Forgot Password
Pentax Camera Forums Home
 

Reply
Show Printable Version Search this Thread
05-01-2016, 08:16 AM   #16
Veteran Member
philbaum's Avatar

Join Date: Oct 2007
Location: Port Townsend, Washington State, USA
Posts: 3,659
QuoteOriginally posted by Winder Quote
I think the gap between m4/3 and a FF 4/3 is large enough (2x) that it would be justified. The difference between FF and the 645z is only 1.75. Does the 645z send that kind of message about FF or APS-C?
The complexity of the purchase decision cannot be boiled down to just one factor like sensor size, its more than one "layer" thats at work. Reportedly, FF sales are still less than 10% of ILC and one of the complaints of Canikon is that the FF lenses for Sony mirrorless are no smaller than theirs (odd complaint there). After the 645Z punctured the profit bubble for MF, it doesn't seem credible to me that there will be this massive shift to MF by consumers or mfr. I like my Sony FF a lot, because if i pick lenses carefully, i can still get the camera and lenses into a small bag. Can anyone tell the differences in images between FF and MF?


Last edited by philbaum; 05-01-2016 at 08:22 AM.
05-01-2016, 10:24 AM   #17
Veteran Member




Join Date: Mar 2013
Location: Hamilton, Texas
Photos: Gallery | Albums
Posts: 715
QuoteOriginally posted by Winder Quote
I think the gap between m4/3 and a FF 4/3 is large enough (2x) that it would be justified. The difference between FF and the 645z is only 1.75. Does the 645z send that kind of message about FF or APS-C?
Well, I didn't want to get into comments about the wisdom of Pentax making a full-frame camera. Especially now, when the K-1 party is in full swing.
05-02-2016, 02:40 AM   #18
Veteran Member
Emacs's Avatar

Join Date: Oct 2010
Location: Moscow
Posts: 1,223
QuoteOriginally posted by osv Quote
4x3 can be cropped out of 3x2,
I am more about shooting experience. The squarer the format, the more composition mistakes are pronounced.
The medium format "feel" is in fact mostly pronounced by squarer frame in comparison to inferior 3×2.
05-02-2016, 03:12 AM   #19
Pentaxian
mecrox's Avatar

Join Date: Apr 2009
Location: Oxford, UK
Photos: Gallery
Posts: 2,375
I would welcome a new venture by Olympus since I like their cameras and their style, if there is a business case of course. But the interesting question is where the sweet spot for camera sales is likely to be in, say, 2020 to 2025, and not only formats and tech but literally so in the case of territory. Asia is already the largest single market segment and it's set to continue to grow, I'd think. I wonder what keen and aspiring photographers are looking for, among all those many many millions along the Silk Roads and the lands that feed into them?


Last edited by mecrox; 05-02-2016 at 09:28 AM.
05-02-2016, 07:50 AM   #20
osv
Veteran Member




Join Date: Mar 2007
Location: So Cal
Photos: Gallery
Posts: 2,080
QuoteOriginally posted by Emacs Quote
I am more about shooting experience. The squarer the format, the more composition mistakes are pronounced.
The medium format "feel" is in fact mostly pronounced by squarer frame in comparison to inferior 3×2.
the overwhelmingly universal standard aspect ratio for media presentation is ~16:9).

there is no place for 4x3 in the real world.

square sucks for composition purposes; it'll have to be cropped for presentation, there is no point in shooting it.
05-02-2016, 09:08 AM   #21
Veteran Member
Emacs's Avatar

Join Date: Oct 2010
Location: Moscow
Posts: 1,223
QuoteOriginally posted by osv Quote
the overwhelmingly universal standard aspect ratio for media presentation is ~16:9).
Every modern top tier phone with a camera (HTC 10, Samsung Galax S7, Nokia 950) would be more than enough for most "media presentations".
I am afraid you missed things here: photography is photography. Sometimes you need a photography, not "media presentation". Sometimes you want to see a photo, not a view from a pillbox.
And I am afraid again you are not up to the point where you could understand what I am talking about: your photos are just so boring from the start no framing could improve that. May be ok for the USA though, your compatriots are not known for high quality contribution into culture and it doesn't seem your public demands one.
05-02-2016, 09:21 AM   #22
osv
Veteran Member




