OM-D E-M5 vs E-5 (build quality)

Started May 13, 2013 | Discussions thread
Shop cameras & lenses ▾
 Like?
 Re: On aspect ratios. In reply to boggis the cat, May 31, 2013

boggis the cat wrote:

Great Bustard wrote:

boggis the cat wrote:

4:3 is a more efficient use of an image circle than 3:2 -- but, again, if you are discussing lenses designed for the sensor (and thus the aspect ratio) then there is no 'cropping advantage'.

I'm disappointed to see you write that, especially as it has been explained to you so many times before that the most efficienct aspect ratio for a sensor is the aspect ratio that most nearly matches the aspect ratio of the final photo.

Well, this is because you are unable to comprehend what I am saying.

I'm quite sure that's not the issue.

1:1 is the most efficient use of an image circle -- and the efficiency falls as you move away from 1:1.  Thus, 4:3 is more efficient that 3:2, and 3:2 is more efficient than 16:9 etc.

That is simply geometry.

Well, you're wrong, boggis.  If I display my photos at 3:2 (or wider), for example, a 3:2 sensor is far more efficient than a 1:1 sensor for a given sensor diagonal.

That's simple geometry.

For example, for someone who usually displays their photos 4:3 (or more square), 4:3 is, indeed, the more efficient aspect ratio than 3:2 for the sensor.  For someone like me, on the other hand, who usually displays their photos 3:2 (or more wide), 3:2, in fact, is the more efficient aspect ratio for the sensor than 4:3.

Final use is a much more complex consideration.

It is *the* consideration.

If you know that the final use will be e.g. a 1:1 crop or a 2:1 billboard then you can select a format with an appropriate aspect ratio.

In general, the aspect ratio of a system is probably the least important consideration of a system, as the difference between 4:3 and 3:2 is as trivial as trivial gets.  A 4% difference in area between a 3:2 photo and 4:3 photo with the same diagonal, and an 11% difference in area between 3:2 cropped to 4:3 or 4:3 cropped to 3:2.  More to the point, cropping 3:2 to 4:3 or vice-versa is the difference between 18 MP and 16 MP.  Big difference, eh?

In other words, choosing a 3:2 system over a 4:3 system because you crop to 2:1 all the time, or choosing a 4:3 system over a 3:2 system 'cause you crop to 1:1 all the time, is beyond ridiculous given all the other differences between systems.

In general, however, my view is that using as much of that expensive lens as possible is a good thing (all else being equal).

What a shame that this outstanding first place winning photo:

http://www.dpreview.com/challenges/Entry.aspx?ID=748352&View=Results&Rows=4

was cropped to 16:11, don't you think?  Fact of the matter is that artistic considerations trump that absolutely trivial IQ considerations involved with cropping, even more so when comparing systems with aspect ratios so close to each other.

Complain
Post ()
Hmm.New
Yup!New
Keyboard shortcuts: