Sign in with
Sign up | Sign in
Your question

Four Thirds System

Last response: in Digital Camera
Share
Anonymous
May 16, 2005 4:56:41 AM

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

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?

Thanks,
Grant.

More about : thirds system

Anonymous
May 16, 2005 4:56:42 AM

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

On Mon, 16 May 2005 00:56:41 GMT, "Grant Ashby"
<GAshby@BigPond.Net.AU> wrote:

>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?
>
>Thanks,
>Grant.
>

The one tantalizing possibility is that they may be able to release
hyper-fast long lenses because of the sensor size.
-Rich
Anonymous
May 16, 2005 4:56:42 AM

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

Grant Ashby <GAshby@BigPond.Net.AU> wrote:

> 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?

If you want the stuff that's unique to the camera, and the accessories
exist to accomplish what you want to do, then get it. You can sell it
later if you need to.

Beta tapes are still watchable (I have a small collection of LaserDiscs,
myself), and the camera you choose won't lose any functionality, either.
Kind of like my old Pentax lenses that were a big part of why I got the
*ist DS. :-)
Related resources
Anonymous
May 16, 2005 4:56:42 AM

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

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

> I'll tell you why I think the 4/3 system is destined to stick
> around. Many companies make point and shoot style digital cameras,
> and would love to get into the DSLR game (Panasonic and Sony come to
> mind). What's stopping them is they'd have to, from the very onset,
> offer several lenses and other accessories along with whatever
> camera bodies they introduce. That's a bit much for an SLR maker
> just starting out, no matter how big their company is. It makes
> better sense for them to join an existing standard, where they could
> offer their new camera, a handful of their own lenses, and users
> could fill in the gaps with equipment from other system partners. I
> believe this is what Olympus (and a few other companies) were
> banking on when they set out the 4/3 standard.

I was very hopeful when I heard of the concept initially. But I
notice that, right now, situation is that I can buy lenses from at
least 4 manufacturers and bodies from at least 3 for my "Nikon"
system, but so far as I can tell only one of each for the "open" 4/3
system. This is not too encouraging.
--
David Dyer-Bennet, <mailto:D d-b@dd-b.net>, <http://www.dd-b.net/dd-b/&gt;
RKBA: <http://noguns-nomoney.com/&gt; <http://www.dd-b.net/carry/&gt;
Pics: <http://dd-b.lighthunters.net/&gt; <http://www.dd-b.net/dd-b/SnapshotAlbum/&gt;
Dragaera/Steven Brust: <http://dragaera.info/&gt;
May 16, 2005 5:53:06 AM

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

I took my wife's FZ15 (4mp version) out with my Olympus E-1 for an
early morning photoshoot around the coast last saturday. Now I love the
FZ15, but the E-1 was light years ahead in every way except for
compactness. In spite of it's size however, it was far easier to handle
than the FZ. In the bright low light I could barely find the subject to
compose a photo with the FZ, and the viewfinder is next to useless. The
E-1 has beautiful balance and a nice bright viewfinder, and after a
couple of years using consumer digitals, I wish I had gone the DSLR way
earlier. The pictures I did manage with the Panasonic cam out really
well, but the E-1 in raw also produced superb images.
It seems Panasonic are collaborating with Olympus to produce DSLR's
soon, and this will be 4/3rds and something to look forward to.
Grant, go to the DP Review site and look in on the Olympus DSLR Forum.
You will find all you want there,
DonB
Anonymous
May 16, 2005 6:41:55 AM

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

Hi Grant.

I can't predict the future, or know what decisions are being made in faraway
Tokyo boardrooms, but I can tell you I had enough confidence in the 4/3rds
system to buy an Olympus E-1 and lenses a couple of months ago. I'm quite
pleased with the system's performance.

Rob

-------------------------

"Grant Ashby" wrote ...

> 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?
Anonymous
May 16, 2005 7:14:27 AM

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

Thanks, Rob. That's encouraging. I had a further search through this group
after downloading another 4000 or so headers and found one that said the
Panasonic Z20K and others are 4/3, but their specs don't mention this
system, so I'm still confused. Panasonic's spec page says that their sensor
is a 1/2.5" CCD, which I would have thought was different from 4/3.
:-( Olympus certainly seem to be driving the standard.

Grant.

