Why not a 21.6mm x 21.6mm sensor?

Started Jan 23, 2013 | Discussions thread
reygon Senior Member • Posts: 2,037

Great Bustard wrote:

Leaving aside the dubious claim that 4:3 is "the ideal ratio for projecting on a screen", 4:3 does not use the most of the image circle of other aspect ratios (that honor falls to 1:1). In any case, I'm talking about a sensor that circumscribes the image circle, not a sensor that is inscribed in the image circle, so all aspect ratios can be used with 100% efficiency.

"4:3 is dubious format?"... for your info it was standardized by the Academy of Motion Picture Arts and Sciences as the standard film aspect ratio in 1932, although similar-sized ratios were used as early as 1928. So people in the 1920s and 1930s are sooooo backward and dumb then, not like me or you because we are in 2013? Olympus engineers and marketing team made very "dubious" decisions for using the 4:3 format that that the product and ironically the same 4:3 format were bought and enjoyed by smarter or non-dubious consumers like you and me.

Does your 100% efficiency (circumscribes the image circle) translate to "profit or dollar benefit relative to total cost of design, production and market"? Why is it that you can't accept the fact that your new sensor size is probably 'technically' possible but not commercially viable (production cost and marketability sense - i.e. investor put money and expects ROI)? Caveat: I use "probably technically possible" because we haven't progressed to detailed design and prototype stage yet. If this was already logical and commercially beneficial Nikon, Sony, Canon and other OEMs already manufacture square sensors, but most of these OEMs made the "dubious" choice.

-- hide signature --

Take nothing but photos... Kill nothing but time... Leave nothing but footprints...

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