MFT I don't get it . . .

Started 11 months ago | Discussions thread
Sean Nelson
Forum ProPosts: 10,526
Like?
Re: MFT I don't get it . . .
In reply to VertigonA380, 11 months ago

VertigonA380 wrote:

Sure I understand the ratio, but why didn't they just make it 1:1? I mean the converging lens would create the same image projection on the sensor, so why make it 4:3 and lose out? Or am I missing something technical in between?

I'm assuming here that by "1:1 sensor" you mean a sensor whose corners just reach the edge of the lens's image circle.

If that's the case, the reason is that by far the most images are shot to be presented in a non-square aspect ratio. If those pictures were taken with a 1:1 sensor then they'd use less of the available image circle and have more noise, just as if they'd been taken with a smaller, non-square sensor.

If by "1:1 sensor" you mean a sensor whose central edges reach the edge of the lens's image circle (i.e., the entire image circle is captured by the sensor), then the reason is that it would cost significantly more yet benefit only a very small percentage of images.

I think the optimum sensor size was the "multi aspect ratio" sensor used in the GH1 and GH2 which was able to capture the largest possible area of the lens's image circle for the most commonly used aspect ratios of 4:3, 3:2 and 16:9.

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