Reading mode: Light Dark

aspect ratios - 4:3 vs 3:2

Go to last post
S

sdh

Well-known member
Messages
207
Solutions
1
Reaction score
7
Location
US
Just curious. Does anyone else think new cameras should be 3:2 instead of 4:3? I speculate most image viewing these days is done on computer & TV screens, not prints. I don't remember the last time I saw a new laptop or large-desktop monitor, or new TV that was 4:3. IMO, 3:2 images "fill" 16:9 screens pretty well, but 4:3 images waste too much space on the sides. Sure, 4:3 cameras can be set to create 3:2 images, but most do so by cropping, at which point you're wasting the lens' angle of view and (more trivially) losing pixel count.

Im curious what others think.
 
sdh said:
Just curious. Does anyone else think new cameras should be 3:2 instead of 4:3? I speculate most image viewing these days is done on computer & TV screens, not prints. I don't remember the last time I saw a new laptop or large-desktop monitor, or new TV that was 4:3. IMO, 3:2 images "fill" 16:9 screens pretty well, but 4:3 images waste too much space on the sides. Sure, 4:3 cameras can be set to create 3:2 images, but most do so by cropping, at which point you're wasting the lens' angle of view and (more trivially) losing pixel count.

Im curious what others think.
Click to expand...
When shooting for magazines and brochure/catalog/etc. layout-grids, using 3:4 is actually an advantage. Apart from the occasional banner/panoramic image, images used in print are generally MUCH more square than 2:3. My pictures clearly get cropped less, and less often, since I have been using the E-system.

I also find 3:4 much better for portraits (vertical images) than 2:3, which is just a bit too narrow/long...

Personally I am also a fan of square images. (6x6, Instagram...)

ymmv...
Lourens
 
I do not think. I have no reason to do so.





--
I’m surprised how much Wikipedia contributes to the forum.

 
I do shoot 3:2 most of the time (one of the things I like about the GH2), but there is no "right" or "best" aspect ration, other than the one that fits your subject. I see too many people try to force their image into a specific format, even though it means there's some distracting detail at once edge of the image, or something important gets cut off. I crop to suit my subject and image, and if that's wider or taller than 3:2, or 4:3, or something else, so be it.
--

Bokeh is the aesthetic quality of the blur in out-of-focus areas of an image, or the way the lens renders out-of-focus points of light. Bokeh is not the same as depth of field (DOF).
 
I would have been happier if the sensor was 3:2 format for wider landscape pictures, which tends to be what I shoot a lot. However, for portraits and general print making I tend to make 8x10 the most and 4:3 format is much closer to that, so less would be cropped and I'd have more on the vertical FOV captured by the 4:3 sensor than the 3:2 would have, so that is a bit of a perk.

That said, I do love me some 8x12 print goodness, I just don't feel it makes a good format for portraits (but I love nice 8x12 and 12x18 landscapes).

As for using a m4/3, I don't change the aspect ratio. I can always crop in post if I need to. I can't get back pixels that weren't captured (well, only applies to JPEGs).
 
I think GH2 gives you multi aspect sensor
azazel1024 said:
I would have been happier if the sensor was 3:2 format for wider landscape pictures, which tends to be what I shoot a lot. However, for portraits and general print making I tend to make 8x10 the most and 4:3 format is much closer to that, so less would be cropped and I'd have more on the vertical FOV captured by the 4:3 sensor than the 3:2 would have, so that is a bit of a perk.

That said, I do love me some 8x12 print goodness, I just don't feel it makes a good format for portraits (but I love nice 8x12 and 12x18 landscapes).

As for using a m4/3, I don't change the aspect ratio. I can always crop in post if I need to. I can't get back pixels that weren't captured (well, only applies to JPEGs).
Click to expand...
 
sdh said:
Just curious. Does anyone else think new cameras should be 3:2 instead of 4:3? I speculate most image viewing these days is done on computer & TV screens, not prints. I don't remember the last time I saw a new laptop or large-desktop monitor, or new TV that was 4:3. IMO, 3:2 images "fill" 16:9 screens pretty well, but 4:3 images waste too much space on the sides. Sure, 4:3 cameras can be set to create 3:2 images, but most do so by cropping, at which point you're wasting the lens' angle of view and (more trivially) losing pixel count.

Im curious what others think.
Click to expand...
...a square sensor that circumscribes the image circle would be the best solution, and is very feasible for smaller sensor mirrorless. In fact, just using an APS-C sized sensor in mFT bodies comes close enough that I'm surprised it has not been done.
 
