Luminous Landscape Forum

Equipment & Techniques => Cameras, Lenses and Shooting gear => Topic started by: uaiomex on July 07, 2016, 11:50:40 am

Title: FF mirrorless body with a 4:3 ratio.
Post by: uaiomex on July 07, 2016, 11:50:40 am
Since the next step for FF sensors is megapixels beyond 50 and 60, many have said that such high count is not necessary and won't bite. For the rest of us, a camera with a megacount sensor as a poorman's MF substitute, seems to me that a 4:3 ratio could be better welcomed. But many times, I've been wrong thinking that my desires are more universal than only my own.
So, what do you think guys, would you prefer a 4:3 ratio sensor in a mirrorless body with 75 MP's?
Thanks in advance
Eduardo
Title: Re: FF mirrorless body with a 4:3 ratio.
Post by: E.J. Peiker on July 07, 2016, 12:56:24 pm
I like the 4:3 aspect ratio and even the 5:4 aspect ratio and yes it would be interesting.  Just for fun, a 4:3 aspect ratio version of the a7R sensor, assuming the same horizontal pixel count would result in 47.5mp and a 5:4 would result in almost 51mp.
Title: Re: FF mirrorless body with a 4:3 ratio.
Post by: shadowblade on July 07, 2016, 02:18:57 pm
For me, a 4:3 or 5:4 aspect ratio would mean that I would have to throw away even more pixels in my single-shot images than I do now.

Almost every shot I take is 3:2 or wider - commonly 16:9, 1:2 or 1:3.

A lot of people shooting mirrorless bodies with high megapixel counts are shooting landscapes and other subjects which tend towards wide rather than square.

I'd really like 16:9 as a basic, standard aspect ratio - it fits well with video and digital displays, and you lose less when cropping to wider aspect ratios.
Title: Re: FF mirrorless body with a 4:3 ratio.
Post by: E.J. Peiker on July 07, 2016, 05:21:15 pm
Go vertical and stitch ;)
Title: Re: FF mirrorless body with a 4:3 ratio.
Post by: uaiomex on July 07, 2016, 10:01:09 pm
As a matter of fact, I wouldn't mind the 4:5 ratio (headshots) but I think 4:3 could be a more universal choice. Beisdes that's the de-facto ratio for DMF bodies.
Something  I love about the 4:3 ratio is just about the same size for a standard magazine page in vertical and about the same size for a double page spread in horizontal.


For me, a 4:3 or 5:4 aspect ratio would mean that I would have to throw away even more pixels in my single-shot images than I do now.

Almost every shot I take is 3:2 or wider - commonly 16:9, 1:2 or 1:3.

A lot of people shooting mirrorless bodies with high megapixel counts are shooting landscapes and other subjects which tend towards wide rather than square.

I'd really like 16:9 as a basic, standard aspect ratio - it fits well with video and digital displays, and you lose less when cropping to wider aspect ratios.
Title: Re: FF mirrorless body with a 4:3 ratio.
Post by: shadowblade on July 07, 2016, 10:26:06 pm
Go vertical and stitch ;)

That's what I often do anyway. But it's not possible with every shot, due to lens limitations, subject movement, wind speed or unstable ground (e.g. shooting from a boat or a drone).
Title: Re: FF mirrorless body with a 4:3 ratio.
Post by: shadowblade on July 07, 2016, 10:30:02 pm
As a matter of fact, I wouldn't mind the 4:5 ratio (headshots) but I think 4:3 could be a more universal choice. Beisdes that's the de-facto ratio for DMF bodies.
Something  I love about the 4:3 ratio is just about the same size for a standard magazine page in vertical and about the same size for a double page spread in horizontal.

Do you actually need massive megapixel counts for headshots or portraiture?

