 |
 | Home | Contact Us | FAQ | Search & Site Map | Link to Us |
 | Sign In | Join | Other 45 Sites in Network |
| PhotoKB HomeDiscussion Groups Digital Photography Digital PhotoDSLR CamerasZLR CamerasPoint & Shoot CamerasFilm Photography 35 mmLarge FormatMedium formatDarkroomFilm and LabsOther EquipmentPhoto Technique Nature PhotographyPeople PhotographyTechnique GeneralGeneral Photo Topics General TopicsAustralian PhotographyUK PhotographyDirectoryPhoto Clubs |
Photo Forum / General Photo Topics / General Topics / July 2010SX210IS's wide screen is not a 3:2
I bought the new Canon SX210 IS because its wide LCD screen fooled me into thinking the camera would take pictures in the much desired 3:2 aspect ratio so that it can print 4x6 without cropping. The assistance of a salesperson did not mitigate my problem. I should have known better, especially considering how often this complaint is made here regarding sub-compact cameras. Having learned my lesson, I will now attempt to return this camera and try another purchase. Others have advised me to get the new Panasonic and their web site bears this out. It does specifically state that the Lumix has the 3:2 aspect ratio. And that camera gets damned good review, too. Anyone care to weigh in? Other opinions on the Lumix? Or perhaps other sub- compacts that can do 3:2? > I bought the new Canon SX210 IS because its wide LCD screen fooled me > into thinking the camera would take pictures in the much desired 3:2 [quoted text clipped - 8 lines] > care to weigh in? Other opinions on the Lumix? Or perhaps other sub- > compacts that can do 3:2? Any compact that does 3:2 does it by cropping its standard 4:3 picture. In other words if you use 3:2 you lose 11% of the advertised pixels whether it is done in the camera or later on the computer. Personally I tend to think that any picture worth printing is worth a quick jaunt in an image editing software for adequate framing/cropping and elimination of minor defects so the original aspect ratio is of little importance (and in the end the 3:2 pictures my SLR takes are often cropped to 4:3 or even 1:1).  SignatureBertrand Thank you for your thoughts. I tend to agree with you that any picture worth keeping is worth a trip through Photoshop. But no one seems to be addressing the point that some photographers prefer a 3:2 format (aka 6:4) over 4:3 or 16:9. My professional SLR takes 3:2, so I 'd like my pocket sub-compact to use that same aspect ratio. Having an LCD screen (or even better: a view finder) show exactly what will be shot in a 3:2 is what I prefer -- with no gray bars or grid lines. It simply makes for more realistic composition and I don't care about losing 11% of resolution. With some research, I've found that Panasonic's Lumix models have the desired 3:2 in addition to the other two formats. I was interested to see whether seasoned hobbyist or pro's like the simpler Lumix. Getting back to the SX210IS. It is still a good camera. I took quite a few landscape pictures using its 16:9 mode. The pictures were excellent and the 16:9 format suits landscapes perfectly. On the other hand, the haze that's common in landscape photography (at least here in the SF Bay Area) caused the shots to have excessively low contrast -- something that actually required Photoshop repairs. The camera's long zoom was amazing. Reviews complain about the location of the pop-up flash, but I actually liked it under my left index finger. Most photographs don't require flash and my left index finger naturally keeps it from popping up. The LCD screen is too large and has useless blank bars when shooting in 4:3. The SX210IS has most of the right features. It is also larger and much heavier than other sub- compacts. In fact, I think that those reviewers and web sites that call it a sub-compacts should modify their information to consider the excess weight and size. All-in-all I cannot recommend the SX210IS as a sub-compact. As a compact, maybe I would. I'd still like to hear if anyone has used any of the Lumix models. >> I bought the new Canon SX210 IS because its wide LCD screen fooled me >> into thinking the camera would take pictures in the much desired 3:2 [quoted text clipped - 10 lines] > > Any compact that does 3:2 does it by cropping its standard 4:3 picture. Not all compacts: the Panasonic LX-2 used a 16:9 sensor and cropped the sides slightly to get 3:2, and cropped even more to get 4:3. It surprises me if Cnaon are really making one which uses a 4:3 sensor if it has a 16:9 screen, especially given the trend toward 16:9 for