"Basic Wedge" <basic-wedge@shaw.ca> wrote in message
news:TLThe.1362089$Xk.632907@pd7tw3no...
> Hi Grant.
>
> I can't predict the future, or know what decisions are being made in
> faraway Tokyo boardrooms, but I can tell you I had enough confidence in
> the 4/3rds system to buy an Olympus E-1 and lenses a couple of months ago.
> I'm quite pleased with the system's performance.
>
> Rob
>
> -------------------------
>
> "Grant Ashby" wrote ...
>
>> 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?
>
>
Anonymous
May 16, 2005 7:54:11 AM

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

Grant.

I'll tell you why I think the 4/3 system is destined to stick around. Many
companies make point and shoot style digital cameras, and would love to get
into the DSLR game (Panasonic and Sony come to mind). What's stopping them
is they'd have to, from the very onset, offer several lenses and other
accessories along with whatever camera bodies they introduce. That's a bit
much for an SLR maker just starting out, no matter how big their company is.
It makes better sense for them to join an existing standard, where they
could offer their new camera, a handful of their own lenses, and users could
fill in the gaps with equipment from other system partners. I believe this
is what Olympus (and a few other companies) were banking on when they set
out the 4/3 standard.

Rob
Anonymous
May 16, 2005 7:59:48 AM

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

A very good point and even more reassuring. Thanks for your insight, Rob.

Grant.
Anonymous
May 16, 2005 10:38:16 AM

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

Grant Ashby wrote:
> Thanks, Rob. That's encouraging. I had a further search through
> this group after downloading another 4000 or so headers and found one
> that said the Panasonic Z20K and others are 4/3, but their specs
> don't mention this system, so I'm still confused. Panasonic's spec
> page says that their sensor is a 1/2.5" CCD, which I would have
> thought was different from 4/3. :-( Olympus certainly seem to be
> driving the standard.

Grant,

The Panasonic FZ20 is not a camera with interchangeable lenses, nor is it
a 4/3 system camera. It does have an f/2.8 Leica image-stabilised zoom
lens covering 36 - 432mm focal length, and would make an excellent
addition as a standaby camera for a DSLR outfit. Or get the FZ5 with very
similar capabilities and only weighing 12oz.

David
May 16, 2005 11:38:49 AM

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

In article <ddShe.4062$E7.3017@news-server.bigpond.net.au>,
GAshby@BigPond.Net.AU says...
> 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?
>
> Thanks,
> Grant.
>
>
>

I wouldn't (didn't)wait.

I fooled around with buying an OLY Evolt because of the self cleaning feature
(I tend to shoot in a terribly dusty/dirty environment).

I got to use an Evolt for a week, then a Drebel, and a '20.

The results spoke for themselves.

The images even from the lowly, out of date Rebel were cleaner, and sharper
out of camera than the Evolt. (when using a good "L" series lens).


Since the Evolt is prety much the Flagship of the 4/3 system, I took a pass.
I need to be out taking pictures, not waiting around to see if they come up
with a useable camera.

Also, there is a plethora of available lenses for Canon, Nikon, et al, but
the lens choice for 4/3 is limited and VERY expensive (for a lens you can
only use on ONE camera.


--
Larry Lynch
Mystic, Ct.
Anonymous
May 16, 2005 1:19:55 PM

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

Thanks for the responses, everyone. I thought I might get flamed for my
naivety or by those who feel contempt for the four thirds concept, but all
of the responses (to date, anyway) have carried sound ideas for further
thought. I appreciate it. (It's a bit embarrassing that I got the
Panasonic model name wrong, and that I didn't notice it didn't have
interchangeable lenses - I did think it was strange that they didn't talk
about lenses).

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.

Regards,
Grant.
Anonymous
May 16, 2005 2:54:35 PM

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

Grant Ashby wrote:

> audio cartridges for those who can remember the '60s and '70s). What are
> everyone's feelings about the future of this format camera / lens?

I don't know "everyone's" feeling, but Stacey will reply with all of the
virtues of it while possible taking a kick at the 35mm mount compliant
systems.

My opinion is that it is indeed a good system with the risk of long term
limitation due to the smaller sensor size. It's a limitation in the
signal/noise ratio as pixel densities increase. Further, the promise of
cheaper lenses for given effective FL has so far not borne out.

Another poster recently stated, that in the digital world, full sized
sensors (36 x 24mm) are the digital "medium format", and that cropped
sensors (1.5x ish) are the digital "35mm". A good analogy that might
prove to be the reality as time marches on. Certainly cameras like the
Canon 1Ds II are encroaching on some MF work.

