Four Thirds System - Page 2

Last message on previous page:
Archived from groups: rec.photo.digital.slr-systems (More info?)

"David J Taylor"
<david-taylor@blueyonder.co.not-this-bit.nor-this-part.uk> wrote:

>Jeremy Nixon wrote:
>> I wrote:
>>
>>> I, personally, find 4:3 too narrow for horizontal, and too short for
>>> vertical.
>>
>> I actually meant "too tall", but really, I find it to be either too
>> tall or too short but never quite just right.
>
>Doesn't each subject deserve its own particular aspect ratio?


What a silly idea. Just do what Jeremy Nixon tells you, and don't ask
any more stupid questions.

;-)

Archived from groups: rec.photo.digital.slr-systems (More info?)

Stacey <fotocord@yahoo.com> wrote:

>David J Taylor wrote:
>
>> Jeremy Nixon wrote:
>>> I wrote:
>>>
>>>> I, personally, find 4:3 too narrow for horizontal, and too short for
>>>> vertical.
>>>
>>> I actually meant "too tall", but really, I find it to be either too
>>> tall or too short but never quite just right.
>>
>> Doesn't each subject deserve its own particular aspect ratio?
>>
>
>
>No, you -MUST- have the exact aspect ratio camera for each shot it
>seems? :-)


Now I know where I have been going wrong all these years.

Where was Jeremy Nixon when I needed him to tell me what to like?

;-)

Archived from groups: rec.photo.digital.slr-systems (More info?)

"Basic Wedge" <basic-wedge@shaw.ca> wrote:

>"Grant Ashby" wrote ...
>
>> Perhaps the upside is that four thirds probably will have a lot to offer
>> the low-end enthusiast amateur into the future, and that the standard
>> probably means that investment in equipment now should continue to be
>> useable with new cameras and bodies into the future, even if the current
>> ones lack features that are still to be developed.
>
>In only a few years, we'll look back at this era of the digital age as
>having been the digital stoneage. Much will change, and I believe the
>biggest changes will come in the area of sensors. There has got to be a
>better way to record images.


There is. It is called film.

Archived from groups: rec.photo.digital.slr-systems (More info?)

Basic Wedge <basic-wedge@shaw.ca> wrote:

> I'm pretty familiar with the Nikon system, as well, David. Sure you
> can buy lenses from a number of third party distributers, but would
> you? A Nikon D2X with a Sigma or Tokina lens? Come on now,
> really.

Sigma will soon have a 30mm f/1.4 lens for the DX cameras, and as far
as I'm aware Nikon have nothing comparable

• . What would you do?

If there's one real argument against Nikon's sub-35mm strategy, it's
that they have failed to come up with the necessary lenses to match
those available for the 35mm system. A fast and sharp standard lens
at a reasonable price ought to be possible.

Andrew.

• Well, there is the very expensive 28mm f/1.4, which is a 35mm

design. Yours for US$1700 or so.

Archived from groups: rec.photo.digital.slr-systems (More info?)

Jeremy Nixon <jeremy@exit109.com> writes:
> Basic Wedge <basic-wedge@shaw.ca> wrote:
>> "Jeremy Nixon" wrote ...

>>> Also, it uses the 4:3 aspect ratio, which is enough to lose any
>>> interest from me right off the bat; that's definitely my least
>>> favorite shape for a picture.

>> I'm surprised at that comment Jeremy. I find the 4/3rds aspect
>> ratio quite comfortable - the same as many medium format cameras,

> I find it bland and entirely unsatisfying. It's definitely not what
> is used in medium format -- 6x4.5, 6x6, 6x7, 6x9 are all mercifully
> not 4:3.

Well, 6x4.5 happens to be 4:3 - but you're right about the others.
--
- gisle hannemyr [ gisle{at}hannemyr.no - http://folk.uio.no/gisle/ ]
------------------------------------------------------------------------
Kodak DCS460, Canon Powershot G5, Olympus 2020Z
------------------------------------------------------------------------

Archived from groups: rec.photo.digital.slr-systems (More info?)

Stacey wrote:
> Paul Furman wrote:
>
>
>>What about a DSLR that has a preview button which gives a EVF view and
>>the option to crop various aspect ratios. I agree 3:2 is uncomfortable
>>for portrait orientation. The benefit of the EVF preview is to get a
>>sense of the exposure and cropping.
>
>
> Two problems, trying to judge focus with the EVF's I've seen is a joke. They
> work OK on massive DOF P&S's but if you have a narrow depth of focus they
> are useless.


I'm suggesting a hybrid. You focus optically then check the exposure and
crop electronically.


> The other point is, it's so easy to crop after the fact, isn't
> it just easier to train your brain to "see the crop" rather than scroll
> through a bunch of menus and options?

I always had a tough time visualizing crops. They have the thirds marks
on the focus screen, it would be helpful to have various crop ratios
also. Probably overkill to do the EVF hybrid but I like the cropping
idea. Only store the cropped view.


--
Paul Furman
http://www.edgehill.net/1
san francisco native plants

Archived from groups: rec.photo.digital.slr-systems (More info?)

"Grant Ashby" <GAshby@BigPond.Net.AU> wrote in message
newsdShe.4062$E7.3017@news-server.bigpond.net.au...
> Hi, all,
>
> I'm just trying to work out whether I should be waiting for more to happen
> on the four-thirds front or whether the format is dead. I know Olympus
have
> released cameras and that there are some lenses, but I can't find anything
> on the Panasonic, FujiFilm or Kodak internet sites that gives me real
hope.
> Four thirds sounds like a good idea, but so did Beta video once (and
8-track
> audio cartridges for those who can remember the '60s and '70s). What are
> everyone's feelings about the future of this format camera / lens?

It's the APS of digital It is going nowhere. The reasons are not just
technical, but this is a larger part of why no one is adopting it. The
pixels have to be so small that it makes it impossible to make low-noise,
high resolution sensors.

The two companies that have more than 95% of the market for digital SLRs
have no interest in 4:3, so it will not be successful.

Beta video is not a good analogy, since technically Beta video was fine; the
failure of Beta was due to marketing issues. 8-track cartridges is a better
analogy, since the audio quality of 8-track cartidges was terrible compared
to reel to reel (though prior to Dolby, the 8-track audio was better than
audio cassettes).

Archived from groups: rec.photo.digital.slr-systems (More info?)

"RichA" <none@none.com> wrote in message
news:7oii8156fr7tp5jll24nfc1j97r6h7ac3l@4ax.com...
> On Mon, 16 May 2005 21:03:20 -0000, Bubbabob
> <rnorton@_remove_this_thuntek.net> wrote:
>
> >Paul Furman <paul-@-edgehill.net> wrote:
> >
> >> You didn't used to have to spend $1000 on a decent
> >> camera.
> >
> >You didn't used to have to pay $2.25 for a gallon of gas, either.<g>. The
> >dollar has depreciated horribly under the Shrub's grubby hand.
>
> You already have a multi billion trade deficit with most countries you
> deal with. You dollar going up in value certainly won't help.

A weak dollar is part of the plan. We're already seeing high levels of
inflation in the U.S. for essentials like food, fuel, and houses. Paying
back loans with cheaper dollars sounds good, until lenders decide that they
aren't going to go along with this for future loans.