4:3 aspect ratio; has it changed your photography?

I find it a major weakness for µ4/3 that the only aspect ratio you can get is 4:3 (except GH1, GH2). I absolutely love 4:3 in portrait orientation (3:4). How do you feel about the 4:3 aspect ratio? Have you converted from 3:2 to 4:3? Do you shoot differently? Do you often change the aspect ratio by cropping? Would you be willing to pay let's say 200$/€/£ more, if you could optionally get the camera with another aspect ratio (it would probably be 3:2, then).

I still use my GH2 and absolutely love the multi-aspect-ratio sensor. The Panasonic 20mm lens may seem a bit odd in terms of focal length (in 35mm-equivalence it's 40mm), but since 4:3 is horizontally narrower than 3:2, it's horizontally pretty close to the classical 35mm (17.5 in µ4/3) focal lenght. This could be one reason why the lens is so popular.

Sorry, wrong forum. Intention was to post to micro four thirds talk. Again, sorry.

pannumon said:

I find it a major weakness for µ4/3 that the only aspect ratio you can get is 4:3 (except GH1, GH2). I absolutely love 4:3 in portrait orientation (3:4). How do you feel about the 4:3 aspect ratio? Have you converted from 3:2 to 4:3?

Click to expand...

Quite often I crop 3:2 down to 3:4. However, I spent a large part of my life looking through cine and video viewfinders in the pre-digital era.

pannumon said:

Do you shoot differently? Do you often change the aspect ratio by cropping?

Click to expand...

Yup, when it suits me.

pannumon said:

Would you be willing to pay let's say 200$/€/£ more, if you could optionally get the camera with another aspect ratio (it would probably be 3:2, then).

Click to expand...

No way! I'd rather spend the money on something worth having.

pannumon said:

I find it a major weakness for µ4/3 that the only aspect ratio you can get is 4:3 (except GH1, GH2). I absolutely love 4:3 in portrait orientation (3:4). How do you feel about the 4:3 aspect ratio? Have you converted from 3:2 to 4:3? Do you shoot differently? Do you often change the aspect ratio by cropping? Would you be willing to pay let's say 200$/€/£ more, if you could optionally get the camera with another aspect ratio (it would probably be 3:2, then).

Click to expand...

I suppose everyone has their own preferences. Despite using 35mm film cameras for several decades, I very much prefer 4:3 from an aesthetic point of view in general. Of course, for particular shots a more panoramic aspect ratio may be better, in which case I generally crop to 16:9 to fit most computer and TV screens or sometimes even 3:1 or even more.

Portraits and other shots may get cropped to 4:5 or 1:1 according to my taste for that particular shot.

pannumon said:

I find it a major weakness for µ4/3 that the only aspect ratio you can get is 4:3 (except GH1, GH2). I absolutely love 4:3 in portrait orientation (3:4). How do you feel about the 4:3 aspect ratio? Have you converted from 3:2 to 4:3? Do you shoot differently? Do you often change the aspect ratio by cropping? Would you be willing to pay let's say 200$/€/£ more, if you could optionally get the camera with another aspect ratio (it would probably be 3:2, then).

I still use my GH2 and absolutely love the multi-aspect-ratio sensor. The Panasonic 20mm lens may seem a bit odd in terms of focal length (in 35mm-equivalence it's 40mm), but since 4:3 is horizontally narrower than 3:2, it's horizontally pretty close to the classical 35mm (17.5 in µ4/3) focal lenght. This could be one reason why the lens is so popular.

Click to expand...

I feel the same way about 4:3 as I do about 1:1, neither here nor there, and they don't help to tell a story.

3:2 has that dynamic, and when I want a scene to really look alive and lead the viewer somewhere, I crop to 16:9.

pannumon said:

I find it a major weakness for µ4/3 that the only aspect ratio you can get is 4:3 (except GH1, GH2). I absolutely love 4:3 in portrait orientation (3:4). How do you feel about the 4:3 aspect ratio? Have you converted from 3:2 to 4:3? Do you shoot differently? Do you often change the aspect ratio by cropping? Would you be willing to pay let's say 200$/€/£ more, if you could optionally get the camera with another aspect ratio (it would probably be 3:2, then).