The 4/3 system, being the smallest, and locked to that size, raises the
long term question on noise as pixel counts go up (whether or not that
is reasonable, that is the cheapest marketing gimick the OEM's have).

Cheers,
Alan.


--
-- r.p.e.35mm user resource: http://www.aliasimages.com/rpe35mmur.htm
-- r.p.d.slr-systems: http://www.aliasimages.com/rpdslrsysur.htm
-- [SI] gallery & rulz: http://www.pbase.com/shootin
-- e-meil: Remove FreeLunch.
Anonymous
May 16, 2005 7:28:34 PM

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

Grant Ashby wrote:
> 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

Well, I just bought an E-300 w/two lens kit. Based on my past record of
picking systems though, that probably means it's doomed. :) 

Just for example, the last camera I bought was a Minolta Vectis S-1,
APS-SLR.

However, I've got it now, I'll be buying a couple more lenses and
flash(es). Works for me, gets acceptable results.
Anonymous
May 16, 2005 10:49:09 PM

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

Alan Browne <alan.browne@freelunchVideotron.ca> wrote:

> My opinion is that it is indeed a good system with the risk of long term
> limitation due to the smaller sensor size. It's a limitation in the
> signal/noise ratio as pixel densities increase. Further, the promise of
> cheaper lenses for given effective FL has so far not borne out.

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.

--
Jeremy | jeremy@exit109.com
Anonymous
May 16, 2005 10:49:10 PM

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

Jeremy Nixon wrote:

> Alan Browne <alan.browne@freelunchVideotron.ca> wrote:
>
>
>>My opinion is that it is indeed a good system with the risk of long term
>>limitation due to the smaller sensor size. It's a limitation in the
>>signal/noise ratio as pixel densities increase. Further, the promise of
>>cheaper lenses for given effective FL has so far not borne out.
>
>
> 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.

The ISO 216 "A" proportions would have been ideal for cropless shot to
print photography (as I've said a few times). The proportion has an
aspect ratio roughly between 4/3 and 35mm's 3:2. (SQRT(2):1).

Probably "innefficient" from a digital design POV, hence not used.

Cheers,
Alan.



--
-- r.p.e.35mm user resource: http://www.aliasimages.com/rpe35mmur.htm
-- r.p.d.slr-systems: http://www.aliasimages.com/rpdslrsysur.htm
-- [SI] gallery & rulz: http://www.pbase.com/shootin
-- e-meil: Remove FreeLunch.
Anonymous
May 17, 2005 1:03:20 AM

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

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.
Anonymous
May 17, 2005 1:39:01 AM

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

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.
-Rich
Anonymous
May 17, 2005 1:47:35 AM

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

Brion K. Lienhart wrote:

> Grant Ashby wrote:
>
>> 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
>
>
> Well, I just bought an E-300 w/two lens kit. Based on my past record of
> picking systems though, that probably means it's doomed. :) 
>
> Just for example, the last camera I bought was a Minolta Vectis S-1,
> APS-SLR.
>
> However, I've got it now, I'll be buying a couple more lenses and
> flash(es). Works for me, gets acceptable results.


LOL what the hell, it takes decent pictures so enjoy it!! I've bought
into my share of doomed systems & had fun with them.


--
Paul Furman
http://www.edgehill.net/1
san francisco native plants
Anonymous
May 17, 2005 2:28:30 AM

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

Grant Ashby wrote:

> 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?

IMO, it's an interesting idea whose benefits haven't been realized in
actual products.

I see no advantage over a Canon 300D/350D or an Nikon D70, and
significant disadvantages. I think it's a safe bet you'll be able to
buy Nikon or Canon lenses and accessories in the forseeable future.

--
Albert Nurick | Nurick + Associates - Web Design
albert@nurick.com | eCommerce - Content Management
www.nurick.com | Web Applications - Hosting
Anonymous
May 17, 2005 3:43:44 AM

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

"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, and close to the
8"x10" print size people are so familiar with. If I'm not mistaken, it's
also the same ratio most digital point and shoot cameras, of all brands,
use. This is simply a matter of personal tastes, but I think you may be,
somewhat, unique in your objection.

Rob
Anonymous
May 17, 2005 3:56:42 AM

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

"David Dyer-Bennet" wrote ...