I had an X100 for a year and loved it to bits... all except that pesky 3:2 format. What a drag. Portrait format shots just don't work as well. I suppose if you never print and do lots of video, then 16:9 might be good, but 3:2 I find too restricting. Now 5:4 would be nice....

Alistair
--

http://www.flickr.com/photos/twonker/
 
I guess the best compromise between use of image circle and use of wafer fabric would actually be a hexagonal sensor, but I image the electronics and software would be a nightmare :(

I imagine square is not too efficient in terms of maximising pixels from the image circle?

Alistair
--

http://www.flickr.com/photos/twonker/
 
It has more resolution in 16:9 than a similar 16mp APS-C, same as the 18mp Canon, and in 3:2 ratio is still 15mp, native image. Alongside a 16mp Sony 3:2 sensor you see no difference.

So, its been around for 4 years+ on GH, 16:9 and 3:2 native ratio have been around for some time in m43.















 
Can somebody please tell me what is the "natural" aspect ratio of a MFT camera? By that I mean what is the aspect ratio that best takes advantage of the available pixels. I guess that would be the one that has the same proportions of the sensor in the camera. Please explain.
 
twonker said:
I guess the best compromise between use of image circle and use of wafer fabric would actually be a hexagonal sensor, but I image the electronics and software would be a nightmare :(

I imagine square is not too efficient in terms of maximising pixels from the image circle?
Click to expand...
I'm talking about a square sensor that circumscribes the image circle. That is, the entire image circle fits on the sensor. This way, the photographer can choose any aspect ratio they like, even after the fact. Another great bonus is that the camera need not be held in portrait orientation -- it could always be held in landscape orientation, which is especially convenient if bouncing an on-camera flash.
 
efontu said:
Can somebody please tell me what is the "natural" aspect ratio of a MFT camera? By that I mean what is the aspect ratio that best takes advantage of the available pixels. I guess that would be the one that has the same proportions of the sensor in the camera. Please explain.
Click to expand...
GH2, has higher resolution in 16:9 ratio than a Sony aps-c sensor in 16:9? If you like 16:9 ratio then GH2 has the highest resolution beyond APS-C 16mp. In 3:2 ratio GH2 is 15mp, 1mp behind the Sony 16mp sensor. If you like to move between 16:9 and 3:2, GH2 takes some beating. The GH2 video is also native 16:9 same fov, its not croped like an aps-c sensor or the other m43 cameras.
 
Oly500Enew said:
3:2 while good for landscapes is anachronistic. My monitor at work is square and closer to 4/3rds and my home one is 16/9. Crop as needed.
Click to expand...
Your monitor at work is 4:3, how old is that? The world is 3:2 and 16:9 and going wider. m43 refers to the mount and with the GH2 camera you dont crop at all, you have a real 16:9 ratio for video, a real 3:2 15mp ratio for stills and a real 4:3 ratio for square people? ;-)
Oly500Enew said:
If you want 3/2 then buy a 3:2 camera.
--
Click to expand...
If you want 3:2 in m43 buy a GH2, its native 3:2, ignore these people.
Oly500Enew said:
I'm not a professional, but I did stay at a Holiday Inn express last night.
Click to expand...
Cool.
Oly500Enew said:
http://www.2112photography.net
http://www.flickr.com/photos/21868346@N00/
Click to expand...
 
Great Bustard said:
sdh said:
Just curious. Does anyone else think new cameras should be 3:2 instead of 4:3? I speculate most image viewing these days is done on computer & TV screens, not prints. I don't remember the last time I saw a new laptop or large-desktop monitor, or new TV that was 4:3. IMO, 3:2 images "fill" 16:9 screens pretty well, but 4:3 images waste too much space on the sides. Sure, 4:3 cameras can be set to create 3:2 images, but most do so by cropping, at which point you're wasting the lens' angle of view and (more trivially) losing pixel count.

Im curious what others think.
Click to expand...
...a square sensor that circumscribes the image circle would be the best solution, and is very feasible for smaller sensor mirrorless. In fact, just using an APS-C sized sensor in mFT bodies comes close enough that I'm surprised it has not been done.
Click to expand...
It has pretty much, the GH2 has a 3:2 ratio sensor, you select what ratio you want with no loss of resolution for the FOV.
 
efontu said:
Can somebody please tell me what is the "natural" aspect ratio of a MFT camera? By that I mean what is the aspect ratio that best takes advantage of the available pixels. I guess that would be the one that has the same proportions of the sensor in the camera. Please explain.
Click to expand...
The natural aspect ratio of the Olympus 4/3 and m4/3 sensors is 4:3.

