#1 GARY POGODA

In view of recent trends to 16:9 aspect ratio, it might have been better
to standardize on a ThreeHalves system rather than FourThirds. With a
3:2 image sensor, you can get to 16:9 by shaving a few rows of pixels
off the top and bottom, or you can get to 4:3 by shaving a few rows of
pixels off the sides. That way all three ratios will have nearly the same
high pixel count.

Not so with a 4:3 image sensor. First you need to shave rows from the
top and bottom to get to 3:2, then you have to shave some more rows
from the top and bottom to get to 16:9. Thus, its 16:9 aspect ratio ends
up with a much lower pixel count than its 4:3 aspect ratio.

4:00 pm - Sunday, February 26, 2006

#2 Dario

I think pixel counts are going up for 4/3 though. And with a Leica lens, you may get great sharpness without the need for too extra megapixels.

It's true, though, cropping with 4/3 may be tricky. Or it may not be, depending on how anal the user may be. :)

We'll see the target analness demographic when we see the price tag for this puppy. :P

4:05 pm - Sunday, February 26, 2006

#3 Itai

Actually, 3:4 fits most monitors and televisions pefectly which is where people see their photos the most now. As for prints, every standard print size has a different aspect ratio (4x6, 5x7, 6x8, 8x10, 8.5x11, 9x12...) so it shouldn't be too much an issue there either. The most concerning issue of the 4/3 standards will be their smaller sensor size which will hit the diffraction limit first.

With today's lens annoucments from Leica and Sigma, they have improved already on one of people's major concerns (the lack of lens choices and their price).

- Itai

4:20 pm - Sunday, February 26, 2006

#4 Michael Furmaniak

This is the camera I have been waiting for. I love manual controls and Leica lens. I am abandoning Canon after 16 years of using their SLRs and DSLRs. Does is say enough about what I think of this new camera?

6:35 pm - Sunday, February 26, 2006

#5 Scott

I was thinking about selling my E-1 and moving to another system because there were not any affordable long lenses for 4/3. I really like the body, and the lenses I have are great, but for shooting wildlife (especially birds) there were no options that were less than $6k. With the Sigma 50-500 I have an option I can afford. I'm happy, I just hope the lens is available in time for the spring migration.

6:51 pm - Sunday, February 26, 2006

#6 Olivier_G

About sensor size:
A larger sensor will gather more light (at a given f-number) thus more photons -> higher Signal and better Signal/Noise Ratio (less noise in your picture) :coolsmile:
BUT... to get that same f-number, a larger sensor will require a larger lens (more expensive, etc...) :coolmad:

Bottom-line: for a same equivalent focal range, an identical diameter (weight, etc...) will provide the same amount of photons and thus the same noise.
=> sensor size is not important AT ALL...
(...except if you are after those 50mm f/1.0, 85 f/1.2 kind of things)

1:49 am - Monday, February 27, 2006

#7 AA

Oh please let's not use the term "support."

Because all this means is that these tech companies got together to pat each other on the back, to share some of their tech bits to scale down costs. Kind of like how some car companies share the same Chassis and dress them up with different badge makes and skins. Sorry to state the obvious, once again.

So, with that in mind -

Gary, Dario, Itai -

why are you guys still stuck in "Crop the Image" land?

Ever heard of STITCHING?

If you stictch two 4:3 photos together - you have not only just created a wider shot closer to the 16x9 framing, you have also increased the pixel count.
In fact, if you use a good stitching application, you can stitch side-by-side and up-and-down - thereby increasing the pixel count, again and again - from which point you can simply work out the exact pixel count for a 16x9 framing, and crop accordingly. Once you have shot a few planned stitch-photos, you will figure out how to get great, quality results.
I know for a fact that you will not be able to tell where the stitches are if the stitches are done right, with some precision, using a tripod, even (the horror!) - some of the software are that good. You can even get great results hand-held, even.
For example:
http://www.realviz.com/photo_stitching_software.htm

Of course, it takes work - but if you guys are talking about various frame ratios and cropping anyways - why not go one step up and stitch a few? You're not going to be stitching EVERYTHING, but a few choice ones will always come in handy and will always look great. And you'll have all those pixels! You can crop anywhere in the stitched photo, as you please!