> I was very hopeful when I heard of the concept initially. But I
> notice that, right now, situation is that I can buy lenses from at
> least 4 manufacturers and bodies from at least 3 for my "Nikon"
> system, but so far as I can tell only one of each for the "open" 4/3
> system. This is not too encouraging.

---------------------

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. Even on a D70 (an
affordable camera, I really admire) you'd be cheating yourself out of seeing
its true capabilities, and don't even get me started about the prospect of
compatability with future camera bodies...

Rob
Anonymous
May 17, 2005 4:12:25 AM

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

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, and close to the
> 8"x10" print size people are so familiar with.

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.
Neither is 8x10, of course.

For horizontal composition, I like 3:2, 1.414:1 (Alan's ISO shape), and
1.618:1 (golden section), though 16:9 is a nice choice for wide format.
The standard 3:2 is often too long for verticals, and when the vertical
is a portrait I find 6:7 or even square to work nicely.

That said, I stick to 3:2 almost all the time, as that's all I can see
in the viewfinder. Someday I'll have a custom focusing screen made with
crop lines for other shapes I like.

> If I'm not mistaken, it's also the same ratio most digital point and
> shoot cameras, of all brands, use.

Yep. In fact, when I bought a point-and-shoot I went for one of the Sony
models that can be switched to 3:2. All it's doing is cropping, but you
can see it when shooting. That was a deal-breaker for me.

> This is simply a matter of personal tastes, but I think you may be,
> somewhat, unique in your objection.

Well, most people doing snapshots aren't concerned about it. I've not
seen very many *artists* thrilled about 4:3, though it is certainly a
valid choice (and has been used for television for a long time).

--
Jeremy | jeremy@exit109.com
May 17, 2005 4:12:26 AM

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

Jeremy Nixon wrote:

> 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, and close to
>> the 8"x10" print size people are so familiar with.
>
> 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.
> Neither is 8x10, of course.
>
> For horizontal composition, I like 3:2,

Now this seems odd, you like 3:2, think 4:3 is "bland but 8X10 and 6X4.5
proportions are OK? You do realize 4:3 is just slightly wider that 8X10 and
6X4.5 but not nearly as wide as 3:2 don't you? Like one can't crop a breath
off the edge to get to 8X10 which you think is fine?
--

Stacey
Anonymous
May 17, 2005 4:12:26 AM

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

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. Toggle through the views previewed
in the focusing screen in red then press half way to get a test
exposure... adjust exposure & snap.



Jeremy Nixon wrote:

> 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, and close to the
>>8"x10" print size people are so familiar with.
>
>
> 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.
> Neither is 8x10, of course.
>
> For horizontal composition, I like 3:2, 1.414:1 (Alan's ISO shape), and
> 1.618:1 (golden section), though 16:9 is a nice choice for wide format.
> The standard 3:2 is often too long for verticals, and when the vertical
> is a portrait I find 6:7 or even square to work nicely.
>
> That said, I stick to 3:2 almost all the time, as that's all I can see
> in the viewfinder. Someday I'll have a custom focusing screen made with
> crop lines for other shapes I like.
>
>
>>If I'm not mistaken, it's also the same ratio most digital point and
>>shoot cameras, of all brands, use.
>
>
> Yep. In fact, when I bought a point-and-shoot I went for one of the Sony
> models that can be switched to 3:2. All it's doing is cropping, but you
> can see it when shooting. That was a deal-breaker for me.
>
>
>>This is simply a matter of personal tastes, but I think you may be,
>>somewhat, unique in your objection.
>
>
> Well, most people doing snapshots aren't concerned about it. I've not
> seen very many *artists* thrilled about 4:3, though it is certainly a
> valid choice (and has been used for television for a long time).
>

--
Paul Furman
http://www.edgehill.net/1
san francisco native plants
Anonymous
May 17, 2005 4:16:48 AM

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

"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.

Rob
Anonymous
May 17, 2005 5:05:37 AM

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

Incidentally, I'm stronger in mathematics than photography - 6x4.5 sounds
like 4:3 to me.

Grant.

"Stacey" <fotocord@yahoo.com> wrote in message
news:3est2kF4rim8U2@individual.net...
> Jeremy Nixon wrote:
>
>> 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, and close to
>>> the 8"x10" print size people are so familiar with.
>>
>> 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.
>> Neither is 8x10, of course.
>>
>> For horizontal composition, I like 3:2,
>
> Now this seems odd, you like 3:2, think 4:3 is "bland but 8X10 and 6X4.5
> proportions are OK? You do realize 4:3 is just slightly wider that 8X10
> and
> 6X4.5 but not nearly as wide as 3:2 don't you? Like one can't crop a
> breath
> off the edge to get to 8X10 which you think is fine?
> --
>
> Stacey
Anonymous
May 17, 2005 5:05:38 AM

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

Grant Ashby wrote:

> Incidentally, I'm stronger in mathematics than photography - 6x4.5 sounds
> like 4:3 to me.