I still use my GH2 and absolutely love the multi-aspect-ratio sensor. The Panasonic 20mm lens may seem a bit odd in terms of focal length (in 35mm-equivalence it's 40mm), but since 4:3 is horizontally narrower than 3:2, it's horizontally pretty close to the classical 35mm (17.5 in µ4/3) focal lenght. This could be one reason why the lens is so popular.

Click to expand...

I have a GH2 as well and I know about the multi-aspect sensor. Still, I never use it set to anything but the standard 4:3. I could be wrong but it seemed to me when I tried using it with other aspect ratios that these weren't previewed in the finder... which made that feature all but useless to me. It doesn't really matter though because I'm fine with shooting in 4:3 anyway and then cropping to a different size later.

I happen to really like the look of 4:3 and though I realize that it lacks the sort "cinematic scope" that we all got used to shooting 35mm (or at least those of us who shot film), I like that it forces a kind of tighter composition. I like the square too and feel that the 4:3 is a kind of happy medium between a square and a wider rectangle. All that being said, sometimes I feel that something I've shot works better if I crop it to 3:2. I believe that the aspect ratio is important as I'm very interested in the design/composition elements of photography and format plays a big role in that. I like the freedom to experiment and with that in mind I crop to a few different formats. For the sake of consistency (I like my images to hang together as a group) I pretty much only use 4:3 (for 80%), square, 3:2 and then with panoramas anything goes...

--
my flickr:
www.flickr.com/photos/128435329@N08/

pannumon said:

I find it a major weakness for µ4/3 that the only aspect ratio you can get is 4:3 (except GH1, GH2). I absolutely love 4:3 in portrait orientation (3:4). How do you feel about the 4:3 aspect ratio?

Click to expand...

Love it in either orientation.

pannumon said:

Have you converted from 3:2 to 4:3?

Click to expand...

I've always preferred 4:3 over 3:2 for vertical shots and I like it as much as other aspect ratios for horizontal ones.

pannumon said:

Do you shoot differently?

Click to expand...

I feel more confident shooting vertically than with 3:2.

pannumon said:

Do you often change the aspect ratio by cropping?

Click to expand...

Less often than with 3:2.

pannumon said:

Would you be willing to pay let's say 200$/€/£ more, if you could optionally get the camera with another aspect ratio (it would probably be 3:2, then).

I still use my GH2 and absolutely love the multi-aspect-ratio sensor. The Panasonic 20mm lens may seem a bit odd in terms of focal length (in 35mm-equivalence it's 40mm), but since 4:3 is horizontally narrower than 3:2, it's horizontally pretty close to the classical 35mm (17.5 in µ4/3) focal lenght. This could be one reason why the lens is so popular.

Click to expand...

What is GREAT with the GH2 is that the diagonal stays constant. What isn't great though is that Panasonic didn't follow through with this idea and finally solve what has been an ergonomical nuisance for decades : having to rotate your camera to take vertical shots (and no, cost isn't a problem for m43 cameras as the resulting sensor area wouldn't be far off APSC sensors - the main issues aren't technical but related to design).

MayaTlab0 said:

pannumon said:

I find it a major weakness for µ4/3 that the only aspect ratio you can get is 4:3 (except GH1, GH2). I absolutely love 4:3 in portrait orientation (3:4). How do you feel about the 4:3 aspect ratio?

Click to expand...

Love it in either orientation.

MayaTlab0 said:

Have you converted from 3:2 to 4:3?

Click to expand...

I've always preferred 4:3 over 3:2 for vertical shots and I like it as much as other aspect ratios for horizontal ones.

MayaTlab0 said:

Do you shoot differently?

Click to expand...

I feel more confident shooting vertically than with 3:2.

MayaTlab0 said:

Do you often change the aspect ratio by cropping?