Most of the applications of a high-megapixel count, slow-focusing camera tend to be on the wider rather than squarer end of the spectrum - landscapes and architecture, backdrops for cinematography, multiple-exposure techniques, etc. And video is 16:9 while cinema is 21:9, so a wider aspect ratio works better with them too.
Title: Re: FF mirrorless body with a 4:3 ratio.
Post by: uaiomex on July 07, 2016, 11:03:21 pm
As a matter of fact, yes, I do. By your answer, I could deduct that you believe P1 and HB 100mp backs are exercises in futility but I could be completely wrong.



Do you actually need massive megapixel counts for headshots or portraiture?

Most of the applications of a high-megapixel count, slow-focusing camera tend to be on the wider rather than squarer end of the spectrum - landscapes and architecture, backdrops for cinematography, multiple-exposure techniques, etc. And video is 16:9 while cinema is 21:9, so a wider aspect ratio works better with them too.
Title: Re: FF mirrorless body with a 4:3 ratio.
Post by: BobShaw on July 07, 2016, 11:23:43 pm
If you shoot portraits then probably want them to square and if you shoot landscapes you want them to be super wide and still hope someone will make a panoramic digital camera to compete with 617 film.
You need a big pixel count for big prints.
Stitching is a poor mans solution unless you use a shift lens and you can't stitch waves or moving leaves.

People who buy medium format don't necessarily buy them just for MP though. Better image quality, 16 bit colour, high flash sync speed, brighter viewfinder are all benefits. In a portrait situation I would use a Hasselblad over a 35mm any day. Same with landscapes but size and weight are an issue there.

No easy answer.
Title: Re: FF mirrorless body with a 4:3 ratio.
Post by: shadowblade on July 08, 2016, 12:19:44 am
The question, specifically, was about a high MP count mirrorless camera in 4:3 aspect ratio, not just any camera in a 4:3 aspect ratio.

Why do you need a super high resolution sensor for portraits? I can certainly appreciate the need for a large sensor to minimise noise (hence MF) but how does a high-resolution sensor benefit you when you're not printing anything larger than a magazine?

For the record, I liked the Leaf Aptus back with the 56x36mm sensor. Much better aspect ratio to work with than the iQ bodies. Not that the iQ bodies are useless - you can still crop a 100MP image down to 66.7MP in 1:2 format (effective sensor area 27x54mm) or 44MP in 1:3 (18x54mm) but that's a lot of wasted real estate.

I wish they'd just stick two A7r2 sensors side-by-side for an 84MP, 24x72mm (1:3) sensor. Or even three of them, for a 126MP, 36x72mm (1:2) sensor...

Even just putting in a 16-bit ADC and base ISO of 25 or lower would be a great help.
Title: Re: FF mirrorless body with a 4:3 ratio.
Post by: BobShaw on July 08, 2016, 12:54:19 am
The question, specifically, was about a high MP count mirrorless camera in 4:3 aspect ratio, not just any camera in a 4:3 aspect ratio.
Why do you need a super high resolution sensor for portraits?
...
Even just putting in a 16-bit ADC and base ISO of 25 or lower would be a great help.
I'm not sure if specifically there was a question. (:-)
I don't think you do need high MP for portraits.
I indicated I would use a Hasselblad over a 35mm, but my Hasselblad has less MP than my 35mm.
It does however high a lower ISO, 16 bit colour, a brighter viewfinder, faster sync speed, a longer lens for the same subject distance and a look that is hard to define.
I just prefer it.
Title: Re: FF mirrorless body with a 4:3 ratio.
Post by: shadowblade on July 08, 2016, 10:37:53 am
I'm not sure if specifically there was a question. (:-)
I don't think you do need high MP for portraits.
I indicated I would use a Hasselblad over a 35mm, but my Hasselblad has less MP than my 35mm.
It does however high a lower ISO, 16 bit colour, a brighter viewfinder, faster sync speed, a longer lens for the same subject distance and a look that is hard to define.
I just prefer it.

This was the question, asked in the context of talking about full-frame (not MF) sensors:

Quote
would you prefer a 4:3 ratio sensor in a mirrorless body with 75 MP's?