645 is really 56mm x 41.5mm which is 1.35:1
(which is still close to 4:3, of course)

Please snip and avoid top posting.

Cheers,
Alan.


--
-- r.p.e.35mm user resource: http://www.aliasimages.com/rpe35mmur.htm
-- r.p.d.slr-systems: http://www.aliasimages.com/rpdslrsysur.htm
-- [SI] gallery & rulz: http://www.pbase.com/shootin
-- e-meil: Remove FreeLunch.
May 17, 2005 5:05:39 AM

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

Alan Browne wrote:

> Grant Ashby wrote:
>
>> Incidentally, I'm stronger in mathematics than photography - 6x4.5 sounds
>> like 4:3 to me.
>
> 645 is really 56mm x 41.5mm which is 1.35:1
> (which is still close to 4:3, of course)
>


But not exact... :-)

--

Stacey
Anonymous
May 17, 2005 5:10:47 AM

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

"Jeremy Nixon" wrote ...

> 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.
> Neither is 8x10, of course.

Well, I _did_ take pains to say that 4/3rds is "close to the 8"x10" print
size people are so familiar with." The operative word being "close". And, I
await, with interest, your explaination of how the most common medium format
size, 6"x4.5", is "mercifully not 4:3". (Mercifully? :) 

> For horizontal composition, I like 3:2, 1.414:1 (Alan's ISO shape), and
> 1.618:1 (golden section), though 16:9 is a nice choice for wide format.
> The standard 3:2 is often too long for verticals, and when the vertical
> is a portrait I find 6:7 or even square to work nicely.

You like every format _but_ 4/3rds <LOL>

I find that 3:2 is something I associate with detestable "snapshot"
photography. I guess I've seen too many awful 4"x6"s of kids birthday
parties and family vacations to Disney World.

> That said, I stick to 3:2 almost all the time, as that's all I can see
> in the viewfinder. Someday I'll have a custom focusing screen made with
> crop lines for other shapes I like.

Another of the worthwhile inovations digital has brought is the ability to
crop images in any configuration you so desire, during post processing. You
seem stuck on old film conventions. Surely, you're taking advantage of the
new creative opportunities your digital camera has made available to you?

> Yep. In fact, when I bought a point-and-shoot I went for one of the Sony
> models that can be switched to 3:2. All it's doing is cropping, but you
> can see it when shooting. That was a deal-breaker for me.

Then, I take it, you don't do any post processing at all?

> Well, most people doing snapshots aren't concerned about it. I've not
> seen very many *artists* thrilled about 4:3, though it is certainly a
> valid choice (and has been used for television for a long time).

I'll defer to you here. I'm afraid I don't know as much about snapshots, and
the people I work with aren't likely to be confused with artists - they
actually generate an income. <BG>

I do like your comparison to TV. That may have been your strongest point -
you should have considered leading off with that one. BTW, what aspect is
the monitor you're reading this on?

Rob
Anonymous
May 17, 2005 5:38:00 AM

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

Grant Ashby <GAshby@BigPond.Net.AU> wrote:

> Incidentally, I'm stronger in mathematics than photography - 6x4.5 sounds
> like 4:3 to me.

Yeah, it is. I guess I never thought of it that way since it's typically
used vertically (3:4).

--
Jeremy | jeremy@exit109.com
Anonymous
May 17, 2005 5:39:32 AM

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

Stacey <fotocord@yahoo.com> wrote:

> You do realize 4:3 is just slightly wider that 8X10 and 6X4.5 but not
> nearly as wide as 3:2 don't you? Like one can't crop a breath off the
> edge to get to 8X10 which you think is fine?

It's close, but not exact. I'm not wild about 5:4, either, but find it
more pleasing, though more so in vertical (4:5) than horizontal.