Click to expand...

Less often than with 3:2.

MayaTlab0 said:

Would you be willing to pay let's say 200$/€/£ more, if you could optionally get the camera with another aspect ratio (it would probably be 3:2, then).

I still use my GH2 and absolutely love the multi-aspect-ratio sensor. The Panasonic 20mm lens may seem a bit odd in terms of focal length (in 35mm-equivalence it's 40mm), but since 4:3 is horizontally narrower than 3:2, it's horizontally pretty close to the classical 35mm (17.5 in µ4/3) focal lenght. This could be one reason why the lens is so popular.

Click to expand...

What is GREAT with the GH2 is that the diagonal stays constant. What isn't great though is that Panasonic didn't follow through with this idea and finally solve what has been an ergonomical nuisance for decades : having to rotate your camera to take vertical shots (and no, cost isn't a problem for m43 cameras as the resulting sensor area wouldn't be far off APSC sensors - the main issues aren't technical but related to design).

Click to expand...

Good point... There doesn't seem to be any reason why digital cameras couldn't be designed with a square sensor which would allow for verticals to be shot without having to change the camera orientation. Maybe there's be an easy to access button on the body that would change the orientation.

pannumon said:

I find it a major weakness for µ4/3 that the only aspect ratio you can get is 4:3 (except GH1, GH2). I absolutely love 4:3 in portrait orientation (3:4). How do you feel about the 4:3 aspect ratio? Have you converted from 3:2 to 4:3? Do you shoot differently? Do you often change the aspect ratio by cropping? Would you be willing to pay let's say 200$/€/£ more, if you could optionally get the camera with another aspect ratio (it would probably be 3:2, then).

I still use my GH2 and absolutely love the multi-aspect-ratio sensor. The Panasonic 20mm lens may seem a bit odd in terms of focal length (in 35mm-equivalence it's 40mm), but since 4:3 is horizontally narrower than 3:2, it's horizontally pretty close to the classical 35mm (17.5 in µ4/3) focal lenght. This could be one reason why the lens is so popular.

Click to expand...

Don't understand what you are talking about.

My GM1 has aspect ratios, 4:3 3:2 16:9 & 1:1.

I usually shoot 4:3 and crop.

Tom Axford said:

pannumon said:

I find it a major weakness for µ4/3 that the only aspect ratio you can get is 4:3 (except GH1, GH2). I absolutely love 4:3 in portrait orientation (3:4). How do you feel about the 4:3 aspect ratio? Have you converted from 3:2 to 4:3? Do you shoot differently? Do you often change the aspect ratio by cropping? Would you be willing to pay let's say 200$/€/£ more, if you could optionally get the camera with another aspect ratio (it would probably be 3:2, then).

Click to expand...

I suppose everyone has their own preferences. Despite using 35mm film cameras for several decades, I very much prefer 4:3 from an aesthetic point of view in general. Of course, for particular shots a more panoramic aspect ratio may be better, in which case I generally crop to 16:9 to fit most computer and TV screens or sometimes even 3:1 or even more.

Portraits and other shots may get cropped to 4:5 or 1:1 according to my taste for that particular shot.

Click to expand...

I agree, I find myself cropping to a 1:1 Aspect ratio and I think 4/3s lends itself to efficient use of the sensor for 1:1. Also both 1:1 and 4:3 are what I call, very intimate formats.

Without heavy cropping, big sweeping landscapes don't really lend themselves to either format. BUT, when you want to focus on very specific things. When you want to get "up close, and personal" I think both are quite useful in that way. Fortunately, that is the way I shoot most of the time.

When I want to do a landscape, I've been doing panoramas with the 4:3 AR. Between the two stitching programs, ICE and Hugin, I've been able to get some great "panos" with a wide sweep.

ludwik123 said:

pannumon said:

I find it a major weakness for µ4/3 that the only aspect ratio you can get is 4:3 (except GH1, GH2). I absolutely love 4:3 in portrait orientation (3:4). How do you feel about the 4:3 aspect ratio? Have you converted from 3:2 to 4:3? Do you shoot differently? Do you often change the aspect ratio by cropping? Would you be willing to pay let's say 200$/€/£ more, if you could optionally get the camera with another aspect ratio (it would probably be 3:2, then).

