Discussion
The Leica is a re-skinned Panasonic DMC-LX1 - if you go to www.DPReview.com - you can read the review of that camera. (noisy 
)
Steve
) Steve
simpo two said:
Worlds first 16:9 digital camera I believe I was also under the impression it had been very well revued.
Is that just 3:2 with the top and bottom chopped off, or is it genuinely wider?
It's the worlds first true 16;9 CCD.
the camera will do 3 aspects,
3:2
4:3
16:9
G20RG B said:
It's the worlds first true 16;9 CCD.
the camera will do 3 aspects,
3:2
4:3
16:9
Interesting; so if the CCD is really 16:9 shape, then by switching to 3:2 you're just cropping left and right?
Given that a round lens projects a round image, 16:9 seems pretty wasteful.
Sorry to dampen the fire, I'm in cynical mode tonight
Heretic - stone him, stone him..... As I say... Love one but: (from DP Review)
"To release a camera so obviously aimed at the serious photographer, to add so many usable manual controls, to put a razor-sharp Leica lens on the front and then to drop in a chip / processor that is so noisy you can't use it above ISO 100 is quite simply unforgivable. It's like buying a Ferrari and discovering it maxes out at 55 mph."
Which is why it's now on my back burner... however, That's just one review - alyhough it does sound rather damning
"To release a camera so obviously aimed at the serious photographer, to add so many usable manual controls, to put a razor-sharp Leica lens on the front and then to drop in a chip / processor that is so noisy you can't use it above ISO 100 is quite simply unforgivable. It's like buying a Ferrari and discovering it maxes out at 55 mph."
Which is why it's now on my back burner... however, That's just one review - alyhough it does sound rather damning
imperialism2024 said:
For some reason the idea of 16:9 shooting appeals to me.
Nobody's yet answered my question of whether a 16:9 image is actually any *wider* than a 4:3, or is in fact the same width with the top and bottom cropped. If it's the latter, you can make equally good 16:9 images with any regular image and the Crop tool; you don't need a special camera to do it.
simpo two said:
For some reason the idea of 16:9 shooting appeals to me.
Nobody's yet answered my question of whether a 16:9 image is actually any *wider* than a 4:3, or is in fact the same width with the top and bottom cropped. If it's the latter, you can make equally good 16:9 images with any regular image and the Crop tool; you don't need a special camera to do it.
G20RG B said:
imperialism2024 said:
For some reason the idea of 16:9 shooting appeals to me.
Nobody's yet answered my question of whether a 16:9 image is actually any *wider* than a 4:3, or is in fact the same width with the top and bottom cropped. If it's the latter, you can make equally good 16:9 images with any regular image and the Crop tool; you don't need a special camera to do it.
The answer is that this camera will take a "TRUE" widescreen picture,not a cropped 4:3 image..
It is a genuine 16:9 CCD.
Some tv sets(mainly flat panel) have a Sd card slot on the front(or PC card slot),this would allow you to take pictures in 16:9 mode then watch them on your widescreen plasma/lcd without any adjustments.
G20RG B said:
The answer is that this camera will take a "TRUE" widescreen picture,not a cropped 4:3 image..
It is a genuine 16:9 CCD.
OK, then the cropping happens in camera as the light spills off the top and bottom of the chip. Saves doing it in PS I suppose but you're knackered if you then want 4:3 as you'll lose a chunk left and right.
There are only so many ways to slice a rectangle - but if you need it to fit your telly then I suppose it makes sense
Gassing Station | Photography & Video | Top of Page | What's New | My Stuff