[Tony Belding]

the s7 has a 16:9 screen... one 4:3 sensor phone out of hundreds of 16:9 sensor phones proves that 4:3 aspect ratios fail, nobody wants that garbage.

1)4:3 square photos do not fit rectangular screens.

2)the overwhelmingly universal standard aspect ratio for media presentation is ~16:9.

A world where there's a standard display screen and all photos are expected to conform to its aspect ratio is a world where my photographer's soul goes to die. Also, I'm not even sure what "media presentation" is, but I'm pretty sure it's way way down near the bottom of my list of priorities.

I'm a big believer that the aspect ratio should support the composition, and I shouldn't have to think about where or how it's going to be displayed. (Although, I do usually try and fit an image into one of the more common ratios: 1:1, 4:3, 3:2, 16:9.) The display medium, whatever it may eventually be, will just have to adapt to the photo and frame it in whatever way seems most practical. For an open landscape, I most often tend to think pano. For close ups, I think square. In between I find plenty of uses for 4:3 and 3:2.

A 4:3 sensor is convenient for me, since it's easy to crop to either 1:1 or 3:2 without drastically changing the field of view or throwing out too many pixels.

[nickthetasmaniac]

those are all ~16:9 aspect ratio screens, 4x3 format is square, it does not fit a rectangular screen.

good grief!

1)4:3 square photos do not fit rectangular screens.

4x3 is not square. It is, in fact, rectangular. 1x1 is square. Just saying...

Gotta say, this is a pretty strange thread. Someone comes along wanting to chat about a possible new 35mm Olympus, and all we can talk about is three pages of aspect ratios?

Right.

[Rondec]

It does make me wonder where Olympus is at here. Another new mount (I don't know that current one is full frame compatible) and a whole new lens line up feels odd. Still, Olympus has a lot longer history of creating cameras that photographers enjoy using than Sony does and if they would produce the equivalent of a Nex camera that is nice ergonomically and has similar functionality, that would be a winner in my book.

[mecrox]

It does make me wonder where Olympus is at here. Another new mount (I don't know that current one is full frame compatible) and a whole new lens line up feels odd. Still, Olympus has a lot longer history of creating cameras that photographers enjoy using than Sony does and if they would produce the equivalent of a Nex camera that is nice ergonomically and has similar functionality, that would be a winner in my book.

A good point but it's only a rumour slash internet speculation and we know all about that ...

I suppose the question facing Olympus is whether they can keep M43 healthy and growing or need to add another format to find that growth. If they want growth, of course. For all we know, their parent board may be quite content to keep the camera division fairly small and tight. It seems to be profitable at the moment and a new venture would cost serious $$$. And besides, how is FF doing anyway? There would be little point entering that market unless all the signs were pointing to FF becoming a growing, must-have format for any serious photog. If Oly went into FF I'm sure they would produce quality equipment but I'd guess it's an outside bet. An FF Pen-F would be an interesting (and elegant) camera ...

[Rondec]

A good point but it's only a rumour slash internet speculation and we know all about that ...

I suppose the question facing Olympus is whether they can keep M43 healthy and growing or need to add another format to find that growth. If they want growth, of course. For all we know, their parent board may be quite content to keep the camera division fairly small and tight. It seems to be profitable at the moment and a new venture would cost serious $$$. And besides, how is FF doing anyway? There would be little point entering that market unless all the signs were pointing to FF becoming a growing, must-have format for any serious photog. If Oly went into FF I'm sure they would produce quality equipment but I'd guess it's an outside bet. An FF Pen-F would be an interesting (and elegant) camera ...

I guess my main point is that the downside of Pentax going full frame was the fact that they had a really poor full frame lens line up. Olympus is in worse position in that none of their current lenses are full frame compatible and even their legacy lenses would need serious tweaking in order to work with a new shorter mount.

I still think there is room for someone to make a photographer's mirrorless full frame. I just don't know how long it would take for Olympus to create a trinity of zooms, plus all of the standard primes to make it an appealing option.

[mecrox]

I still think there is room for someone to make a photographer's mirrorless full frame. I just don't know how long it would take for Olympus to create a trinity of zooms, plus all of the standard primes to make it an appealing option.

