Are you going OM-D?

[gavinlg]

And your point is...? This is RFF, man.

Oh believe me, if I could afford it I'd have them all!

i in fact hate 4:3 aspect ratio. but if the camera can crop the photos for me, which my E-P2 and certainly the E-M5 can, then i really don't see why the native aspect ratio of a camera matters. i suppose what would matter, if you are really concerned about lost megapixels, is how much resolution is retained after in-camera cropping, but that is a non-issue for me.

Yeah I'm not a fan of the 4:3 ratio too, but cropping to 3:2 isn't too bad.

 

[Rick Waldroup]

Oh believe me, if I could afford it I'd have them all!



Yeah I'm not a fan of the 4:3 ratio too, but cropping to 3:2 isn't too bad.

The 4:3 ratio reminds me of watching I Love Lucy, when I was a child.

 

[f6andBthere]

I don't see too much problem with the 4:3 ratio. When I use 6x7 or 4x5 in MF/LF I'm not thinking "gee I wish this was more like 135mm film's 3:2!"

If the ratio really bothers people that much they probably shouldn't buy the camera.

 

[plummerl]

I don't see to much problem with the 4:3 ratio. When I use 6x7 or 4x5 in MF/LF I'm not thinking "gee I wish this was more like 135mm film's 3:2!"

If the ratio really bothers people that much they probably shouldn't buy the camera.

I agree wholeheartedly. I have 35mm, 2-1/4 sq., 645, 4x5 and 4:3. I love each one and take photographs under each format. It's still an image!

 

[Spyro]

Dont quote me on it but I think that panasonic m4:3 cameras as opposed to Oly M4:3 actually have a variable aspect ratio, ie the sensor is slightly bigger than the image circle, therefore when you select 3:2 the image aspect ratio changes but the diagonal stays the same and you dont lose any pixels.

Actually I looked it up, only the GH range cameras have the variable aspect ratio, so the GH2 from the current range.

So how is the OMD better than the GH2 again?
Other than the prettiness?

 

[Trius]

Actually I looked it up, only the GH range cameras have the variable aspect ratio, so the GH2 from the current range.

So how is the OMD better than the GH2 again?
Other than the prettiness?

Have you held one, used one? If/when you do, you still may feel the same, but I just don;t get this judgment before any are even in the wild.

 

[nighstar]

it matters, because if the conversion to 3:2 is done by cropping your lenses are simply not as wide anymore.

to crop 4:3 to 3:2 isn't only the top & bottom of the image cut off....? correct me if i'm wrong because i admittedly know nothing on the subject, but that alone doesn't change the FOV of a lens, does it?

for example, if a movie is filmed in 3:2 format using a 28mm lens but is then masked/cropped down to 16:9, the FOV of the lens is still 28mm, you just lose the top & bottom of the image. on the other hand, if the movie is shot in 16:9 but then cropped to 3:2, you would lose the sides of the image which would drastically change the FOV.

....right?

I don't see too much problem with the 4:3 ratio. When I use 6x7 or 4x5 in MF/LF I'm not thinking "gee I wish this was more like 135mm film's 3:2!"

some people take full advantage of the extra space that a 4:3 aspect ratio gives and for those people i think 4:3 works great. the entire frame is nicely utilized. however, for the majority of people (myself included) the extra space seems to go to waste and such images would be better if that extra space was take away, imho.

i've seen some amazing photos in 4:3, but on the other hand i have seen (and shot) so many crappy ones that i've started disliking them by default. it's just not for me i guess, but if it's for you then all the power to you!

 

[f6andBthere]

i've seen some amazing photos in 4:3, but on the other hand i have seen (and shot) so many crappy ones that i've started disliking them by default. it's just not for me i guess, but if it's for you then all the power to you!

I'm not saying 4:3 is my thing personally but I think if you're going to choose a camera or system you have to be aware of whether or not you will be comfortable with it's native format ... and if you're not are you comfortable with having to constantly crop.

Angst over the 4:3 format seems unecessary to me. If it's not suitable don't choose it ... there's plenty of other cameras out there.

Large format photographers have had to deal with composition with an image that is upside down ... and they get by. If I couldn't look through the viewfinder of a 4:3 camera and mentally visualise how 3:2 is going to look then I may as well not bother. As it stands it's no deal breaker for me!

 

[gavinlg]

Actually I looked it up, only the GH range cameras have the variable aspect ratio, so the GH2 from the current range.

So how is the OMD better than the GH2 again?
Other than the prettiness?

GH2 has one control dial, which pretty much makes the camera rubbish IMO. I hate having to hold a button and then turn a wheel to change a major control like aperture or shutter speed.

