MFT I don't get it . . .

Started Jan 29, 2014 | Discussions thread
mchnz Contributing Member • Posts: 762
Re: 4/3 inch not 4/3 ratio

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 read another thread where it was said that 4/3 is the sensor size in inches, not the ratio of sides, and that there is no requirement for any particular ratio of sides.

I haven't got time to find the thread and it didn't provide any backing references, but I think the post was by Anders W if anyone wants to track it down ( but my recollection could be wrong).

So the side ratio is just what is practical and marketable. Although, as I wrote elsewhere, there was originally a mirror to account for.

 mchnz's gear list:mchnz's gear list
Olympus E-M5 II Olympus E-M1 II
Post (hide subjects) Posted by
(unknown member)
(unknown member)
(unknown member)
Keyboard shortcuts:
FForum PPrevious NNext WNext unread UUpvote SSubscribe RReply QQuote BBookmark MMy threads
Color scheme? Blue / Yellow