I can only shake my head at the thought that people are still simply confused and mesmerised by the pixel count/ratio of the Sensor - and then turn around and say that people don't actually spend enough time at their computers to do much more work than what the camera had shot - when, for example, you guys spend all this time at the computer typing and commenting on everything that comes through here!
Look at all that time you're using to just surf and blog!
Sorry, I just had to point that out.

Cos personally, I really do put my time in at the computer making my photos look good, because that's how much time I would've been spending in the lab room with chemicals trying to get the best results, while getting high on the fumes.

So the point about FourThirds is - it's not that the frame ratio is a niche standard, it's more to do with the quality of the sensor and its relationship to the lens and mirror mechanism as well, and the combination's workability, convenience, cost-effectiveness and sales figures.

A few leading tech companies will always get together to produce shared standards that save them money and time, but also at the same time can be viable alternatives to the rest - and "alternative" is now as important to a consumer as simply not having have to conform to one boring, dull, standard. There have been various cases of consumer stupidity in the past - mostly led by America - that BIG is better sort of thing, etc, like the VHS/BETA conflict, the CD/MD conflict - but these conflicts also have a lot to do with how much money and "support" the tech companies are willing to put in to their "baby" inventions. They have to put in just as much effort in to the advertising and awareness of the thing as they do in actually developing the product in the first place. Otherwise, how will they keep producing something that doesn't sell, and it's not selling because people don't know about it - even though the product is just as good, if not better, than all the rest of them?

Here endeth the lesson today.

2:17 am - Monday, February 27, 2006

#8 Zoltan

I am glad the naysayers proved wrong.

So many people, including some experts who I otherwise highly respect, have "buried" the FourThirds system. I am glad they proved wrong in the end.

FourThirds is alive 'n' kicking! And it offers everything you ever wanted from an SLR system. Including 5 bodies, some of which are absolutely unique and each of which is equipped with a working sensor dust buster. 25 lenses (how many lenses did the other systems have just 2 and a half years after their launch?) that satisfy every need a photographer might have. You want a fast prime? Compact zooms? Long telephoto? Optical image stabilisation? Ultra-wides? Macros? Fisheye? Dust&drip;-proof lenses? World's only f/2 zoom? Pro glass? Decent consumer lenses you can afford? The FourThirds system now has them all. I guess the only thing it still lacks is a shift lens. But there are two in the OM lens lineup, and both of these can easily be used on any FourThirds camera with a handy OM adapter. The flash system is also highly satisfactory, with a number of units available, all of which produce excellent results (no wonder since Olympus were the first company ever to offer TTL flash metering, back in the 1970s).

As regards the "smaller sensor size" Mark mentions, we must be aware that the height of the FourThirds sensor is only 1.3cm lower than that of the ones Canon have been using in the 10D/20D/30D/300D/350D and only 0.9cm lower than the one Sony are using in the R1. The difference in width is bigger, but that is due to the different aspect ratio. All FourThirds cameras released so far have been renowned for their image quality as defined by highly appealing colour, smooth tonal gradation and a respectable DR. So except for those who, for some reason, want to shoot at ISO 32 bazillion, everybody can be satisfied with what the FourThirds system has to offer.

And I agree with AA on the 16:9 issue - if you really want to take panos, get yourself a sturdy tripod with a good panorama head, and stitch. There's no need for the sensor itself to be 16:9, really.

9:06 am - Monday, February 27, 2006

#9 Zoltan

eh, I meant millimetres, not centimetres

9:40 am - Monday, February 27, 2006

#10 nick in japan

IMHO, 16X9 is the future, why? , I can only say that viewing the Widescreen Laptop, Flat panel screen, or "High Vision" print of the LX-1's wide sensor, is something that most folks find much more pleasing than the primitive 4x3 aspect ratio. All trends are going to it, why spend time cropping to get it? Start with it, and crop away if you desire something else. It appears to me that this is the logical step foward. If the MOS is what it is hyped to be, then our desires to progress to 16X9 are in order, staying silent about things that concern us is not sending any message that some of us want change.