Other than that (and the point that the GH series is hideous aesthetically IMO), the OM-d has olympus processing (which is always better), magnesium body, a grip option, 2 control dials, weatherproofing, sensor based image stabilization, possibly a different sensor made by a different manufacturer (or so olympus says), VGA oled lcd, quieter shutter etc.

 

[Spyro]

Have you held one, used one? If/when you do, you still may feel the same, but I just don;t get this judgment before any are even in the wild.

feel what, what judgement?
I have no idea, that's why I'm asking...

Gavin thanks mate, there seem to be some meaningful advantages there.

 

[Spyro]

to crop 4:3 to 3:2 isn't only the top & bottom of the image cut off....? correct me if i'm wrong because i admittedly know nothing on the subject, but that alone doesn't change the FOV of a lens, does it?

LOL I've always had trouble explaining this difference... bear with me.
I found this illustration which shows the difference between the LX3 sensor (which has a true variable aspect ratio) and the LX2 sensor (which just crops if you ask it to change aspect ratio)

Notice how the LX3 sensor actually extends outside the image circle, and part of it is never utilised regardless which aspect ratio you chose. So when you switch from 4:3 to 3:2 the diagonal of the part of the sensor that is utilised stays roughly the same (and therefore so does the "wideness" of your resulting image), and the number of total pixels produced are also the same as before.

The LX2 on the other hand when you change from the native ratio (in the LX2 case from 16:9 to 3:2 or 4:3) it just crops on the sides, therefore the diagonal and the wideness of your resulting image is reduced.

So the way I see it if you're planning on using an m4:3 camera to shoot 3:2 this is an important difference. Saves you pixels and keeps your lenses as wide as in 4:3 aspect ration.

 

[nighstar]

LOL I've always had trouble explaining this difference... bear with me.
I found this illustration which shows the difference between the LX3 sensor (which has a true variable aspect ratio) and the LX2 sensor (which just crops if you ask it to change aspect ratio)

ahhhh, my bad. seems i misunderstood several things.... thanks for explaining that.

i guess you are right in that something like that should be kept in mind when choosing a camera. on one hand i really don't care about the loss of pixels, but when it comes to FOV.... man, i would have been happier with my ignorance! :bang:

i still love my E-P2 and the E-M5, though.

 

[hub]

I went tonight to a presentation of the only model in Canada right now.

Here is a short write up:

http://www.shutterbugging.net/equip/olympus-e-m5-hands-on-presentation/

Make up your mind ;-) You can hate it too.

 

[ktran]

Do a bit of math: 4:3 is the same ratio as 6:4.5

When was the last time someone pooh-poohed a Fuji 645 MF rangefinder for its non-3:2 ratio?

 

[MaxElmar]

Funny how one gets used to a certain aspect ratio. I generally prefer 3:2 cameras, even though I'm forever cropping to 3:4 or 4:5 for people pictures. And squares I leave alone.

 

[shadowfox]

So what do y'all think about the oh-so-important High ISO performance?

I think the 3200 (as high as I care about) ISO is visibly cleaner compared to my E-P2.

 

[cmedin]

I still think ISO 1600 is really high so not too concerned about it. That said, 6400 looks like it will produce a decent 8x10 with some careful post processing.

 

[Spyro]

Do a bit of math: 4:3 is the same ratio as 6:4.5

When was the last time someone pooh-poohed a Fuji 645 MF rangefinder for its non-3:2 ratio?

I did, because I didnt like it.
Is there some reason we have to come up with a like-dislike rule that applies to everybody?
Some people prefer 3:2.

 

[rbelyell]

yeah will, 3200s pretty much my limit too, but you really cant tell i think until production model comes out. god knows where these images come from as many who have gotten to 'preview' have had olly refuse to provide sd cards!

i do think one can make educated extrapolations based on specs et, and i would bet 3200 would be much better than any pen. but then thats not saying so much is it? i doubt if it'll match the x100, which is kind of my personal quality benchmark. that aside, the other features like ability to correct for highlights/shadows pre-shot, and this 'live bulb' feature, wow! i really think this is gonna be a benchmark cam of sorts.
tony

 

[nighstar]

I think the 3200 (as high as I care about) ISO is visibly cleaner compared to my E-P2.

....sadly, i find a lot of cameras these days have better high ISO performance than an E-P2. i won't even use my E-P2 above ISO400 unless i'm doing black & white, but that's just me.... i've been spoiled by my new GRD4's awesome low light/high ISO performance.

that said, i am amazed by the E-M5's ISO performance.