jackm1943 Loc: Omaha, Nebraska

Not necessarily, for example a 25.5mm x 34mm (3:4) sensor would be almost exactly the same area as the 24 x 36 (864 sq mm) 35mm film format. Since any 35mm full frame lens will cover at least 36mm, it would more than cover 25.5 x 34. The more "square" the format, the easier for the lenses to cover an area of approximately 864 sq mm.

ORpilot Loc: Prineville, Or

Well here is my historical 2cents. Film APS-C was developed from 35mm for those that had trouble loading 35mm in their cameras. the year was 1996. The quest was for higher quality than 126 (Kodak Instamatic) and near 35mm slr quality. Advanced Photo System (APS) film as Kodak Advantix could be shot on the same film as P (panoramic),C (common), and H, High (almost 35mm) . It was decided to make C (common) easily enlargeable to two common printing formats: 4x5 and 8x10. Where as 35mm is cropped when printing unless it's custom printed. So why waste film. APS had great advantages over 35mm. You could stop shooting mid roll, change films and continuse shooting. Then go back to a partially used roll and continue shooting without any loss of images. The final processed film was also stored in the same canister. Unfortunately APS-c cameras never really caught on. Cel phones and small Digital cameras pushed them out. Pro photographers wanted the larger 35mm image size. Most of the major camera manufacturers marketed cameras and high quality systems such as Minolta, Nikon, and even Zeiss. As digital innovation progressed, the smaller lighter and more economical system (film APS) was already there in the works. The early hybrid digital cameras cost as much as $30,000. Way out of the reach for most consumers and Pros. Time and innovation marches on. The APS-c format and cameras won out because of cost and economy. APS film died in 2011 when Fuji and Kodak terminated film production. As previously stated by someone else: only recently has technology improved to the point of returning to FF and Medium format. Photography is still limited by simple physics of the materials. A fast F 2.8 24-70mm zoom weighs a lot more than a F 3.8 24-70mm zoom because the glass is the mass. Now if there were variable gas lenses (used in lasers) weight may no longer be a factor. Progress and innovation will march on. Or look at the resolving power of some hawks compared to the human eye. They have much smaller eyes than we do. Some hawks can resolve objects as small as a sparrow at a distance of 10 miles. As seen on PBS. I have trouble finding the news paper tossed in the yard in the morning with out a cup of coffee first. So as for format, Most viewers do not like square or even more economical round. Remember, TVs use to have round image and now they are the size of a wall. Like Skippy vs Jif. there will always be a disagreement. But keep shooting.

RichardSmithTaylor

What does "acoarst" in this post mean? I assume it is an acronym, but I can't find any definitin of it.

BebuLamar

Not by much but the more the format closer to the square it can be bigger and yet fit in the same circle.
For a circle of 43.26662 mm
You can fit the standard 35mm format of 24x36mm and get 864mm²
For a 3:4 format of 25.95997x34.61329mm it's 898.56mm²
For a square format of 30.59412 it's 936mm²

SuperflyTNT Loc: Manassas VA

Well, since you didn’t quote in your reply we can’t be sure who or what you’re referring to without going back and read all the previous posts again. I’d I had to venture a guess it would be someone’s “cute” way of saying “of course”.

jackm1943 Loc: Omaha, Nebraska

Not sure, but I think we are in agreement. All the more reasons we could have had something other than 2:3 in our DSLRs.

n3eg Loc: West coast USA

110 film was also a standard, and now we have the same-sized 4/3 and Micro Four Thirds. I've been shooting this format since 1981.

ORpilot Loc: Prineville, Or

Yep, I had one. Note to newbies : Pentax made a whole slr system for 110. I even had a disk camera at one time. “ what’s old is new”

Pentax 110 system

hassighedgehog Loc: Corona, CA

All of this speculation pales compared to the ready availability of FRAMES available for the original 35 mm aspect ratio. No one wants the cost of custom framing for a different format when you can get a standard one.

SuperflyTNT Loc: Manassas VA

Not really. For 35mm film and FF and ASP-C sensors the aspect ratio is 3:2. The common frames are 5x7, 8x10, 11x14, etc. Not the same. 6x9, 8x12, 10x15, etc. would fit.

htbrown Loc: San Francisco Bay Area

Where's the market? 35mm film cameras were far and away the most popular cameras for pros and serious amateurs. If you're coming out with a new-fangled digital camera, that's where the money is.

TriX Loc: Raleigh, NC

For those that have the need and the $, such as portrait, fashion and studio photographers, MF digital has the same level of advantage as MF film had over 35mm film. I have a semi pro friend that shoots portraiture and fashion photography on MF digital, and the results, especially on 16x24 prints, are just phenomenal in terms of DR, noise and resolution.

RodeoMan Loc: St Joseph, Missouri

Thank you for the interesting discourse on APS. I had fun using several of the cameras and still have them. I shot mostly in the C format because photo albums for that size was easier to find. I have a interchangeable lense models for Nikon, Minolta and Canon models, and also a Canon 490z and Kodak 5800. The original Elph was much fun to use. I also have a large number of APS film cartridges that I did not get around to using including over 25 rolls of B&W APS film. I seem to remember that one advantage the APS supposedly had was that it held the film flatter against the camera helping to improve the image. I remember at the time wondering why one or more of the film companies did not offer a medium format size APS. Probably not feasible. I do know that when I am looking through one of my old photo albums, I am not able to say "Well that photograph is of a lesser quality, it obvivously must be an APS image." No the images, in my opinion, compare favorably with my other images, not that anyone is going to beat down my door to buy them. Ken Rockwell has an interesting write up where he takes APS to task. Everything he has to offer is probably accurate, but I still had a great time using it. Thanks again.

ORpilot Loc: Prineville, Or

Your welcome, Yes, now that you mention it, I do remember one of the plusses was the flatter negative. I inherited a Minolta Vectus with 2 lenses from my Mom. I agree, medium format would have been a real winner. It most likely would have evolved from 70mm rather than 120 due to the sprocket holes.

TriX Loc: Raleigh, NC

Why is the negative flatter?