E-pm2 disappointment

Started Dec 19, 2012 | Discussions thread
Yohan Pamudji
Senior MemberPosts: 2,859
Like?
Re: E-pm2 disappointment
In reply to OniMirage, Dec 19, 2012

OniMirage wrote:

Everything going to 16:9 means displays will become cheaper faster. Previously there was no rule or norm. Some were 4:3 some were 3:2 some where even 5:4 but there wasn't a specific norm. Now that they are all going to 16:9 using similar resolutions the manufacturing process can become cheaper. Look at the quality of the displays out these days and the cheap prices, a testament to merging industry standards. We are now going into large screen 4k resolutions as well and these resolutions we are talking about are native progressive resolutions, not interlaced as previous CRT monitors used to be in order to reach high resolutions. I too had a 4:3 I ended up letting go of that reached 2048x1536 but it's a small price to pay to the much higher quality of the monitors I use today. 16x10 is also going away as well. It was mostly there to hold over the users that got used to 1600x1200 resolutions of the CRT days for graphic design since most 16x10 were 1920x1200.

I think it's a reach to assign causality for cheaper prices to the 16:9 standard.  After all, 16:10 monitors are getting a lot cheaper too.  I believe it's simply that the design and manufacturing process for LCDs has become mature enough to drive down prices--the tools to design and produce these panels have long since been paid for and are now no longer a major consideration in the cost.  That and the volume of manufacturing has really cranked up which also allows for cheaper prices per unit.

16:10 is fading but thank goodness it's still hanging on.  Vertical space is still important to those of us who do text-based work on computers--programmers, etc.

Back to the topic of the E-PM2 screen, I agree that 16:9 is a terrible ratio for 4:3 photos.  Blame that on the constant drive to miniaturize these cameras.  A 3:2 screen would work much better IMO if they allowed the camera to be a bit taller (otherwise the screen would just be narrower horizontally in 3:2 compared to 16:9).  In 3:2 there's plenty of room for the liveview image and a bit more space on the sides for the exposure settings without encroaching on the image too much.

Maybe they just want to force the serious enthusiasts into the higher end models like the E-M5 and that mythical rangefinder style camera with built-in EVF that still hasn't come out.  With the same fantastic sensor in all of these cameras they have to drive high end sales somehow.

Reply   Reply with quote   Complain
Post (hide subjects)Posted by
Keyboard shortcuts:
FForum PPrevious NNext WNext unread UUpvote SSubscribe RReply QQuote BBookmark post MMy threads
Color scheme? Blue / Yellow