10:07 am - Monday, February 27, 2006

#11 Zoltan

16:9 is a panorama format; good for landscapes, full-length posed shots of individuals and a number of other tasks. But you cannot seriously say it's ideal for things like portraiture, wildlife, genre / street photography or general-purpose photography. Don't get me wrong, I like the elongated format too, for subjects that need it, such as my shot of a dripping tap. But for most people, using the 16:9 format is much more of the exception rather than the rule, and not just because it is new, but also because few subjects call for it in the first place.

11:18 am - Monday, February 27, 2006

#12 nick in japan

Framing a shot ideally is as important as the shot itself, the future is all 16X9 for the items I listed, this is not my decision, it's the way things are evolving. If you specialize in a certain aspect ratio, then your desires are satisfied with the 4X3, 3X2, 6x6, what-ever. For me, I am elated with the 16X9, a "Wow" factor that can only be appreciated by actually doing it. Of course, a vertical ,portrait, head shot would generally be cropped to something other than 16X9, thats a given.
My point was 16X9 is here for a reason, crop it anyway you desire, but lets start with all it's pixels, as in the LX-1, crop to lesser total count rather than the reverse.
I think we are on the same page, just a difference in basic design. I do not consider 16X9 a panoramic format, just wide.

12:01 pm - Monday, February 27, 2006

#13 AA

Spoken like a true, dumb consumer, Nick.

How can you not call a "wide" format Panoramic, in comparison to the other "narrower" formats? And what would you call the narrower formats - Unpanoramic?

Don't be ridiculous.

"If you specialize in a certain aspect ratio, then your desires are satisfied with the 4X3, 3X2, 6x6, what-ever."

WHAT-EVER?

Then why are you so interested in letting us know of your opinion? Your opinion is WHAT-EVER.

If you shoot a vertically composed shot with the 16x9 framing and then tried to show that on a 16x9 monitor - what happens? You would have to tilt your monitor sideways to fill the whole frame and get the shot in the correct orientation.

16x9 is a panoramic format, and it is wide, and it just so happens that's where our TVs are headed, and yes it is here to stay, and no one said anything about it not being here to stay - so what is your point?

In MOTION PICTURE filming and projection, they use 35mm film's almost 3:2 format and CROP that frame to 1:1.85, 1:1.66, 1:2.35, etc etc..... the whole 3:2 frame is there, recorded onto film, but when it is projected back, it is simply cropped by dark borders on the screen to make it appear more panoramic.
IF all you're doing is shooting still photos for show on a 16x9 monitor, sure, shoot all your shots in that panoramic format and plug that camera directly in to that TV and show it that way, without any fixes or clean up of your shots.

I actually have used the 16x9 LX1 to shoot that frame and have gone and cropped the sides to make it a narrower framing, to more of a 3:2 format - because some of the photos just looked better that way once I had started working on them - those particular photos ended up having a more in-your-face, immediate feel to them once they had been cropped to a narrower pose.

What I forgot to mention about FourThirds is its battery life, too.

1:42 pm - Monday, February 27, 2006

#14 GARY POGODA

A 3:2 sensor would be more "versatile" because its proportions are in
between the 16:9 and 4:3 aspect ratios, which allows you the freedom
to choose "any" of the three aspect ratios, without significant pixel loss.
Not so, if you start with a 16:9 or 4:3 sensor (see comment #1).

As for the "size" advantage of the FourThirds system over 35mm, this
could just as easily be achieved with a ThreeHalves system, since the
3:2 image sensor can be made to any size you want.

A ThreeHalves system would also achieve the same standardization of
the FourThirds system.

I think it's time to recall all these new 4/3rds lenses. :)

5:58 pm - Monday, February 27, 2006

#15 Dario

I don't have a problem with the 4/3 system at all. I would have stuck with it if I didn't need to also use film and hence be able to mix and match my lenses.

What I'm saying that if you are really into cropping for a more 'panoramic' feel, then pick the system that is best for you.Althought 3400 pixels wide is 3400 pixels wide on any system.

And I guess I really care about noise. I love being able to shoot in really low light, and from my past experience, the E-300 had some difficulty.

That said, I wouldn't own a canon sys. and be talking about the 4/3 standard unless I really believed there was somethign special about it. I do miss the Zuiko digital lenses.

