4:3 vs. 3:2 aspect ratio

[ustein]

We are currently using also an Olympus E-1. This is the first digital SLR that does not use lenses made for film cameras. It uses lemses for the new 4/3 standard (time will tell whether it succeeds).

But to be honest, we start to like the 4:3 aspect ration of this camera (many digicams are also 4:3). We got used to the 3:2 ratio of SLRs but it is not a really good format for many subjects.

Here are two E-1 portfolios:

http://www.jirvana.com/galleries/oly...1_01/index.htm

http://www.jirvana.com/galleries/oly...1_02/index.htm

and our current E-1 diary:

http://www.outbackphoto.com/reviews/...lympus_e1.html

Uwe

[darkman]

>But to be honest, we start to like the 4:3 aspect ration of this camera (many digicams >are also 4:3). We got used to the 3:2 ratio of SLRs but it is not a really good format for >many subjects.

Interesting, I find that the ratio of my 4;3 P&S digi's (g2 a70) drives me nuts. I much prefer the 2:3 ratio. It's more what my eyes see. Of course, there are times I want every apsect ration, and then some, ever made.

I would also add that I'm not crazy about the smaller format of the E-1. I'm often finding myself dissapointed with the 10d's small format than 35mm.

I'm hoping Canon releases something like the 1.3x 1d in an eos 3 level body. Or, preferably, the 1ds comest wayyyy down in price.

Mike

[Asylum Steve]

We are currently using also an Olympus E-1. This is the first digital SLR that does not use lenses made for film cameras. It uses lemses for the new 4/3 standard (time will tell whether it succeeds).

But to be honest, we start to like the 4:3 aspect ration of this camera (many digicams are also 4:3). We got used to the 3:2 ratio of SLRs but it is not a really good format for many subjects.

Here are two E-1 portfolios:

http://www.jirvana.com/galleries/oly...1_01/index.htm

http://www.jirvana.com/galleries/oly...1_02/index.htm

and our current E-1 diary:

http://www.outbackphoto.com/reviews/...lympus_e1.html

Uwe

The 4:3 ratio is an interesting idea, but I think it may all come down to whether you like to keep your cropping to a minimum or not, and whether you still print standard print sizes.

We were having a similar discussion in one of the old forums right before the switchover...

For almost all of my work now, I have no great interest in creating a perfect "full frame" image. I found a certain merit in this when I was in art school, and still, I supose, in some of my gallery work, but for my commercial work, cropping OPTIONS are the key.

This is why I always though one of the main arguments for the 645 format (as opposed to 35mm or 6x6) was kind of bogus. I never thought it was that big a deal that the 645 format fit quite nicely into an 8x10 print. IMO, I that wasn't important. I always prefered 6x6, and then 6x7 (and in many ways 35mm), because you had more cropping options.

Now, with digital, I think having a full frame image, or better put being able to use as much of the camera file as possible is even less important than it was with film...

[Asylum Steve]

>But to be honest, we start to like the 4:3 aspect ration of this camera (many digicams >are also 4:3). We got used to the 3:2 ratio of SLRs but it is not a really good format for >many subjects.

Interesting, I find that the ratio of my 4;3 P&S digi's (g2 a70) drives me nuts. I much prefer the 2:3 ratio. It's more what my eyes see. Of course, there are times I want every apsect ration, and then some, ever made.

I would also add that I'm not crazy about the smaller format of the E-1. I'm often finding myself dissapointed with the 10d's small format than 35mm.

I'm hoping Canon releases something like the 1.3x 1d in an eos 3 level body. Or, preferably, the 1ds comest wayyyy down in price.

Mike

no message

[darkman]

I've been ultra busy. Unfortunately, doing little photography...But I came back and ALL was changed! They even made me re-sign up again.

Since I assume your clients may want large prints, how are you interpolating to larger size? Are you just using PS or, a program like Real Fractals?

There are a couple of reasons I would like a larger format, like a full/near full frame, than the 10d. One is to produce a shallower dof. The other is to have more pixels to work with and/or make bigger enlargements. Plus, it would be cool to have a 10d and a 3d(?) that are different formats and use all the same gear.

One of my favorite aspects of digital is that I can print to any size I want simply. Even the lab doesn't have a problem with it. I rarely did this with film...

