"1Dsq" & 3D [CR1]

[c.d.embrey]

Back to the arguement about "Standard  height to width ration".  There is no standard. However, human vision do have more width than height, it is about 3:2, individual milage may vary. That is why the movie industry set this standard at the beginning and Leica adopted it since day one and evey body follows. TV has been using 4:3 for a long time. Movies has been using wide screen for a long time also. DH TV has moved away from 4:3. So what is the right ratio???

In the conventional motion picture format, frames are four perforations tall, with an aspect ratio of about 1.37:1, 22 mm by 16 mm (0.866 in × 0.630 in). This is a derivation of the aspect ratio and frame size designated by Thomas Edison (24.89 mm by 18.67 mm or 0.980 in by 0.735 in) at the dawn of motion pictures, which was an aspect ratio of 1.33:1

VistaVision (used for a few years by Paramount Studios) was an 8 perf wide (film running sideways in the camera) format that was changed from sideways (using an optical printer) to conventional 4 perf for projection at aspect ratios between 1.66:1 and 2.00:1 By making a reduction print from the larger they got finer grain prints. When film improved VistaVision died.

So no motion pictures were ever shown at 1.5:1. Low budget wide screen was done by shooting 1.37:1 and cropping the picture to 1.85:1 with a projector mask.

Leica just took vertical 4 perf and changed it to horizontal 8 perf for their cameras.

[c.d.embrey]

Canon made the right choice when they switched lens mounts in '87. They knew, and understood from the outset, that AF worked best when the AF motor is in each lens.

That's beside the point. Doesn't make any difference why they did it, or that it was what allowed Canon to over-take Nikon with Pro shooters.

The point is that Canon did it ... and will probably do it again at some point, when they see an advantage to doing it, i.e. a square sensor or a mirror-less camera.

[Osiris30]

Canon made the right choice when they switched lens mounts in '87. They knew, and understood from the outset, that AF worked best when the AF motor is in each lens.

That's beside the point. Doesn't make any difference why they did it, or that it was what allowed Canon to over-take Nikon with Pro shooters.

The point is that Canon did it ... and will probably do it again at some point, when they see an advantage to doing it, i.e. a square sensor or a mirror-less camera.

So by that logic, anything that has ever happen will happen again.  Sorry but that argument is so incredibly weak it's not even funny.  Canon caught a LOT of flak over the move to EF at the time.  It cost them *alot* of pros, even if they stayed with Canon they lost a ton of good will, at the time.

Canon may launch a new mount for mirrorless, but only because the flange back requirements will be lower.  This will mean it will still be compatible with EF lenses through an adapter.  The same isn't true if you go to a square sensor and need to increased the flange back.  Unless Canon goes MF I don't think you'll see a new, non-mirrorless mount for a LONG time.

Just because something has happened in the past doesn't mean it will or should happen in the future.