09-08-2019, 09:22 AM
(09-08-2019, 12:33 AM)Klaus Wrote: The current hype around FF is silly anyway. Fuji G has a superior image quality, for instance.
It just shows how much tradition is dictating over reality.
And e.g. why do sensors have a rectangle shape? It doesn't make any sense in the year 2019, it's a legacy concept.
Or in other words - why not a square sensor combined with a dial for selecting the ratio? Is that so difficult?
For landscapes, I'd prefer 16:9, maybe even 2.35:1 whereas for portraits 4:3 would be more appropriate (if I did portraits) - and a square sensor could give you the maximum potential here.
With a square sensor, the days of holding your camera in a silly vertical layout would finally over.
A square shape would indeed be convenient . Having said that, it would require quite a bit of redesign of camera bodies, and would mean we have to crop a lot. Personally, I prefer to not crop at all if I can help it, just frame exactly what I want to see in the frame.
BTW, there is a good reason why 24x36 (2:3) became so popular, other than the smaller format compared to MF and LF way back when, namely the fact that humans roughly tend to see the world in 2:3 format when not particularly focusing on anything special. It feels more natural. The 4x5 print papers etc. really came into existence prior to 135 film, catering for LF and MF film/cameras.
Kind regards, Wim
Gear: Canon EOS R with 3 primes and 2 zooms, 4 EF-R adapters, Canon EOS 5 (analog), 9 Canon EF primes, a lone Canon EF zoom, 2 extenders, 2 converters, tubes; Olympus OM-D 1 Mk II & Pen F with 12 primes, 6 zooms, and 3 Metabones EF-MFT adapters ....