everything. Most people don't even have a 4:3 monitor to display their pics on any more. >> Any compact that does 3:2 does it by cropping its standard 4:3 picture. > > Not all compacts: the Panasonic LX-2 used a 16:9 sensor and cropped the > sides slightly to get 3:2, and cropped even more to get 4:3. Right... and they came back to a more classical sensor for the LX-3. But in this one they still do the cropping a bit differently: http://www.dpreview.com/reviews/panasonicdmclx3/ (see "Multi-aspect ratio"). Hats of to the eengineers who convinced marketing that they could waste some sacrosanct pixels. SignatureBertrand > I bought the new Canon SX210 IS because its wide LCD screen fooled me > into thinking the camera would take pictures in the much desired 3:2 [quoted text clipped - 8 lines] > Other opinions on the Lumix? Or perhaps other sub- compacts that can do > 3:2? So, you bought a camera based on the sales person's advice without bothering to check specs. Sounds like you got what you deserved. > > I bought the new Canon SX210 IS because its wide LCD screen fooled me > > into thinking the camera would take pictures in the much desired 3:2 [quoted text clipped - 11 lines] > So, you bought a camera based on the sales person's advice without > bothering to check specs. Sounds like you got what you deserved. Do you know that 4x6 is 2:3 RATIO ASPECT and 2:3 is exactly same with 3:6? 4*6/2 = 2x3 = 2:3 => 3:2 ratio. > > I bought the new Canon SX210 IS because its wide LCD screen fooled me > > into thinking the camera would take pictures in the much desired 3:2 [quoted text clipped - 11 lines] > So, you bought a camera based on the sales person's advice without > bothering to check specs. Sounds like you got what you deserved. Yes I did get what I deserved. Thank you. > I bought the new Canon SX210 IS because its wide LCD screen fooled me > into thinking the camera would take pictures in the much desired 3:2 [quoted text clipped - 8 lines] > care to weigh in? Other opinions on the Lumix? Or perhaps other sub- > compacts that can do 3:2? You just return the camera and never stop by any camera store nor camera department, cuz there is pretty much none. Or may be you can find the Polaroid toy camera which costs around $30-40 several years ago which prints a small long strip (much wider than current wide screen or something like 1:4 ratio or something), or may be hmmmm I was thinking of the older Olympus but I think it had ratio closer to regular Polaroid or it's around 4:3 or so. At this moment, you haven't learned any lesson and probably never will, cuz you don't seem to know that 3:2 -> 6:4 -> 9:6 -> 12:8 -> 15:10 -> 18:12 -> 21:14 and so on are EXACTLY the same RATIO ASPECT. 3:2 => (3:2)2 = 6:4 3:2 => (3:2)3 = 9:6 3:2 => (3:2)4 = 12:8 > > I bought the new Canon SX210 IS because its wide LCD screen fooled me > > into thinking the camera would take pictures in the much desired 3:2 [quoted text clipped - 27 lines] > 3:2 => (3:2)3 = 9:6 > 3:2 => (3:2)4 = 12:8 Mocking people is quite common these days so I'll let that go. The math of aspect ratios is actually quite obvious. Many photographers would like a 3:2, but most cameras only have 4:3 or 16:9. The Lumix has all three. If you or anyone else knows a little bit about Lumix models, I'd appreciate hearing more. My thoughts about the SX210IS are elsewhere in this thread. Thank you. "pilotplanes" <joewasik2007-google@yahoo.com> wrote in message news:14669d7f-51db-46d8-8199- > Mocking people is quite common these days so I'll let that go. The > math of aspect ratios is actually quite obvious. Many photographers > would like a 3:2, but most cameras only have 4:3 or 16:9. The Lumix > has all three. If you or anyone else knows a little bit about Lumix > models, I'd appreciate hearing more. My thoughts about the SX210IS > are elsewhere in this thread. Thank you. I had a look and found the Lumix equivalent natively shoots in 3:2 (by cropping) and comes with some extra manual features. If you want raw which I really think is essential on a small sensor) you're going to have to look outside this model niche. dpreview has a database you can tick to narrow down the features if you're prepared to flip though a dozen pages. The compacts lift out pretty clearly from the SLRs so that makes it fairly easy. I found a few in there that are ballpark but you'll lose megapixels (not a huge worry) or have a price bump. I pretty much stick to Lightroom for now. Photoshop is useful but life is short and there's levels of obsession I don't have time for. Given the Lumix just