I am not sure about all of the Panasonic sensors, but some are true multiaspect. That said, I THINK that their sensors are natively 4:3 sensors sized, but when they do the pixel read out for something like 3:2, they aren't cropping pixels, they are using pixels further out on the sensor that are NOT readout when in 4:3 mode to the best of my knowledge. So with the Oly cameras if you shoot in say 3:2 mode with a 12MP sensor, you might only be getting 10MP out of it because it is cropping. On the Panasonic multi aspect sensors if you shoot in 4:3 mode with a 12MP sensor you get 12MP, if you shoot in 3:2 mode, you still get (I think basically) 12MP of resolution, it is just using somewhat different pixels for the different formats...but approximately as many in both shooting modes.
 
on the GH2

What are you smoking, the GH series have always had a 3:2 native sensor and allows a stretched native 16:9 and a 4:3 ratio if you want it.




azazel1024 said:
efontu said:
Can somebody please tell me what is the "natural" aspect ratio of a MFT camera? By that I mean what is the aspect ratio that best takes advantage of the available pixels. I guess that would be the one that has the same proportions of the sensor in the camera. Please explain.
Click to expand...
The natural aspect ratio of the Olympus 4/3 and m4/3 sensors is 4:3.

I am not sure about all of the Panasonic sensors, but some are true multiaspect. That said, I THINK that their sensors are natively 4:3 sensors sized, but when they do the pixel read out for something like 3:2, they aren't cropping pixels, they are using pixels further out on the sensor that are NOT readout when in 4:3 mode to the best of my knowledge. So with the Oly cameras if you shoot in say 3:2 mode with a 12MP sensor, you might only be getting 10MP out of it because it is cropping. On the Panasonic multi aspect sensors if you shoot in 4:3 mode with a 12MP sensor you get 12MP, if you shoot in 3:2 mode, you still get (I think basically) 12MP of resolution, it is just using somewhat different pixels for the different formats...but approximately as many in both shooting modes.
Click to expand...
 
Adventsam said:
Great Bustard said:
sdh said:
Just curious. Does anyone else think new cameras should be 3:2 instead of 4:3? I speculate most image viewing these days is done on computer & TV screens, not prints. I don't remember the last time I saw a new laptop or large-desktop monitor, or new TV that was 4:3. IMO, 3:2 images "fill" 16:9 screens pretty well, but 4:3 images waste too much space on the sides. Sure, 4:3 cameras can be set to create 3:2 images, but most do so by cropping, at which point you're wasting the lens' angle of view and (more trivially) losing pixel count.

Im curious what others think.
Click to expand...
...a square sensor that circumscribes the image circle would be the best solution, and is very feasible for smaller sensor mirrorless. In fact, just using an APS-C sized sensor in mFT bodies comes close enough that I'm surprised it has not been done.
Click to expand...
It has pretty much, the GH2 has a 3:2 ratio sensor, you select what ratio you want with no loss of resolution for the FOV.
Click to expand...
Yes, it does have an oversized 3:2 sensor, and 4:3, 3:2, and 16:9 can be selected with no penalty. However, there is a substantial loss with 1:1, and you still need to rotate the camera for portrait crops.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.

Similar threads

koo22
Venturing into the Micro 4/3 world.....
2 3
Replies
41
Views
662
Ceanadach
Ceanadach
K
  • Question Question
Aspect ratio setting
Replies
0
Views
47
kluebecks
K
Rumle
Wide aspect ratio on YouTube
Replies
10
Views
937
Rumle
Rumle
D
Advice on aspect ratio for R5II and Frame TV
Replies
3
Views
29
bing041
B
R
Lumix G9 - Setting Aspect Ratio
Replies
9
Views
10
RealImage
R

Keyboard shortcuts

f
Forum
m
My threads
Mobile site
About
Editorial content
Cameras & Lenses
Community
All content, design, and layout are Copyright © 1998–2025 Digital Photography Review All Rights Reserved.
Reproduction in whole or part in any form or medium without specific written permission is prohibited.
When you use DPReview links to buy products, the site may earn a commission.
©GPS Media - Guides, Products, Services.
Back
Top