Join Date: Mar 2007
Location: So Cal
Photos: Gallery
Posts: 2,080
QuoteOriginally posted by Emacs Quote
Every modern top tier phone with a camera (HTC 10, Samsung Galax S7, Nokia 950) would be more than enough for most "media presentations".
those are all ~16:9 aspect ratio screens, 4x3 format is square, it does not fit a rectangular screen.

good grief!

05-02-2016, 11:47 AM   #23
Veteran Member
Emacs's Avatar

Join Date: Oct 2010
Location: Moscow
Posts: 1,223
QuoteOriginally posted by osv Quote
those are all ~16:9 aspect ratio screens, 4x3 format is square, it does not fit a rectangular screen.

good grief!
16×9 screens and samsung returned to 4×3 sensor in S7 after 16×9 in S6. Because 16×9 is basically useless for photography. Best what you generally can do with this ratio is taking two shots at once (split in PP).
05-02-2016, 01:09 PM   #24
osv
Veteran Member




Join Date: Mar 2007
Location: So Cal
Photos: Gallery
Posts: 2,080
QuoteOriginally posted by Emacs Quote
16×9 screens and samsung returned to 4×3 sensor in S7
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.
05-02-2016, 11:54 PM   #25
Veteran Member
Emacs's Avatar

Join Date: Oct 2010
Location: Moscow
Posts: 1,223
QuoteOriginally posted by osv Quote
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.
Only cheap garbage phones has 16×9 sensor size ratio. Because.
05-03-2016, 08:45 AM   #26
Veteran Member




Join Date: Oct 2013
Photos: Gallery | Albums
Posts: 346
QuoteOriginally posted by osv Quote
the overwhelmingly universal standard aspect ratio for media presentation is ~16:9).
Not for picture frames. Prints are media too.

As far as I can tell, there are a lot more frame options at 4:3 and even 5:4 than at 3:2 or 16:9.
05-03-2016, 11:09 AM   #27
osv
Veteran Member




Join Date: Mar 2007
Location: So Cal
Photos: Gallery
Posts: 2,080
QuoteOriginally posted by Scintilla Quote
Not for picture frames. Prints are media too.
prints are a statistically insignificant portion of media presentation.

"In 2013, according to Internet.org’s whitepaper, people uploaded 350 million images to Facebook each day.
And those are just numbers from a handful of social-media companies. Weibo, What’sApp, Tumblr, Twitter, Flickr, and Instagram all add to the pile. In 2014, according to Mary Meeker’s annual Internet Trends report, people uploaded an average of 1.8 billion digital images every single day." How Many Photographs of You Are Out There In the World? - The Atlantic

who shoots 4:3 video these days? how many 4:3 tv's, monitors, cell phones have you seen lately?

QuoteOriginally posted by Scintilla Quote
As far as I can tell, there are a lot more frame options at 4:3 and even 5:4 than at 3:2 or 16:9.
what are the standard 4:3 aspect ratio print sizes? i can't think of any?

Print Size - Aspect Ratio
4x6 3:2
5x7 7:5
8x10 5:4
20x30 3:2
05-03-2016, 12:00 PM   #28
Veteran Member




Join Date: Oct 2013
Photos: Gallery | Albums
Posts: 346
QuoteOriginally posted by osv Quote
what are the standard 4:3 aspect ratio print sizes? i can't think of any?

Print Size - Aspect Ratio
4x6 3:2
5x7 7:5
8x10 5:4
20x30 3:2
It looks like I was thinking mostly of 8.5x11 and 11x14 (which now that I calculate it is closer to 5:4, but 5:4 still supports my broader point) when I said that. 16x20 (5:4) is also quite popular. If you need 4:3 specifically, 9x12 and 10x13 are also out there.