crops if I was concerned about aspect ratio with another camera I'd just shoot accordingly and do the cropping in Lightroom along with the other adjustments. SignatureCharles E Hardwidge > > > I bought the new Canon SX210 IS because its wide LCD screen fooled me > > > into thinking the camera would take pictures in the much desired 3:2 [quoted text clipped - 34 lines] > models, I'd appreciate hearing more. My thoughts about the SX210IS > are elsewhere in this thread. Thank you. Not mocking but trying to tell both of you that wrongful blaming and adding wrong fuel won't make thing any better. Many photographers would like 3:2 and that is why yours print 4:6 perfectly, because 4x6 is 3:2 Lumix may give you multiple ratio aspect options, but I bets that it isn't the option most photographers care. Now back to your problem. 1. Just photograph with whatever your camera is capable of. But make sure you leave plenty of room (background) for cropping and that's it. This is also one of the wise choices of photography 2. When you have the photo prepared then you can crop to 4:3, 4:5, 16:9 or whatever you wish. There may be most cameras have 16:9 ratio, but Lumix is the only one I have heard of. None of my cameras (between film, DSLR, and P&S we may had had around 40 of them, and around 15 is currently around my house). Yup! I still have 5-6 old Olympus P&S cameras laying around collecting dirt, and none of them anywhere near 16:9 ratio. > > > > I bought the new Canon SX210 IS because its wide LCD screen fooled me > > > > into thinking the camera would take pictures in the much desired 3:2 [quoted text clipped - 59 lines] > still have 5-6 old Olympus P&S cameras laying around collecting dirt, and > none of them anywhere near 16:9 ratio. Ok, after hitting the SEND button to send the above message, I read in other message you mention Photoshop, 16:9, Landscape (SF Bay Area) etc.. So I guess I may better sending another mocking message before you make another mistake then blaming other saleperson for you error. So I would suggest you to do little more research on these things before making other mistake. - Landscape, it seems like the "landscape" you have in mind here may not be the true landscape using wide angle but a wider mode to fit the 16:9 screen. - The "landscape" (not mode but wider) in photography usually taken by WIDER angle lens to capture wider view. It has a different look comparing to a cropped photo taken by regular lens. - The 16:9 of the Lumix camera might and might not look better than the cropped photo. Just like a regular 3:2 ratio photo may look better after cropped to 16:9 but may not. IOW, you may want to do some research if the Lumix captures the 16:9 using true WIDER angle lens or regular lens with some modification (like cropping or whatever it may do). And you may want to check with some 16:9 photo taken by Lumix see if you like the result. Here, even I love landscape photo taken with wide angle lens (15mm is my widest angle lens I have), but I don't know if I care to go for 16:9 mode using normal lens. Here is a sample I found http://mos.futurenet.com/techradar/Review%20images/TechRadar/Gadgets/lumix%20gf1 /widescreen%202.jpg http://mos.futurenet.com/techradar/Review%20images/TechRadar/Gadgets/lumix%20gf1 /widescreen%202.jpg http://www.infosyncworld.net/resources/products/panasonic/panasonic_lumix_dmc-tz 3_s00.jpg Finally, the below shows the differences between 3 ratios 4:3 , 3:2 and 16:9 http://www.steves-digicams.com/camera-reviews/panasonic/lumix-dmc-fx3/panasonic- lumix-dmc-fx3-review-6.html And you may and may not agree with me that it isn't true wide angle but similar to cropping. And I hope they ain't the cropped photos to show the differences. And this isn't the ratio I care to have. > > > > > I bought the new Canon SX210 IS because its wide LCD screen fooled me > > > > > into thinking the camera would take pictures in the much desired 3:2 [quoted text clipped - 103 lines] > similar to cropping. And I hope they ain't the cropped photos to show the > differences. And this isn't the ratio I care to have. Thanks. I looked at the links that you provided (BTW, two of them appear to be the same). A couple of those landscape shots are impressive. Personally, and this is just me, photography is all about composition (composition with the camera, not Photoshop) meaning that I care less about the lens angles then I do about the angles in the lens. To me, landscape photography is all about lines, particularly lines running left to right with curves and juxtapositions. After taking