--
Jeremy | jeremy@exit109.com
May 17, 2005 5:39:33 AM

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

Jeremy Nixon wrote:

> Stacey <fotocord@yahoo.com> wrote:
>
>> You do realize 4:3 is just slightly wider that 8X10 and 6X4.5 but not
>> nearly as wide as 3:2 don't you? Like one can't crop a breath off the
>> edge to get to 8X10 which you think is fine?
>
> It's close, but not exact.

I just can't follow how 8X10 is OK but 8X10.6 is "bland" and a "deal
breaker".


Personally it's one of the reasons I like 4/3, it's real close to the 6X4.5,
6X7 and 4X5 cameras I'm used to using. I like 8X10/11X14 prints and always
hated the idea of having to do major crops to get there from 3:2 cameras. I
never cared for the 35mm format but I suppose if that's what you're used to
using, you'd like to stick with what you're used to?

--

Stacey
May 17, 2005 5:55:07 AM

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

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. 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?

--

Stacey
Anonymous
May 17, 2005 6:00:03 AM

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

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

> And, I await, with interest, your explaination of how the most common
> medium format size, 6"x4.5", is "mercifully not 4:3".

No, it definitely is, alas. I've honestly never shot 645, myself, and
usually mentally associate it with vertical format and didn't make the
connection.

> I find that 3:2 is something I associate with detestable "snapshot"
> photography. I guess I've seen too many awful 4"x6"s of kids birthday
> parties and family vacations to Disney World.

That's funny, since I tire of seeing 4:3 snapshots and make the same
association from them. One can never tell. :)  Though I've seen people
doing good work with 4:3, and I can appreciate it, it just doesn't speak
to me for my own use.

>> That said, I stick to 3:2 almost all the time, as that's all I can see
>> in the viewfinder. Someday I'll have a custom focusing screen made with
>> crop lines for other shapes I like.
>
> Another of the worthwhile inovations digital has brought is the ability to
> crop images in any configuration you so desire, during post processing. You
> seem stuck on old film conventions. Surely, you're taking advantage of the
> new creative opportunities your digital camera has made available to you?

The thing is, you can't see another shape in the viewfinder when shooting,
which makes composing for them more difficult. I've gotten away with it
from time to time, but I'm more likely to blow the shot.

>> Yep. In fact, when I bought a point-and-shoot I went for one of the Sony
>> models that can be switched to 3:2. All it's doing is cropping, but you
>> can see it when shooting. That was a deal-breaker for me.
>
> Then, I take it, you don't do any post processing at all?

I never crop arbitrarily. The shape of the picture is important to the
composition. 99% of the time, I stick to 3:2 and I don't crop anything
at all, unless I've blown the shot by getting the horizon tilted but it
can be saved by rotating and cropping back to rectangle without losing
anything at the edges (in which case, I'll still crop to 3:2).

Back in the day, I used to print film shots to the edge of the frame, too.
I admit to even going through the "let the edges of the film show in the
print, that's cool" phase. :) 

I do post-processing, yes. I just have a thing about cropping. I composed
the picture when I shot it.

> I'll defer to you here. I'm afraid I don't know as much about snapshots, and
> the people I work with aren't likely to be confused with artists - they
> actually generate an income. <BG>

A professional does what pays the bills. I'm not a pro photographer, so
I do what pleases me. :)  If the (frankly obscene) amount of money I just
spent on a new camera ever pays for itself I'll be quite shocked. :) 

> I do like your comparison to TV. That may have been your strongest point -
> you should have considered leading off with that one. BTW, what aspect is
> the monitor you're reading this on?

3:2, actually. My desktop monitor is a little wider than that (I'm using
my laptop). I'm not wild about 4:3 for monitors either, it's too narrow
and tall.

--
Jeremy | jeremy@exit109.com
May 17, 2005 6:00:04 AM

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

Jeremy Nixon wrote:

> Basic Wedge <basic-wedge@shaw.ca> wrote:
>
>> And, I await, with interest, your explaination of how the most common
>> medium format size, 6"x4.5", is "mercifully not 4:3".
>
> No, it definitely is, alas. I've honestly never shot 645, myself, and
> usually mentally associate it with vertical format and didn't make the
> connection.

Most 6X4.5's natively shoot horizonal. You have to hold the camera sideways
to shoot vertical.

>
> The thing is, you can't see another shape in the viewfinder when shooting,
> which makes composing for them more difficult. I've gotten away with it
> from time to time, but I'm more likely to blow the shot.
>

I suppose from shooting 6X6 I learned how to crop in the finder?

