Native 16:9 Canon cameras

Are there any native 16:9 format cameras made by Canon?

Thanks!

The Panasonic-Leica point and shoots are native 16:9 with RAW, manual modes, and good image quality.

Thanks Hoff- I'll have a looksee.

Not from Canon, except for HD video cameras perhaps. I know a couple people with those Leicasonic cameras with the 16:9 sensors and they seem to like the cameras.

I don't know about other Canons, but the PowerShot A720 has a Wide mode. You just have to select it in the menu and all your images will be 16:9.

Audio- I tthink that just crops the image, so you go from the full MP to like .7 of full- say from 8 to 6mp. That's the way some of them work. Ill look into it though- thanks!

The Pana-Leicas are opposite.. they are native 16:9 but offer a "cropped" version down to a standard ratio.

The_Camera_Poser wrote in post #5720375
Audio- I tthink that just crops the image, so you go from the full MP to like .7 of full- say from 8 to 6mp. That's the way some of them work. Ill look into it though- thanks!

Yes, you're right, about 6mp instead of 8mp.
3,264 x 2,448 (Large)
3,264 x 1,832 (Widescreen)

Does it matter? How big are you planning to blow these photos up?

audiobomber wrote in post #5721778
Yes, you're right, about 6mp instead of 8mp.
3,264 x 2,448 (Large)
3,264 x 1,832 (Widescreen)

Does it matter? How big are you planning to blow these photos up?

I do print stuff off pretty large, and crop a bit too. If I was going to crop- I'd just use my SLR. But still, if I'm looking for a digicam, I'll keep it in mind- staying in Canon means no extra software.

The_Camera_Poser wrote in post #5722776
I do print stuff off pretty large, and crop a bit too. If I was going to crop- I'd just use my SLR. But still, if I'm looking for a digicam, I'll keep it in mind- staying in Canon means no extra software.

The only reason to shoot in 16x9 mode (given that it's just a crop on the Canon models) is if you wanted to display the images directly on a 16x9 screen. However, if you later wanted to crop the image down to 4x6 for printing, you'd end up with a considerably smaller image than if you'd stuck in the standard mode to begin with.

I wanted to print at 16:9.

Most people want to print at a standard paper size . . . However, given the lack of standardized paper sizes, there isn't a single image aspect ratio that will print neatly without cropping on all print sizes.

Jon- absolutely- I end up having to crop almost everything or shell out the big bucks for printing. I'm more after getting the most decent MP coverage for the formats I use- 16-9 is like a poor-man's panoramic without having to stitch- thus my interest in it. Makes much more sense as a landscape format to me than 3:2.

If there were Canon DSLRs with native 16:9 I'd grab one!

Unfortunately, 16:9 is even more inefficient at using your lens than 3:2; a 1:1 aspect ratio makes optimum use of a lens, hence the lenses are less (relatively) expensive. They use the (sweet spot) center more than the edges; a 16:9 pushes more picture further out to the edge of the image circle, so correction of aberrations is more critical.

To extend that thought Jon, when will we see round detectors?