shots in 16:9, I was suddenly impressed with how well that format works for these compositions. My new Lumix FH20 (which costs and weighs about half as the Canon SX210IS) does 16:9, and it does the other two common formats. I will be evaluating and comparing quality soon. Initial shots show that the Lumix is quite good. I haven't mentioned this before, but I have a partial and hopefully temporary disability which means factors like camera size and weight take on extra importance. It also means that while I love landscape photography, I don't get to do it that much; hence my preference for 3:2 which I think is superior for other types of scenes. Taking pictures of people in 16:9 doesn't seem to work at all. > > Here is a sample I found > > [quoted text clipped - 17 lines] > composition (composition with the camera, not Photoshop) meaning that > I care less about the lens angles then I do about the angles in the You like the scene or you like how the camera capture? to me, the scene is one thing but how the camera crops the scene is other story, and to me it ain't worth the trouble. 1. First, the sence looks fine and I have no problem with it 2. How the camera works is another story, and I don't care for it. Cuz, it's not normal landscape taken by wide angle, but cropping. And it may be okay for displaying on the 16:9 TV or monitor, but if you want to PRINT then it's another story. But it's your $$$$ and you have your right to like whatever you like. It's not my problem. > lens. To me, landscape photography is all about lines, particularly > lines running left to right with curves and juxtapositions. After [quoted text clipped - 9 lines] > 3:2 which I think is superior for other types of scenes. Taking > pictures of people in 16:9 doesn't seem to work at all. It's nothing better than finding something you like, especially I don't think it's very expensive. So I would buy it if I like it, but I know it's not for me. And if you really love the real landscape with true wide angle lens then I would suggest to spend little time to do some research on landscape taken by wide angle lens. Just incase you didn't pay enough attention I would suggest to take another look at the samples freom the last link www.steves-digicams.com/....................................... and look at the first 3 samples (I think or look at the HOUSES). > Thanks. I looked at the links that you provided (BTW, two of them > appear to be the same). A couple of those landscape shots are [quoted text clipped - 14 lines] > 3:2 which I think is superior for other types of scenes. Taking > pictures of people in 16:9 doesn't seem to work at all. The Canon G series is well regarded as a compact landscape camera. Different lens sizes produce different quality images. http://photoinf.com/General/Wim_van_Velzen/the_use_of_focal_length_in_landscape_ photography.htm I'm as anal as the next guy about composing in camera but the quality just isn't there for a compact and large prints. Might as well get used to composing on the fly and using cropping room in post. SignatureCharles E Hardwidge > Mocking people is quite common these days so I'll let that go. The > math of aspect ratios is actually quite obvious. Many photographers > would like a 3:2, but most cameras only have 4:3 or 16:9. The Lumix > has all three. My Sony W290's have all three formats. But all it's doing is cropping the 4:3 image in the camera. It does black out the appropriate areas of the LCD though. So you don't have to worry about whacking a head, or whatever. The 3:2 mode simulates the usual 35mm camera. 16:9 is included to fit a HDTV screen. It's most useful for those who don't edit the pictures and send them directly to a HDTV for viewing. If you stick to the highest MP image size with the W290, 4:3 is 12 MP. 3:2 is 11 MP, and 16:9 is 9 MP. The second two just being in camera cropped 4:3 images. I use 4:3 and 3:2 about equally. I hardly ever use 16:9 so far. I crop about 80% of all my pictures I think, so it's not terribly important which format I use. I use 4:3 quite a bit for shooting, but the final image can end up being anything just depending on what I crop. On Jul 26, 4:19 pm, n...