From your "reasons" here, it just sounds like to me you've always shot with
35mm and feel comfortable with it. Nothing wrong with that but I'd stop
digging any deeper if I was you! :-)

--

Stacey
Anonymous
May 17, 2005 6:30:38 AM

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

Stacey <fotocord@yahoo.com> wrote:

> I just can't follow how 8X10 is OK but 8X10.6 is "bland" and a "deal
> breaker".

Then use it. I'm not telling you not to; I was telling you why I don't
like it. I'll take an 8x12 over an 8x10 print. If you feel differently,
shoot differently. It's really no big deal.

I, personally, find 4:3 too narrow for horizontal, and too short for
vertical. That's absolutely nothing but a personal preference.

--
Jeremy | jeremy@exit109.com
Anonymous
May 17, 2005 6:38:53 AM

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

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.

--
Jeremy | jeremy@exit109.com
Anonymous
May 17, 2005 6:48:40 AM

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

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

> "David Dyer-Bennet" wrote ...
>
>> I was very hopeful when I heard of the concept initially. But I
>> notice that, right now, situation is that I can buy lenses from at
>> least 4 manufacturers and bodies from at least 3 for my "Nikon"
>> system, but so far as I can tell only one of each for the "open" 4/3
>> system. This is not too encouraging.
>
> ---------------------
>
> 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. Even on a D70 (an affordable camera, I really admire) you'd
> be cheating yourself out of seeing its true capabilities, and don't
> even get me started about the prospect of compatability with future
> camera bodies...

I've got Tokina, Tamron, and Sigma lenses in addition to Nikon that I
use on my Fuji S2 and my N90 and FM2. Most of my primes are Nikon
(the only exceptions are the Sigma 105mm macro and the Tokina 17mm).
But the zooms are all third-party. While these days the camera
manufacturers make some first-rate zooms, the third-party people were
*way* ahead in zoom design for quite a while, and may experience
extends back far enough that my question is not "would you own a
third-party zoom", but "would you own a Nikon zoom".
--
David Dyer-Bennet, <mailto:D d-b@dd-b.net>, <http://www.dd-b.net/dd-b/&gt;
RKBA: <http://noguns-nomoney.com/&gt; <http://www.dd-b.net/carry/&gt;
Pics: <http://dd-b.lighthunters.net/&gt; <http://www.dd-b.net/dd-b/SnapshotAlbum/&gt;
Dragaera/Steven Brust: <http://dragaera.info/&gt;
Anonymous
May 17, 2005 6:52:22 AM

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

Stacey <fotocord@yahoo.com> wrote:

> Most 6X4.5's natively shoot horizonal. You have to hold the camera sideways
> to shoot vertical.

I imagine so. I've just never done it, and I suspect the only stuff I've
actually looked at have been wedding portraits and the like. I'd probably
go 6x7 if I wanted to shoot medium format. I did some (very little) 6x7
and 6x6 in college, but that's the extent of it. I did like it way better
than large format.

--
Jeremy | jeremy@exit109.com
May 17, 2005 6:52:23 AM

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

Jeremy Nixon wrote:

> Stacey <fotocord@yahoo.com> wrote:
>
>> Most 6X4.5's natively shoot horizonal. You have to hold the camera
>> sideways to shoot vertical.
>
> I imagine so. I've just never done it, and I suspect the only stuff I've
> actually looked at have been wedding portraits and the like.

How would you know what you've seen that was shot with it? Gawd imagine
someone may have shot 6X6 and cropped to 6X4.5!!! How in the world could
they do that without a mask in the finder?? Here's something crazy, I've
printed some square images from my 4/3 camera.

> I'd probably
> go 6x7 if I wanted to shoot medium format.

So 4:3 (1.33) is too short (and boring) but the even shorter format of 6X7
(1.16) is what you'd choose but you really like 3:2 (1.5) ratio??

Yea that makes sense...
--

Stacey
Anonymous
May 17, 2005 6:57:03 AM

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

On Tue, 17 May 2005 02:52:22 -0000, Jeremy Nixon <jeremy@exit109.com> wrote:
>
> I did some (very little) 6x7 and 6x6 in college, but that's the extent
> of it. I did like it way better than large format.

Why?

--
Ben Rosengart (212) 741-4400 x215
Sometimes it only makes sense to focus our attention on those
questions that are equal parts trivial and intriguing.
--Josh Micah Marshall
Anonymous
May 17, 2005 10:10:28 AM

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

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?

