Reply #3: Ah, the 4/3 format. Forgive a bit of academia and brand loyalty please . . . [View All]

[flamin lib]

The original 35mm format has an aspect ratio of 1.5:1. That's the letter box video aspect ratio harking back to the original moving pictures, a film format the first Lieca was patterned on. It was, after all, made from spare parts of motion picture cameras. It's based on the golden rectangle from Greek geometry: crop a square from the format and the remaining rectangle is 1.5:1. Crop from that and etc, etc, etc. Mathematically perfect but visually & esthetically not so much. You'll get an argument from film buffs but I personally see way too much wasted space on letterbox films. That's a different discussion.

Most images, be they oil, charcoal, photographic or otherwise are closer to a 1.25:1 aspect ratio; i.e. the 4x5, 8x10, 11x14 and 16x20 we have come accustomed to as "standard" photographic formats. The same is true of most sculptures, height to width is close to 1.25:1.

The 4/3 format is 1.33:1 making it much closer to the "standard" formats for printing and, to many, more esthetically pleasing--it's optimized for 8.5x11 computer printers, without argument the new standard format. When printed to traditional sizes the full image is usually visible inside the frames available at your local mega mart.

If a 12 meg image is cropped to fit "standard" formats, the effective pixelation is a less than 10 meg. That's assuming no cropping for composition, an otherwise "full frame" composition. This caused more heartache than I can relate when 35mm users tried to maximize the format, get images printed commercially and then find frames for them. EVERYTHING was a custom. Everything cost more and took longer. Only two formats permit full frame, crop free printing of the 1.5:1 format: 4x6 and 13x19 inches. 3 1/2 x 5 is real close, half way between the 4/3 and 35mm formats, a compromise for several popular formats from the '50s to the present.

More important than pixel count is video noise. Larger processors generally have an edge for noise at high ISO settings. The earlier 8 meg Oly sensor is noticeably nosier at ISO 800 than Canon or Nikon, a good reason to go to the more expensive hardware. That's why OLY stayed with a 5 meg processor in the E-1 against the larger Canon and Nikon offerings; the effective resolution was the same or better when cropped to existing standards assuming a perfect full frame composition. Reports of the new OLY sensor are very favorable in comparison and even more so when considering the crop factor. Besides, how many of us print to larger than 16x20 (excuse me, that's 16x24 for the purists)?

Nostalgia over a format's aspect ratio isn't a good reason to choose a piece of hardware and considering that most professional journalists' images are smaller than 8.5x11 (full page magazine) and few professional portraits exceed 11x14 the obsession with pixel count is lost on me. Unless the image is cropped past 50% anything over 5 meg is simply bragging rights. Even the mega $thousand large format digital backs for roll film cameras don't exceed 12 meg. To be sure, more is always better, but to quibble over 2 megs seems trivial, be it 10 vs 12 or 12 vs 14.

Unless you're referring to the lack of third party lenses and then you've got a really good point. I had to order my Sigma 135-400 three months before delivery and paid $200 more than a Nikon mount version. That indeed sucks.

But that's just me . . .