6:36 pm - Monday, February 27, 2006

#16 nick in japan

Good to have you back Gary, a news item in the paper this morning here in japan, announces this 4/3 tie-up with the 3 companies, with great expectations for the future, that is something to be seen!
Hope you have some thoughts on your trip, I've tried, in my un-educated way, to ramble -on with some ideas and opinions in a few threads while you were gone, glad you returned, as, PMA and PMS seem to be on the same schedule, yep, your old alter-ego ran out of meds and her rage got the best of her again, sad.
Looking foward to your thoughts on what is coming out of PMA!

12:52 am - Tuesday, February 28, 2006

#17 AA

Yo, Dario -

I really do not mean to be waxing philosophical here, but

"then pick the system that is best for you."

You basically killed the purpose of arguments right there.
Why should we even go on now? You have answered the ultimate answer - "You can go your own way" etc etc "Different strokes for different folks" and so on and so forth........

"Inferiors revolt in order that they may be equal, and equals revolt that they may be superior."
- Aristotle

2:38 am - Tuesday, February 28, 2006

#18 GARY POGODA

AA, if you quote people, you should give their first AND last name. :)

Nick, where did you get the idea I was at PMA?

11:34 am - Tuesday, February 28, 2006

#19 nick in japan

Wasn't that you that I was talking to at the Casio booth? If not, well, more egg on my face!!! ( on my beard, that is)

12:28 pm - Tuesday, February 28, 2006

#20 Mark Phillips

How I feel about this camera may depend on the price and will definitely depend on the expert reviews.

If the reviews are good, I'll love it if the package costs less than $1800, be tempted to love it at under
$2400, and love it from afar at more than that.

MP

12:36 am - Thursday, March 2, 2006

#21 Berry Ives

I would never buy a camera with 16:9 format. It is a cinema format, good for only certain kinds of landscape photos. I actually use vertical format in about half of my landscape shots. Sometimes I crop to square.

4/3 is a good choice, though square would be appealing to me. Then you can hold the camera the same way for every shot, and decide whether and how to crop later.

1:20 am - Saturday, March 4, 2006

#22 nick in japan

Welcome to the real world Berry, time to trade in your '50s black and white TV and have a look-sse at the new trends that are evolving. There is something very pleasing to the eye about the 16X9, wide, view, almost panoramic, I continue to be amazed by the images from my LX-1! Not to beat a dead horse, but, vertical portrait head shots , are indeed, easier on the eyes in 3x4, or even 4x6, that's a given. Seems like the folks that use the 16X9 arn't complaining, only the folks that haven't even tried it !!

2:41 am - Saturday, March 4, 2006

#23 kadajawi

Uhm, as far as I know they like to use anamorphic lenses in movies. So they don't crop the borders, they just stretch the film to get a 2.39:1 AR. Although you're right about cropping when talking about 1.85:1 and 1.66:1.

Personally, I would like a 3:2 AR, because I crop to whatever the photo demands, and that is often a widescreen format. Also I think that widescreen often looks better, for an example just watch movies photographed by Christopher Doyle, especially 2046 by Wong-Kar Wai. It just looks awesome.

5:38 pm - Tuesday, May 30, 2006

#24 Angus

An UGLY heavy body - I look forward to the next release!

7:22 pm - Tuesday, June 27, 2006

#25 haider gill

I bought an E-500 over the Canon Digital Rebel XTI 10 megapixel. The build quality of the oly camera and it's ability to render 'what you see is what you get' colours and photgraphs with better DEPTH perception. Canon photographs lack depth and do not render colours precisely.

12:11 am - Thursday, August 31, 2006

#26 nick in japan

The 4/3rds systems are alive and well in Japan, many pros use it, in all it's varieties of housings. Adapters to the 4/3rds mount allow most modern lenses, and older ones to be used. Don't hear any complaining yet! Newer Photographers may be opting for it if they don't have alot invested in other lenses. Competition is healthy with this system!

5:39 am - Thursday, August 31, 2006

#27 Robin Roehlk

The Panasonic L1 looks like a very nice camera. Is it true that any 50mm lens is interchangeable with it. Does anyone know the price and if it is out of the price range budgeted what would be another choice for less money that would be acceptable.

4:15 pm - Friday, September 29, 2006