David
May 17, 2005 10:10:29 AM

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

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? :-)

--

Stacey, who dared to make a square print from a 4/3 camera
Anonymous
May 17, 2005 10:13:04 AM

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

Stacey <fotocord@yahoo.com> wrote:

> How would you know what you've seen that was shot with it? Gawd imagine
> someone may have shot 6X6 and cropped to 6X4.5!!! How in the world could
> they do that without a mask in the finder??

I don't know; why is it so important to you?

Can you dead-reckon an exact aspect ratio in the viewfinder? If so, more
power to you.

> So 4:3 (1.33) is too short (and boring) but the even shorter format of 6X7
> (1.16) is what you'd choose but you really like 3:2 (1.5) ratio??

Yeah, that's about right. I find a shorter format like 6x7 more interesting
than the 4:3 middle ground.

--
Jeremy | jeremy@exit109.com
May 17, 2005 10:13:05 AM

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

Jeremy Nixon wrote:

> Stacey <fotocord@yahoo.com> wrote:
>
>> How would you know what you've seen that was shot with it? Gawd imagine
>> someone may have shot 6X6 and cropped to 6X4.5!!! How in the world could
>> they do that without a mask in the finder??
>
> I don't know; why is it so important to you?

Because it shows the format it is taken in doesn't have to be the "exact"
format it's printed in. I'd venture to guess 95% of images shot on 6X6
aren't printed square. As to why it's important, this arguement you've come
up with is just plain absurd and you just keep digging in deeper!

>
> Can you dead-reckon an exact aspect ratio in the viewfinder?

Who cares if it's exact? And given we're talking what, a format >5% longer
is "boring" and the other is fine and you can't judge that? Seems if it's
so obviously boring you'd be able to easily visualize the "uninteresting"
part out to me.

>> So 4:3 (1.33) is too short (and boring) but the even shorter format of
>> 6X7 (1.16) is what you'd choose but you really like 3:2 (1.5) ratio??
>
> Yeah, that's about right. I find a shorter format like 6x7 more
> interesting than the 4:3 middle ground.
>

So you'd make 8X9.3 prints from your 6X7 negs?

What's absurd is you act like you can't crop the image as to how it looks
best. Like 1/2" past 10" in an 8X10 print is "uninteresting" yet can't be
cropped? And like you've never made an 8X10 print from a 35mm neg in your
life?
--

Stacey
Anonymous
May 17, 2005 11:48:22 AM

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:

> Doesn't each subject deserve its own particular aspect ratio?

Sure, that's one approach. (Hey, it's art, it can be anything you want.)

Page shape has a long history in art and design, and over the centuries
certain proportions keep recurring because people find them inherently
pleasing to the eye. They recur in widely varying times and places, and
often mirror proportions that occur in nature. I find some shapes
inherently more pleasing than others for various purposes and prefer
to work with them. Both 3:2 and 4:3 date back at least to the middle
ages and are quite well-entrenched; 1.414:1 was used in the middle ages
as well, and 1.3:1 (the North American standard) goes back to ancient
Rome. I'm pretty surprised to see a couple people reacting as though
I'm the first person to ever care about the shape of the canvas...

--
Jeremy | jeremy@exit109.com
Anonymous
May 17, 2005 12:58:36 PM

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
Anonymous
May 17, 2005 1:51:20 PM

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

Jeremy Nixon <jeremy@exit109.com> wrote:

>For horizontal composition, I like 3:2, 1.414:1 (Alan's ISO shape), and
>1.618:1 (golden section)


Since when was the golden section intended to be applied to the ratio
between the longer and shorter dimensions of an image?
Anonymous
May 17, 2005 1:51:21 PM

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

Tony Polson wrote:

> Jeremy Nixon <jeremy@exit109.com> wrote:
>
>
>> For horizontal composition, I like 3:2, 1.414:1 (Alan's ISO shape),
>> and 1.618:1 (golden section)
>
>
>
> Since when was the golden section intended to be applied to the ratio
> between the longer and shorter dimensions of an image?

It can be applied to any dimensions the artist chooses. If the framing
of the image is part of the statement, it is fair game.


--
-- r.p.e.35mm user resource: http://www.aliasimages.com/rpe35mmur.htm
-- r.p.d.slr-systems: http://www.aliasimages.com/rpdslrsysur.htm
-- [SI] gallery & rulz: http://www.pbase.com/shootin
-- e-meil: Remove FreeLunch.
!