Ken Norton wrote:
> Moose wrote:
>
>> I think horizontal angle of view is the more valid comparison for super
>> wide. Calculated on that basis, 12mm on FF is 10% wider than 7mm on 4/3,
>> 112.6 vs. 102.4.
>>
> I'd suggest that the ONLY commonality you can really use is "short-side
> dimension" as this is the the limiting factor in almost all output uses. In
> otherwords, vertical angle of coverage.
I agree - for anyone limited by standard print, frame, wedding book,
etc. formats and committed to filling the frame. It may also be true for
anyone with an aesthetic preference for squarish images.
The vast majority of the viewing of my images is on a computer screen,
where there are generally no ratio constraints. Although when I set up
an image as background on my 16:9 computer display, I have to crop the
short side of my 3:2 film and DSLR images and would have to crop the
short side 4:3 images even more.
> Otherwise, the the longer formats always have an advantage in comparative
> numbers, but rarely does that pan out (no pun intended) in actual printed use.
My personal aesthetic requires cropping to fit the subject, rather than
to fit a fixed ratio standard. Some come out nearly square, others long
and skinny. Most are less than their best constrained to 5:4. My images
may or may not be art to others, but I have a strong emotional reaction
to the relation of image shape to subject.
I am aware of the implications for printed display and figure that a mat
cutter and those put-it-together yourself frames where the pairs of
sides come in inch increments are in my future. I keep hoping my
neighbor will get around to cleaning out his storage spaces soon, I have
been promised a cutter and a bunch of blank mat board when that happens.
Try thinking outside the 5:4 box. Free your vision.
Moose
==============================================
List usage info: http://www.zuikoholic.com
List nannies: olympusadmin@xxxxxxxxxx
==============================================
|