> Beyond that, I don't share your belief that the 16x24 format is > "temporary". Nor do I see any particular need for 24x36 format, > either film or digital. That format choice is arbitrary, based on > historical accident. There are certainly gains to be had in some > cases, but based on what I've seen so far they're not particularly > significant to my photography.
I also suspect the 16x24 format is here to stay for a while, given that the manufacturers are bringing out lenses for that size. I don't know that it's any less arbitrary than 24x36. Do you foresee a time when there are 5 or 6 co-existing formats, such as 4x3rds, 16x24, 24x36, 6x4.5, etc? If not, there will presumably be a shakedown and some of these formats will disappear. If so, what criteria would decide whether a format survives or not? I've seen people predicting the demise of 4x3rds on the grounds that it can't accommodate the same megapixelage as 16x24, but this does not seem to have occurred to the engineers at companies like Panasonic, Leica and Olympus. On the face of it it seems plausible that it would be difficult to squeeze the same number of pixels into a smaller area. Conversely I'd expect to be able to put more pixels on a larger area, but there seems to be some limiting factor that prevents the widespread use of 24x36 (or perhaps it's just a Machiavellian marketing trick to make people buy new lenses). -- Bob -- PDML Pentax-Discuss Mail List [email protected] http://pdml.net/mailman/listinfo/pdml_pdml.net
