Well, I do hope that this is the time to redeem Oscar Barnack�s historical mistake (one of his few ones, really...), and settle for something like 4:3. I just left my Oly E10 for a D60, and the aspect ratio is one of the few things that got worse for me!
On silver, I did use Rollei and Hasselblad, and I feel that nothing really beats the square, but that would hardly be realistic... Regards Per m�ndagen den 19 augusti 2002 kl 01.38 skrev Gary Fisher: > All, > >> From what I read most of us are looking forward to the day when Canon >> release a full frame (35mm equivalent) sensor in a digital SLR. >> However I wonder what the size will actually be (I don't mean >> megapixels). > > The 35mm frame size is 36mm x 24mm. This is a ratio of 3:2. > > Most digital P&S cameras (eg. Canon G2 max image size 2272 x 1704) use > a ratio of 4:3 - the same as computer monitors. > > The D60 has a max image size of 3152 x 2068 which is a little bit wider > than the 3:2 ratio used in 35mm film. The EOS 1D produces an max image > size of 2,464 x 1,648 which is fractionally narrower than the 3:2 > ratio. The Nikon D100 produces a 3008 x 2000 image - again very close > to 3:2. > > So far the Digital SLR's seem to be following the film format ratio of > 3:2 as compared to the P&S standard or 4:3. > > So what do you think - when we (eventually) get a full frame equivalent > size sensor should they stick with 3:2 or go for 4:3 like the P&S > models? By my calculations 24x36 uses a minimum image circle of > 43.27mm, so at a 4:3 ratio we'd get a sensor size (roughly) of 34.6mm x > 26mm compared to 36mm x 24mm. > > Which way do you think they should go - and which way do you think they > will go? > > Regards > Gary * **** ******* *********************************************************** * For list instructions, including unsubscribe, see: * http://www.a1.nl/phomepag/markerink/eos_list.htm ***********************************************************