One wouldn't necessarily need to do that if the camera was a "Leica-like" - a Pen F or Panny GX8 in style. A standard, kit-like zoom and three primes would likely be enough to tell whether the idea had legs. There are many FF cameras that are predicated on a trinity of f2.8 zooms and the whole professional thang, but increasingly there are FF cameras which aren't. I doubt many owners of a D610, a 6D, an A7 and especially the retro DF and so forth have anything like a trinity of high-end zooms. That may sound a little strange in North America or Europe but I suspect that in Asia (the largest camera market) there may be a very good market for expensive little goodies which aren't predicated on pro stuff and big guns. So for a certain kind of FF camera, it likely doesn't have to be " everything on day one or else".

[philbaum]

.... So for a certain kind of FF camera, it likely doesn't have to be " everything on day one or else".

In 2015, folks criticized Sony frequently for not having many FE lenses at startup. With the most recent 4 FE lenses in 2016, that criticism has stopped and been replaced with a new complaint; "they cost too much". So if this startup style can work for Sony, it should work for Olympus as well.

[Rondec]

In 2015, folks criticized Sony frequently for not having many FE lenses at startup. With the most recent 4 FE lenses in 2016, that criticism has stopped and been replaced with a new complaint; "they cost too much". So if this startup style can work for Sony, it should work for Olympus as well.

They could do it, it just would cost a lot of money. Sony burned through a lot of cash on their digital cameras before they came up with something that worked and the fact that they were the first mirrorless full frame camera on the market didn't hurt either. People were OK buying Nex cameras and mounting third party lenses on them. In the long run, I think you need to have a plan in place to get a decent lens line up out within a few years. It is made easier if you at least have a base of existing lenses that would work on your new camera/mount. I don't know that Olympus has anything current that would work at all (except in crop mode), even with an adapter.

[Digitalis]

Truth be told, Olympus know how to make really good macro lenses. And that is something that is lacking in the current SONY lens line up.

If they know what's good for them, they will stay independent.

I agree, If SONY get their claws into Olympus it will be the end of them. Olympus could end up going the way of Minolta, and that would be tragic.

[pathdoc]

Olympus could end up going the way of Minolta, and that would be tragic.

My understanding from what I've read online has always been that Minolta ran headlong into Sony's waiting arms. What happened then isn't entirely clear, but it appears Minolta (or Konica Minolta, as it had then become) then washed its hands of cameras and walked away, leaving its tech with Sony and burying the Minolta name forever insofar as photography was concerned. Youtube's Angry Photographer can wear a tinfoil hat sometimes, but he keeps saying that Sony is a consumer electronics company rather than a camera company, and I think he's right insofar as the way the tech has developed is concerned. By contrast, cameras are in Ricoh's DNA even if it stopped making SLRs in its own name at the end of the film era, and it respects and has built upon & perpetuated Pentax's legacy and experience - a diametric contrast.

Nikon and Canon survive; Pentax survives as a brand under Ricoh's aegis; Olympus survives, though it has followed a different path and eschewed the SLR... it would be sad to see any more of them go.

[Winder]

My understanding from what I've read online has always been that Minolta ran headlong into Sony's waiting arms.

COMPANY NEWS - Minolta Settles Suit On Honeywell Patents - NYTimes.com

Minolta never recovered from the lawsuit.

[pathdoc]

Minolta never recovered from the lawsuit.

I'm surprised that the other guilty parties were not also made to suffer.

[Digitalis]

from what I've read online has always been that Minolta ran headlong into Sony's waiting arms.

They may not have had a choice there, I'm sure they were still feeling the aftereffects of that lawsuit... $127.5M. yeesh.

[pathdoc]

They may not have had a choice there

I know they didn't - it was a shotgun wedding with a 10-gauge semi-auto - but the complete dissolution of the Minolta name was the distressing part of it. As I've said, thank God for Ricoh, which has swallowed Pentax at an organisational level but still maintains it as a discrete brand identity. We are still Pentaxians, rather than, IDK, Ricohnauts.