Advertisement
There is a push from a group of camera manufactures to make the sensor size of digital cameras a standard size. I would allow them to make cameras cheaper because there would be only one sensor for all their cameras. And the aspect ratio they've chosen for their standard?
1.33, the shape of a standard TV. The war against 1.5 (the shape of 35mm film) is really heating up.
www.four-thirds.org/en/about.html
1.33, the shape of a standard TV. The war against 1.5 (the shape of 35mm film) is really heating up.
www.four-thirds.org/en/about.html
Advertisement
Advertisement
-
Re: The Four Thirds Standard
Mon, May 2, 2005 - 4:01 PMPersonally I don't like 1.33 as the shape on an image. As far as I'm concerned, the wider the better. With that said, there are a couple of good things about the Four Thirds standard (depending on if you're into that sort of thing or not).
The sensors are bigger than many point & shoot digital cameras. 18mm by 13.5mm. That means less grainy pictures in low light and better colors than many small cameras. But as far as I'm concerned, they're still way too small.
There are advantages to having a small sensor. You don't need as good of lenses when you have a small sensor cuz the middle of the lens is the best part anyway. If you have a small sensor in the middle of the where light is coming in, it doesn't matter if the edges of your lens suck cuz the sensor isn't seeing that part anyway. A small sensor also means you can zoom in farther with much shorter lenses, or zoom in way farther with the lens you already have.
However, small sensors are grainy. You don't get as wide of angles with wide angle lenses. In theory, they don't get as good of colors as bigger sensors. And combined that with a more square image shape that I don't like, and you've got a whole movement with the Four Thirds standard that I think is going in exactly the wrong direction.