@wt.net wrote: > > Mocking people is quite common these days so I'll let that go. The > > math of aspect ratios is actually quite obvious. Many photographers [quoted text clipped - 18 lines] > but the final image can end up being anything just depending on what > I crop. Thanks for your note. I didn't know the Sony's could do 3:2 and I'll consider that in the future. It seems that there's a lot of cropping going on out there in the photography world. My personal preference is to have the sub-compact camera take the shot the same way as my SLR, that is, 3:2. It's important to me, and this is just my personal preference, that the image that I see on the LCD matches *exactly* what the finished product will be. Composition is a very delicate thing that just has to be done with perfection. The fact that the camera does the cropping thus losing some resolution is actually kind of an obvious thing that I do not mind. I read from another person that supposedly the 16:9 is a rare thing. Could be, but nearly all models that I examined had it. Possibly this is a newer part of a feature set. Its popularity could be gaining because that's the ratio used by movie mode. My new, new camera is the Panasonic Lumix FH20. It's half the price of my Canon SX210IS and has only half its features. But the features that are missing from the FH20 are present on my very expensive SLR and that SLR does those features a lot better. The FH20 comes with a mono audio cable where the Canon's was stereo. However, I never verified that the Canon actually did record sound in stereo. The Lumix has no AV or TV or Manual like the Canon. Neither camera did raw. The Lumix has 8X zoom. Canon did 14X. The Lumix wins with weight, feeling half as heavy as the Canon. The Lumix does 3:2 with finesse. And the Lumix fits cleanly in a very small shirt pocket. (The Lumix FH22 had a more expensive touch screen which I found annoying to use). For the slightly more casual photograph, the Lumix FH20 is perfect. Guess I don't really understand what market segment that the SX210IS is after. > I read from another person that supposedly the 16:9 is a rare thing. > Could be, but nearly all models that I examined had it. Possibly this > is a newer part of a feature set. Its popularity could be gaining > because that's the ratio used by movie mode. Like I say, it's mainly for outing to an HDTV. So if the camera supports output to HDTV, which mine does, "1080i", it will usually have a 16:9 format to be able to fit the screen. Both the 720p and 1080i/p HDTV formats are in 16:9. I suppose quite a few of the snapshot shooters may be be using the cable to TV to view pictures. I've never used it myself yet.. :/ I always dump the card to the HD and look and edit on the puter. But I keep that cable in my case in just in case some rare day I might want to use that. Say at someones house that does not have a puter, but has a TV. But anyway, that's mainly what 16:9 is for. It's not really a landscape format, although I suppose it could be handy for it. It's a HDTV format. And being as more and more cameras are supporting HD record, and also output, it will be on more and more of them. The W290 records and plays video at 720p. But it outputs stills at 1080i. Both being 16:9, and a perfect ratio for any HDTV screen. The main reason they have the 16:9 format for taking images is so you can see the same picture on the LCD that will be on the TV. So no chopped head surprises, etc when you get home. > I bought the new Canon SX210 IS because its wide LCD screen fooled me > into thinking the camera would take pictures in the much desired 3:2 [quoted text clipped - 8 lines] > care to weigh in? Other opinions on the Lumix? Or perhaps other sub- > compacts that can do 3:2? The biggest advantage with 14 MPx on a camera that size is cropping. The SX210 IS lacks an accurate optical viewfinder so that can be useful. It lacks manual and raw (which is especially useful on small sensor cameras). There's nothing wrong with the camera specs for what it is but this "upgrade is a downgrade at a higher price point" is something I wouldn't want to encourage. Think VCR's and Mac Mini. I wouldn't worry about the format. You'll almost always frame in the viewfinder or shoot like a rangefinder. The 14Mpx gives you room to breath all the way down to 8-10 Mpx for 13x8 sized prints. I don't know if any camera in this class gives you manual and raw but I'd throw away some of that zoom to get those features rolled back in. It gives you that extra yard of freedom when shooting or doing post-processing. SignatureCharles E Hardwidge |
Reply to this Message |
 Sign In
 Join
 My Latest Posts My Monitored Threads My Blog My Photo Gallery My Profile My Homepage Start New Thread Enable EMail Alerts Rate this Thread
|
©2010 Advenet LLC Privacy Policy - Terms of Use
This website includes both content owned or controlled by Advenet as well as content owned or controlled by third parties.