Ken Rockwell has some interesting things to say about the D2X.
One of them "standard DX sized sensor, not the obsolete 35mm film frame sized sensor" made me wonder ...
The small sensors are about the same size
Canon 22.7mm x 15.1mm
Nikon 23.7 x 15.7mm
Minolta 23.5 x 15.7 mm
Except Olympus who just had to be different
Olympus 17 x 13mm (4/3)
Is there an advantage to the smaller sensor size? Apart from price of course.
Ken seems to have deep feelings about the movie industry being right
"There are numerous advantages to the standard DX 16 x 24 mm sized CCD, and none to the old 35 mm film size"
and amazingly
"DSLRs blindly copy the obsolete 3:2 (1.5:1) aspect ratio of 35mm film. The longer, skinnier 3:2 shape is a throwback to 1913 when an asthmatic hiker who couldn't carry a real camera developed a way to jam 35mm movie film into a still camera and chose an elongated format to allow a little more film area to be used with the tiny film. (See the history of the Leica camera to learn more.)"
and finally
"Using a DSLR with its outdated 3:2 aspect ratio means every time you do a digital slide show you'll have black bands across the top and bottom of your screen"
For a start, Nikon's 23.7:15.7 is 1.5:1 and so is Canon's 22.7:15.1 ... well +/- 0.1
Now with my maths, that's 3:2 - and what is the ratio if his favoured 16:24 "standard" 35mm movie format?
Hmm, three eights are 24, two eights are 16, that's umm 3:2 isn't it?
I'm taking what he says with a huge pinch of salt !