I’m not a pixel peeper. I like a camera that’s easy and fun to use and takes good photos. 99.9% of the time I’m going to take an image I like, maybe crop it, scale it down to fit the width of my blog, and call it a day.

With that in mind, Stephanie and I went out exploring the Castro on foot this afternoon, it was a beautiful, crisp, cloudless day, perfect for soaking up the winter sun outside Cafe Flore, not so great for well-lit urban photography. But we did have fun playing with the GR Digital’s fixed 28mm field of view, which is quite a bit wider than the standard 35mm FOV we’re used to.

This shot of San Francisco from Dolores Park is not one that I’d usually put up on my blog (because it’s not that great), but in the spirit of test driving, I thought I’d at least post an urban landscape with a link to the original file for those interested in greater scrutiny.

I’m not sure if the sun was just really low and late in the day (it was), or if this camera is just hyper-aggressive about brightness compensation. Come to think of it I should have taken some shots with my SD400 for comparison. In any case, I’ve got a bit of learning to do.

Update: In response to Daimon’s request, I just posted a few sample shots different ISOs: Ricoh GR Digital II at ISO 400

Someone at work mentioned the phenomenon of unboxing the other day—the fetish of meticulously recording the process of opening brand new electronics for the vicarious enjoyment of others.

At first I was horrified. I mean, really, could anything more superficial signify the gross consumeristic malaise afflicting this country? But the more I thought about it, the more I came to appreciate it as a playful act of reverence, a way for adults to relive the simple joy of unwrapping presents and to share that joy with others. So I’ve decided to play along. But how did I get here?

A funny thing happened while I was waiting for my Canon A570 IS to arrive. I stopped wanting it. In fact I realized what I wanted was quite different (and quite a bit more expensive): a camera with a full frame, 35mm sensor. But I wasn’t ready to drop $3000 for the Canon 5D and a lens or two just yet. So I decided to return the A570 and keep waiting…

Then a few days later Tim Bray mentioned that Ricoh was releasing an updated version of their completely unique GR Digital. This was a camera I really wanted. A wide fixed focal length point and shoot with SLR features in a small body. Previously I’d been put off by its age, price tag, and supposedly lackluster image quality. But comparing an updated GR Digital to the price and size of a Canon 5D was a no brainer. I jumped on the GR Digital II, and pre-ordered one from Adorama straightaway. It finally arrived today!

What’s the aspect ratio of a rectangle such that dividing it in half, perpendicular to its longest side, yields two smaller rectangles of the same aspect ratio?

 w/h = h/(w/2)
w²/2 = h²
  w² = 2h²
   w = h√2
 w/h = √2 ≈ 1.414

Which is curiously (or conveniently) in between the 4/3 aspect ratio of point and shoot cameras and the 3/2 aspect ratio of 35mm cameras, described in On aspect ratios and photography.

With digital photography and point-and-click editing tools, it seems the concept of a fixed or standard aspect ratio is going extinct. If necessary, you can crop till you get to a composition you find most pleasing, resize for the web (or print), and be done with it.

Of course on a blog, the width is constrained—in my case to a svelte 380 pixels (400–450 is more standard)—so I usually just resize the photo to that maximum width and don’t pay attention to the height. At some point I decided the native aspect ratio of my shots was a little boring and too square, so I started cropping to the golden ratio (cause why not?). I works especially well on landscapes, emphasizing that horizontal perspective.

Just recently I noticed a few of the first photos I included in my blog were slightly less than my standard width, so I went back to the originals, taken with a two megapixal Kodak DC3400, and resized them. Immediately their height caught my eye. It wasn’t the 285 pixels I’d grown accustomed to, it was only 253.

Turns out the sensor on my first digital camera actually had a aspect ratio of 1.5:1, the same as 35mm and digital SLR photography. Whereas the sensor on my Canon SD400, and I’m guessing almost every other point and shoot out there, is a squarer 1.3:1. I’m curious at what point that switch happened, and why. I assume a squarer image is more amenable to cropping and printing, but by itself makes for a less arresting composition.

Here’s a diagram that contrasts the difference in a square context:

I’m curious if anyone’s done any studies or analysis on the aspect ratio of photos by famous photographers (or painters for that matter). Did Ansel Adams crop his shots with the kind of abandon we now crop in GIMP or Photoshop? Or did he limit himself to a few standard or idiosyncratic aspect ratios?

Does anyone else out there think about this kind of stuff?

Update, June 27, 2013: Neat video about The Changing Shape of Cinema: The History of Aspect Ratio

My new camera hasn’t yet arrived (Update: it just arrived!), and I’m already thinking about my next camera. I guess that’s what I get for choosing super saver shipping and it actually taking up to 9 days. Idle hands makes my mind wonder.

Why? Well, there was a paragraph in A camera is only a tool that I never got around to writing once I’d finally decided on the Canon A570 IS. In my head, it went something like this:

Other than weight, the number one bummer of the current crop of affordable digital SLRs is their field of view crop factor. Because their APS-C-sized sensor is smaller than a standard 35mm negative, the corresponding view through the lens gets cropped. This has a number of disadvantages, for one it makes every lens less “wide” (or more “telephoto”)—and in doing so, it wastes weight and glass. It’s also a bit of a challenge to match up a decent prime lens with the desired field of view and aperture, given the crop factor, without having to sell the farm.

The obvious solution? Get a digital SLR with a full frame, “35mm” sensor. Apparently making a flawless 24×36mm hunk of CCD/CMOS is neither easy nor cheap. And so the most portable and affordable SLR with a full frame sensor, the Canon 5D, costs a sweet two grand. This is A Lot Of Money™. The body alone weighs 895g. Hence, the big dog.

But at least with a full frame sensor, I can buy a 50mm f1.4 normal lens and not have it transformed into a semi-telephoto 80mm on the Digital Rebel. Same goes for the 28mm f1.8, a nice wide-angle perspective that would be transformed into a non-wide 45mm field of view.

I dunno, I think I’m finally coming around to Jonathan’s advice: different cameras for different situations. The A570 IS when portability is key or when I’m worried about possible camera causalities, and something like the Canon 5D (or its love-child with the new 40D) in safer scenarios and indoors.

Now I just need to find my photographic benefactor.