Personally, I'd like to see a digital equivalent to a 612 or 617 Linhof camera - 36x72mm or 24x72mm. Three or four sharp zooms and you'd have the ultimate landscape photography kit, able to fit in one moderate-sized camera bag.
Title: FF mirrorless body with a 4:3 ratio hope for mirrorless 44x33 to get cheaper?
Post by: BJL on July 08, 2016, 11:10:18 am
Since the next step for FF sensors is megapixels beyond 50 and 60, many have said that such high count is not necessary and won't bite. For the rest of us, a camera with a megacount sensor as a poorman's MF substitute, seems to me that a 4:3 ratio could be better welcomed. . . .
So, what do you think guys, would you prefer a 4:3 ratio sensor in a mirrorless body with 75 MP's?
Eduardo
Eduardo, I am also a fan of 4:3 shape: a lot of photos are neither square or 5:4 head-shots nor "widescreen" panoramic landscapes, and history shows that final cropped versions mostly cluster between 5:4 and 3:2, so that 4:3 is a nice central shape and a similar shape distribution is seen with paintings and drawings over the centuries.  But for sensor makers, 36x24mm is probably locked in by the design of SLRs and lenses around that shape and in particular its 24mm frame height and the related mirror height and mirror box depth. Probably the only way to get 4:3 while keeping backward compatibility with 36x24m format stuff would be a crop (or sensor narrowing) to 32x24mm.  At least some lenses designed for 36x24 will not work with a frame higher than 24mm, due to internal anti-flare baffles and such.

Now that there is a 4:3 ratio sensor in a mirrorless body with 50 MP the Hasselblad X1D maybe it is better to hope for further competition, price reductions, and resolution increases in the new category of mirrorless 44x33 cameras.
Title: Re: FF mirrorless body with a 4:3 ratio hope for mirrorless 44x33 to get cheaper?
Post by: uaiomex on July 09, 2016, 12:15:47 am
Hi, I was thinking about optimizing the projection circle of lenses. A 25.5 X34 mm sensor would make a good 4:3 sensor in a mirrorless body to be used with any lens capable of filling a 24X36 one.

Perhaps Fuji will come with a MF body cheap enough to forget about these speculations. In the meantime I have no choice but to wish for this possibility as I love "squarer" formats and I like to print big.

Best


 
Eduardo, I am also a fan of 4:3 shape: a lot of photos are neither square or 5:4 head-shots nor "widescreen" panoramic landscapes, and history shows that final cropped versions mostly cluster between 5:4 and 3:2, so that 4:3 is a nice central shape and a similar shape distribution is seen with paintings and drawings over the centuries.  But for sensor makers, 36x24mm is probably locked in by the design of SLRs and lenses around that shape and in particular its 24mm frame height and the related mirror height and mirror box depth. Probably the only way to get 4:3 while keeping backward compatibility with 36x24m format stuff would be a crop (or sensor narrowing) to 32x24mm.  At least some lenses designed for 36x24 will not work with a frame higher than 24mm, due to internal anti-flare baffles and such.

Now that there is a 4:3 ratio sensor in a mirrorless body with 50 MP the Hasselblad X1D maybe it is better to hope for further competition, price reductions, and resolution increases in the new category of mirrorless 44x33 cameras.
Title: Re: FF mirrorless body with a 4:3 ratio.
Post by: AFairley on July 09, 2016, 12:43:05 pm
For me, a 4:3 or 5:4 aspect ratio would mean that I would have to throw away even more pixels in my single-shot images than I do now.

Almost every shot I take is 3:2 or wider - commonly 16:9, 1:2 or 1:3.

A lot of people shooting mirrorless bodies with high megapixel counts are shooting landscapes and other subjects which tend towards wide rather than square.

I'd really like 16:9 as a basic, standard aspect ratio - it fits well with video and digital displays, and you lose less when cropping to wider aspect ratios.

