DPR Forum

Welcome to the Friendly Aisles!
DPRF is a photography forum with people from all over the world freely sharing their knowledge and love of photography. Everybody is welcome, from beginners to the experienced professional. Whether it is Medium Format, fullframe, APS-C, MFT or smaller formats. Digital or film. DPRF is a forum for everybody and for every format.
Enjoy this modern, easy to use software. Look also at our Reviews & Gallery!

Your Thoughts and Views On Format Size 33x44

Bashir Lunat

DPRF-Patron
There are countless opinions and discussions already available in photo forums where user experience opine their preference over one another. With MF (digital) we saw early sensors of 36x36 and largest,as far as I am aware is 41x54? The Leica sensor is 30x40 as well as now abandoned 37x48.
Now the question: How did sensor makers (Sony,Kodak Dalsa etc) decide or settle on size 33x44 and why not any other combinitions? It may be too late for other sizes as it will require whole set of new lenses.
Lets have your ideas,views in favour or against. Thanks in advance.
 
I like 43rds aspect ratio. So I think its good.
A recent hypothesis I read was that Sony developed the sensor size for 135 format cameras, to be a multi aspect ratio sensor with the same number of Megapixels when croped to the different aspect ratios, 16:9, 3:2, etc. Similarly to the Panasonic GH1 and GH2 cameras with larger than m43rds sensor.
I don't know if true or not, but its possible.
 
Having recently transitioned (mostly) from m43 to "FF" (36x24) I'm still adjusting to the overly wide aspect ratio. I do think that 4:3 is a good ratio for a lot of subjects.
 
There are countless opinions and discussions already available in photo forums where user experience opine their preference over one another. With MF (digital) we saw early sensors of 36x36 and largest,as far as I am aware is 41x54? The Leica sensor is 30x40 as well as now abandoned 37x48.
Now the question: How did sensor makers (Sony,Kodak Dalsa etc) decide or settle on size 33x44 and why not any other combinitions? It may be too late for other sizes as it will require whole set of new lenses.
Lets have your ideas,views in favour or against. Thanks in advance.
My take on the 33x44 is that it's neither fish nor fowl. It's not big enough to give a consequential image quality improvement over FF, yet, it sacrifices a great deal of flexibility to achieve that marginal gain. So, after all these years, I am still confused as to what exactly it brings to the table aside from a 3:4 aspect ratio.
 
Hi, Macro guy, many years ago,I asked a question in one of the forums (perhaps Photo.net) about Olympus introducing "four third" cameras, I assumed that it was aspect ratio as well as sensor size perhaps groving into larger dimensions. Someone I believe from Olypmus quickly replied that their four third is a fixed sized sensor. That is fine.
4:3 is excellent for head and shoulder shots, and two or three heads and shoulders in the same shots, more than 3 I would prefer 3:2:)!
I dont see a sensor duplicating square film format of 56x56 will ever be made. How did sensor makers come to agree of 33x44?
 
Hi, Macro guy, many years ago,I asked a question in one of the forums (perhaps Photo.net) about Olympus introducing "four third" cameras, I assumed that it was aspect ratio as well as sensor size perhaps groving into larger dimensions. Someone I believe from Olypmus quickly replied that their four third is a fixed sized sensor. That is fine.
4:3 is excellent for head and shoulder shots, and two or three heads and shoulders in the same shots, more than 3 I would prefer 3:2:)!
I dont see a sensor duplicating square film format of 56x56 will ever be made. How did sensor makers come to agree of 33x44?
I have no knowledge about how they settled on a 33x44 format. I can only assume it was the smallest and cheapest sensor that Sony made that was bigger than FF
 
My take on the 33x44 is that it's neither fish nor fowl. It's not big enough to give a consequential image quality improvement over FF, yet, it sacrifices a great deal of flexibility to achieve that marginal gain. So, after all these years, I am still confused as to what exactly it brings to the table aside from a 3:4 aspect ratio.
Yes, I agree with that. 36x24 seems to be a good compromise of size vs IQ. Smaller formats can deliver too of course, but with a smaller operating envelope.
 
My take on the 33x44 is that it's neither fish nor fowl. It's not big enough to give a consequential image quality improvement over FF, yet, it sacrifices a great deal of flexibility to achieve that marginal gain. So, after all these years, I am still confused as to what exactly it brings to the table aside from a 3:4 aspect ratio.
The same general advantage that it did when it first debuted although less so the noticeable differences. More pixels and or having a leaf shutter option. That's the bottom line. You can't get the same aesthetic/"artistic" freedom using a Nikon/Canon that you can with a leaf shutter lens mated to a 100mp Hasselblad. Although 100mp vs 61mp today isn't the same gulf as yesterday's 21mp vs 80mp (ccd or cmos).

The only medium format camera today that offers a sweeping advantage over smaller sensor cameras is the 150mp Phase One (IQ4). Otherwise the advantage notwithstanding leaf shutter lens advantages, is more likely to be 'a bit more cropping room' as opposed to a readily noticeable increase in cropping latitude and or print size with 33x44 equipped MF cameras.

Practically speaking, I think we've been well past there being any wow-factor-worthy "image quality" differences between say the latest 61mp Sony offering vs. 33x44 based MF cameras, and I think that's where the firmware of Phase One + large sensor + leaf lens options gives a marked well-rounded, albeit relatively expensive, advantage over all else.

Until Sony or another manufacturer debuts a sensor with more pixels and more phase one inspired technology, best fiscal purchase decision in my mind at the time of this writing (for those not needing/not able to reap a decisive advantage with leaf lenses or a bit more cropping room) are cameras with 35mm based sensors.
 
Back
Top