Peter G
•
Veteran Member
•
Posts: 5,944
Corrections/Counters in favor of 3:2.
migus
wrote:
If i were Canon's product manager for G1X, I'd choose 4:3 as easier to defend in the exec reviews:
1) higher yields =>
lower cost;
Why higher yield? The 4:3 part is approx 10 square mm larger. So if anything 3:2 should have higher yield/lower cost. So I think you have this one backwards.
2) slightly smaller lens to cover the width =>
compacter & simpler lens/sensor design;
Same diagonal, need essentially the same lens to have decent corner performance, so this one is a wash.
3) visible differentiator from 3:2 sensors =>
less encroaching on dSLR's turf;
More important to differentiate from compacts, with 4:3 sensors aimed at old 4:3 monitors/TVs. Also more important to match DSLR to serve as decent backup camera, so you wont have mixed ratios when you want to just carry your smaller camera.
4) comparable, yet larger than all P&S, CX and m43 =>
apex of the 4:3 turf;
5) vertical dimension nearly equal to APS-C sensors' =>
exceeds m43 and competes within 95% with APS-C (100% of Foveon's X3) in photo tests and reviews.
As far as size goes, this is still larger than m43, CX (and all compacts obv.) in 3:2.
Basically size is nitpicking. This is bigger than m43/CX and smaller than APS-C. The size is good and it will be compared.
As far as the ratio goes, I see it making more sense to go pro and match DSLR rather than stick with 4:3 that was designed to match last generation TVs/Monitors.
I think Canons answer to 4:3 is 3:2 both in ratio and size and IMO it is superior in both.