Just think of it as a half-frame system; the sensor is about half the size of that in the *ist-D, the D20, etc. That's better than the mass market P&S systems, but still more susceptible to noise, and other size-related issues.
And, of course, if you only use half of a 3:2 imaging area, you'll end up with a 4:3 aspect ratio. Peter J. Alling mused: > > How sad. > > Rick Womer wrote: > > >Actually, the Olympus E-1 is 4:3. > > > >--- John Francis <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > > > > > > > >>Jason Poh mused: > >> > >> > >>>If you decide to go digital, bear in mind that > >>>conventional sized prints (4x6 etc) from most labs > >>>will be cropped due to the 4:3 digital aspect > >>> > >>> > >>ratio as > >> > >> > >>>compared to the 3:2 aspect ratio of 35mm. > >>> > >>> > >>All the DSLRs I know retain the 3:2 aspect ratio of > >>35mm film, > >>as do many of the P&S digitals. The only 4:3 > >>aspect ratio > >>I've found has been on the low end, with the 640x480 > >>cameras > >>(now almost vanished, except for the BarbieCam). > >>There may > >>well be high-end 4:3 units out there now, but none > >>that take > >>K-mount lenses. > >> > >>My first digital camera was only 640x480. It was > >>not much > >>more than an interesting experiment, but there again > >>it came at > >>the right price - I won one of the monthly giveaways > >>from Agfa. > >> > >> > >> > >> > > > > > > > > > >_______________________________ > >Do you Yahoo!? > >Declare Yourself - Register online to vote today! > >http://vote.yahoo.com > > > > > > > > > > > -- > I can understand why mankind hasn't given up war. > During a war you get to drive tanks through the sides of buildings > and shoot foreigners - two things that are usually frowned on during peacetime. > --P.J. O'Rourke > >