Cheers, Mike

[PuckJunkey]

Ustein, those are some very nice landscapes / abstracts. Those are exactly the type of things that I love to shoot with my own equipment, and which I plan to shoot with my DSLR when I get it later this year. My initial thought about 4:3 was "television!". That's the same ratio used by most televisions (though not the new wide screen varities). I wonder if that will have any psychological impact when people buy these pictures.

Will it be somehow "familiar" to them, and so they may actually prefer it to a wider rectangle? To me it's almost reminiscent of a 645 shape, only cropped a bit on the ends. And what's more, I didn't think (before I looked) that such a format would be conducive to shooting landscapes (or architecture for that matter) but it seems with a little judicious cropping, it might be a bit of an improvement on the old 35mm rectangle.

Then again, now that Kodak has an improved FF sensor, it will be hard to walk away from that. Especially with the ISO range and detail it can potentially provide.

[danag42]

Most photographs have been printed on paper that is closer to the 4:3 ratio than 2:3. I personaly find the 2:3 format awkward, always have. Especially for verticals.

Portrait photographers will probably embrace the 4:3 like they did the 645 format. Same for commercial shooters, who have to fit magazine page layouts.

But for the artsy types, I suppose any format is just fine. You learn to work with it.

[ustein]

> I never thought it was that big a deal that the 645 format fit quite nicely into an 8x10 print.

I never care about that. But I try to get the frame as close as possible ready on location (old school :-))

Uwe

[PuckJunkey]

I was recently looking into the E-1 a bit more. Seems like the 4/3 system has some nice advantages to it in terms of the lenses being built for the size of the sensor, lighter weight and cost. I have heard though that the actual camera itself has some pitfalls in terms of noise (even at low ISOs) and color rendition vs. other DSLRs.

In your view what are the biggest strengths and weaknesses of this camera? Seems like this might be a good system to buy into at the second generation (E-2), once Olympus has had a chance to perfect things like camera ergnomics, sensor performance and maybe add a couple more MP for larger print sizes....

[ustein]

>In your view what are the biggest strengths and weaknesses of this camera?

Here are my findings:

- Of course the 1Ds delivers more resolution
- I like the 4:3 aspect ratio a lot
- For nature photos the higher DOF of the E-1 is nice

- The E-1 has strong AA filter and needs lot of sharpening (but my new plugin - to be released soon- does the trick)
- I miss image stabilization on the E-1
- I would say the E-1 is a very good quality travel camera.
- Even owning a 1Ds the E-1 never felt like a second class camera

- I use Adobe Camera raw for the raw conversion and the E-1 shots are easy to work with

- The E-1 autofocus needs improvement (but no big deal for our style of phtography)
-the 50-200 (equivalent 100-400) lens is very nice and has wonderful range.
- A 1Ds is way more expensive

Uwe

[Chunk]

We are currently using also an Olympus E-1. This is the first digital SLR that does not use lenses made for film cameras. It uses lemses for the new 4/3 standard (time will tell whether it succeeds).

Uwe

I don't understand the comment about lenses being designed for a particular aspect ratio. It would seem to me that the lenses would be designed for a given diagonal frame dimension and wouldn't be better or worse for different aspect ratios. What am I missing?

[ustein]

>I don't understand the comment about lenses being designed for a particular aspect ratio.

I did not mean that but the 4/3 standard defines the apectct ratio, lens mount and camera/lens communications.

Uwe

[Chunk]

>I don't understand the comment about lenses being designed for a particular aspect ratio.

I did not mean that but the 4/3 standard defines the apectct ratio, lens mount and camera/lens communications.

Uwe

Must have been a hard business decision for the Oly guys to make in making their old lenses obsolete and removing the 'I already have a bunch of lenses that will fit' reason for a bunch of people to stick with their line. I'll bet the design guys were happy to not have to be restricted to old standards though. It will interesting to see how all this shakes out.

[ustein]

> I wonder if that will have any psychological impact when people buy these pictures.

Hard to tell. But I make art the way we like the artwork and find that people like it. Selling is tricky: You can make what you think what people will buy but then you might not get your style and people may not buy because they realize it. Tough call.

Uwe

[PuckJunkey]

What about the noise levels ustein? Does ACR clean that up with most E-1 files, or not really?

[ustein]

I am not that much worried about noise and use low ISO.

Uwe