To say nothing of 8x8, 9x9, and 12x12.

Full disclosure: this is all academic to me, as I don't print nearly as much as I probably should. I do however remember being frustrated at the selection of 3:2 sizes at Mpix the one time I did try to order a print for my wall, as I was trying to avoid having to crop -- but now I'm confused, because it looks like they now offer 8x12, 10x15, 12x18, and 16x24. Well, so much the better.
05-03-2016, 12:17 PM   #29
osv
Veteran Member




Join Date: Mar 2007
Location: So Cal
Photos: Gallery
Posts: 2,080
at some point in the past there probably was less print cropping on average with 4:3, but since costco is doing direct 3:2 ratios in at least two sizes, it looks like the print industry is finally starting to see the writing on the wall... why restrict printing to square, when 99% of the cameras in the world shoot 3:2.

costco doesn't do 9x12, 10x13, nor 9x9, but they still do have 8x8 and 12x12. http://www.costcophotocenter.com/Help.aspx#/topic/product-pricing-shipping-costs
05-03-2016, 12:21 PM   #30
Pentaxian
mecrox's Avatar

Join Date: Apr 2009
Location: Oxford, UK
Photos: Gallery
Posts: 2,375
QuoteOriginally posted by Scintilla Quote
It looks like I was thinking mostly of 8.5x11 and 11x14 (which now that I calculate it is closer to 5:4, but 5:4 still supports my broader point) when I said that. 16x20 (5:4) is also quite popular. If you need 4:3 specifically, 9x12 and 10x13 are also out there.

To say nothing of 8x8, 9x9, and 12x12.

Full disclosure: this is all academic to me, as I don't print nearly as much as I probably should. I do however remember being frustrated at the selection of 3:2 sizes at Mpix the one time I did try to order a print for my wall, as I was trying to avoid having to crop -- but now I'm confused, because it looks like they now offer 8x12, 10x15, 12x18, and 16x24. Well, so much the better.
I didn't print much but now I am doing so more and more. Well worth it, imho, gives a new perspective to the whole thing. I shoot M43 and the print lab I use offers more sizes that you can shake a stick at. I have no probs printing what I want, how I want. It's really worth finding a good lab which offers a wide choice of print sizes and fast mail order, imho. Mine offers Fuji C prints from just a few pennies/cents each up to huge art prints on custom papers and with a very quick turnaround by post or courier. And even at 300 dpi, I can get quite a big print out of a 16:9 crop from a 16 mpx sensor. I mean, how big does big have to be?

I suspect the crop come aspect ratio problems alluded to earlier in the thread are much more in the mind than in reality. But then I'm just a photographer

To get back on track, if Oly did a "full frame" in 4:3 that would be fine by me. They make very good equipment.

Last edited by mecrox; 05-04-2016 at 01:58 AM.
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!
dslrs, ff, ibis, mirrorless, olympus, sales, sony, technology
Thread Tools Search this Thread
Search this Thread:

Advanced Search


Similar Threads
Thread Thread Starter Forum Replies Last Post
FF versus mirrorless Ric Pentax Mirrorless Cameras 43 02-23-2016 09:06 AM
What if the new FF camera is mirrorless? AtitG Pentax Full Frame 45 10-17-2015 06:47 AM
Olympus E-P5: The ultimate mirrorless? Adam Non-Pentax Cameras: Canon, Nikon, etc. 17 08-16-2013 09:01 PM
Pentax mirrorless FF? Bestzoom Pentax Full Frame 102 05-05-2013 02:38 PM
Canon FF Mirrorless concept Clarkey Non-Pentax Cameras: Canon, Nikon, etc. 9 03-27-2012 03:05 AM



All times are GMT -7. The time now is 10:22 PM. | See also: NikonForums.com, CanonForums.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