And I am the opposite, to the point that I have custom 4:3 crop marks on my D800 focusing screen (don't use camera's 4:5 crop mode because throws away pixels outside the crop area).  So I'd love it.
Title: Re: FF mirrorless body with a 4:3 ratio.
Post by: bobtrlin on July 13, 2016, 07:40:09 pm
Let's get back to basics.  What does FF actually mean?  It means, the same format as 35mm film, nothing more.  Why 35mm film?  Because Leica decided using readily available 35mm movie film stock would be a cheap alternative to roll film despite a loss of resolution.  There is nothing "full" about it.  Given that all lenses and I mean all, are circular, the only format that could truly be called "full" is circular.  The nearest available aspect ratio to circular is square, then 4:3, then 3:2 and so on.  So in terms of pixel count versus gear size, square is the most optimised and therefore the only available format that deserves the title "full".  Nevertheless, the term FF is now firmly entrenched to refer to the 35mm format.  So, ideally, all sensors should be square.  One could then crop to whatever aspect ration suits the composition either in camera or in PP.  It's just a matter of taste.
Title: Re: FF mirrorless body with a 4:3 ratio.
Post by: shadowblade on July 13, 2016, 07:51:23 pm
Let's get back to basics.  What does FF actually mean?  It means, the same format as 35mm film, nothing more.  Why 35mm film?  Because Leica decided using readily available 35mm movie film stock would be a cheap alternative to roll film despite a loss of resolution.  There is nothing "full" about it.  Given that all lenses and I mean all, are circular, the only format that could truly be called "full" is circular.  The nearest available aspect ratio to circular is square, then 4:3, then 3:2 and so on.  So in terms of pixel count versus gear size, square is the most optimised and therefore the only available format that deserves the title "full".  Nevertheless, the term FF is now firmly entrenched to refer to the 35mm format.  So, ideally, all sensors should be square.  One could then crop to whatever aspect ration suits the composition either in camera or in PP.  It's just a matter of taste.

Except that the ideal square sensor would fit around the image circle, not be contained within it. That way, you capture everything the lens captures, without being forced into any particular suboptimal aspect ratio that fails to capture an otherwise-useful part of the image circle.
Title: Re: FF mirrorless body with a 4:3 ratio.
Post by: bobtrlin on July 14, 2016, 08:16:46 pm
Except that the ideal square sensor would fit around the image circle, not be contained within it. That way, you capture everything the lens captures, without being forced into any particular suboptimal aspect ratio that fails to capture an otherwise-useful part of the image circle.
You are right of course.  Actually, thinking outside the square (pardon the pun), given that semiconductor blanks are circular anyway, it may be practical to produce circular sensors to match the image circle.  Just checked the web and there is already a company called Rokton doing just that.
Title: Re: FF mirrorless body with a 4:3 ratio.
Post by: uaiomex on July 15, 2016, 01:00:41 am
Actually a square sensor is my most desired request. Not just for shooting square frames (that I love) but for the sake of shooting verticals to horizontals, squares to 16:9 and all in between like 4:5, 4:3 and 2:3 ratios.

Best




Let's get back to basics.  What does FF actually mean?  It means, the same format as 35mm film, nothing more.  Why 35mm film?  Because Leica decided using readily available 35mm movie film stock would be a cheap alternative to roll film despite a loss of resolution.  There is nothing "full" about it.  Given that all lenses and I mean all, are circular, the only format that could truly be called "full" is circular.  The nearest available aspect ratio to circular is square, then 4:3, then 3:2 and so on.  So in terms of pixel count versus gear size, square is the most optimised and therefore the only available format that deserves the title "full".  Nevertheless, the term FF is now firmly entrenched to refer to the 35mm format.  So, ideally, all sensors should be square.  One could then crop to whatever aspect ration suits the composition either in camera or in PP.  It's just a matter of taste.