgar_in_Indy's Avatar

Join Date: May 2010
Location: Indiana, USA
Photos: Gallery
Posts: 2,555
QuoteOriginally posted by Cannikin Quote
People who want wide angles to stay wide?

The maximum size square that fits in a FF image circle is 30x30mm, meaning you effectively lose 1/6 of the horizontal field of view.
Is there a law that says the image sensor has to be limited to the size of the image circle? Isn't there somebody who makes a camera with a sensor that is larger than the image circle in order to be able to use a variety of aspect ratios without making the sacrifices you describe? I remember reading something like that a year or two ago, but now I can't remember what the camera was. I'm thinking that it was one of the serious compacts that shoot RAW.


Last edited by Edgar_in_Indy; 07-20-2012 at 09:40 PM.
07-20-2012, 10:40 PM   #9
Site Supporter




Join Date: Mar 2010
Location: SW Washington
Posts: 814
QuoteOriginally posted by Edgar_in_Indy Quote
Is there a law that says the image sensor has to be limited to the size of the image circle? Isn't there somebody who makes a camera with a sensor that is larger than the image circle in order to be able to use a variety of aspect ratios without making the sacrifices you describe? I remember reading something like that a year or two ago, but now I can't remember what the camera was. I'm thinking that it was one of the serious compacts that shoot RAW.
You could make a 36x36mm sensor, if you don't mind having a large portion of a medium format sized piece of very expensive silicon go to waste... (EDIT: or maybe not so much, see my next post)

The camera you're talking about is the Panasonic GH2. Only a very small portion of the sensor is outside the imaging circle (and the full sensor is still significantly smaller than APS-C, keeping cost low). This page has a good diagram of the sensor configuration: Bjorn Utpott Photography - Journal - GH2: My Next.

Last edited by Cannikin; 07-21-2012 at 03:29 AM.
07-20-2012, 11:42 PM   #10
Site Supporter




Join Date: Mar 2010
Location: SW Washington
Posts: 814
Hmmm, I ran through the geometric calculations, and if I did them right I found that for a 36x36mm sensor, only 5% would actually be outside the FF image circle so contrary to what I said above, not that much is wasted in terms of overall possible usage (more in practice). However, no more than 70% of the sensor could be used for any given image, so you'd still be paying for a medium format size sensor while getting FF size images .

And it just occurred to me that it is not possible to fit a mirror for 36x36mm inside the K-mount without smacking the lens, so it would be EVF only (or a different mount). Not sure even 30x30mm would work in that regard.

EDIT: It also just occurred to me that a 36x30mm sensor could do any ratio 36x36 can (using portrait orientation) with much less waste. Whoops! Stil dunno about that mirror though.

Last edited by Cannikin; 07-21-2012 at 01:10 AM.
07-21-2012, 06:11 AM   #11
Pentaxian
Edgar_in_Indy's Avatar

Join Date: May 2010
Location: Indiana, USA
Photos: Gallery
Posts: 2,555
QuoteOriginally posted by Cannikin Quote
It also just occurred to me that a 36x30mm sensor could do any ratio 36x36 can (using portrait orientation) with much less waste. Whoops! Stil dunno about that mirror though.
So that means the sensor would be about 20% larger than a standard 36x24mm FF sensor. So it's definitely an extra cost, but I think it would pay off.

It would be cool if they could develop an edge-to-edge image sensor, so that an array of smaller, higher-yield, image sensors could be used instead of a single large sensor. For example, four sensors side-to-side in a square formation.

Last edited by Edgar_in_Indy; 07-21-2012 at 06:17 AM.
07-21-2012, 07:15 AM   #12
Pentaxian
RonHendriks1966's Avatar

Join Date: Jan 2009
Photos: Gallery
Posts: 8,556
QuoteOriginally posted by Edgar_in_Indy Quote
So that means the sensor would be about 20% larger than a standard 36x24mm FF sensor. So it's definitely an extra cost, but I think it would pay off.

It would be cool if they could develop an edge-to-edge image sensor, so that an array of smaller, higher-yield, image sensors could be used instead of a single large sensor. For example, four sensors side-to-side in a square formation.
well that would be a circel formed sensor, but that is the most expensive solution, since you can't make the efficient on a wafer.

I think having a different, but large, sensor then other company's would make Pentax stand out and that can be good.
Reply

Bookmarks
  • Submit Thread to Facebook Facebook
  • Submit Thread to Twitter Twitter
  • Submit Thread to Digg Digg
Tags - Make this thread easier to find by adding keywords to it!
camera, dslr, ff, photography, ratio
Thread Tools Search this Thread
Search this Thread:

Advanced Search


Similar Threads
Thread Thread Starter Forum Replies Last Post
Pentax Two-Year Extended Warranty for the K5 and KR Digital SLR Cameras brady38 Ask B&H Photo! 0 12-03-2011 11:05 PM
k5 16:9 aspect ratio stills lowlight Video and Pentax HDSLRs 17 03-12-2011 01:51 AM
softbox ratio slip Pentax Camera and Field Accessories 2 01-21-2011 02:14 PM
16:9 aspect ratio possible??? cbdr Troubleshooting and Beginner Help 3 01-06-2011 04:59 PM
Fibinacci's ratio Jakes Pentax DSLR Discussion 21 12-11-2010 06:58 PM



All times are GMT -7. The time now is 10:15 PM. | See also: NikonForums.com, part of our network of photo forums!
  • Red (Default)
  • Green
  • Gray
  • Dark
  • Dark Yellow
  • Dark Blue
  • Old Red
  • Old Green
  • Old Gray
  • Dial-Up Style
Hello! It's great to see you back on the forum! Have you considered joining the community?
register
Creating a FREE ACCOUNT takes under a minute, removes ads, and lets you post! [Dismiss]
Top