I still use my GH2 and absolutely love the multi-aspect-ratio sensor. The Panasonic 20mm lens may seem a bit odd in terms of focal length (in 35mm-equivalence it's 40mm), but since 4:3 is horizontally narrower than 3:2, it's horizontally pretty close to the classical 35mm (17.5 in µ4/3) focal lenght. This could be one reason why the lens is so popular.

Click to expand...

Don't understand what you are talking about.

My GM1 has aspect ratios, 4:3 3:2 16:9 & 1:1.

I usually shoot 4:3 and crop.

Click to expand...

I think that perhaps the OP is referring to a unique feature that the GH2 has. It's a got a slightly wider (I think) sensor so that when you shoot at a wider format, you get greater number of pixels in there than if you were just to crop an ordinary m4/3 sensor. I'm pretty sure that it's still not the full 16mp, but it's a little more than if you were to crop your GM1 into that same wider aspect ratio.

*note: I might be describing this somewhat inaccurately, but I'm sure that someone will correct me if I have. I'm pretty sure that this is how it works though...

--
my flickr:
www.flickr.com/photos/128435329@N08/

pannumon said:

How do you feel about the 4:3 aspect ratio?

Click to expand...

I use it quite often for final output; I also use 5:4 and with both I use them either horizontally or vertically. 16:9 I use only horizontally; I also use 1:1 and other ratios from time to time.

pannumon said:

Have you converted from 3:2 to 4:3?

Click to expand...

Converted? I've been using 3:2 cameras for decades but if I want a different final aspect ratio I just frame accordingly. I also have a 4:3 camera.

pannumon said:

Do you shoot differently?

Click to expand...

No.

pannumon said:

Do you often change the aspect ratio by cropping?

Click to expand...

Almost always. Of all the common aspect ratios 3:2 is what I find least appealing.

pannumon said:

Would you be willing to pay let's say 200$/€/£ more, if you could optionally get the camera with another aspect ratio (it would probably be 3:2, then).

Click to expand...

No. I'd like to be able to select an aspect ratio overlay in the viewfinder but not so much that I'd want to pay for it.

Aaron801 said:

MayaTlab0 said:

pannumon said:

I still use my GH2 and absolutely love the multi-aspect-ratio sensor. The Panasonic 20mm lens may seem a bit odd in terms of focal length (in 35mm-equivalence it's 40mm), but since 4:3 is horizontally narrower than 3:2, it's horizontally pretty close to the classical 35mm (17.5 in µ4/3) focal lenght. This could be one reason why the lens is so popular.

Click to expand...

What is GREAT with the GH2 is that the diagonal stays constant. What isn't great though is that Panasonic didn't follow through with this idea and finally solve what has been an ergonomical nuisance for decades : having to rotate your camera to take vertical shots (and no, cost isn't a problem for m43 cameras as the resulting sensor area wouldn't be far off APSC sensors - the main issues aren't technical but related to design).

Click to expand...

Good point... There doesn't seem to be any reason why digital cameras couldn't be designed with a square sensor which would allow for verticals to be shot without having to change the camera orientation. Maybe there's be an easy to access button on the body that would change the orientation.

Click to expand...

Since I think very few people will shoot 16:9 vertical and some will want to have a more cinemascopish aspect ratio, I don't think a square sensor would be quite ideal. Something that goes from 3:2 vertical to at least 16:9 or even 2.4:1 would be preferable I think (with a constant diagonal of course). Of course technical things such as, for example, the IBIS mechanism, would have to be redesigned to accommodate a slightly bigger sensor and heavier filter stacks but since Sony can stabilise a FF sensor, I suppose Olympus or Panasonic could probably stabilise a sensor with the area of an APSC sensor without much difficulty.

Doing the same thing with a FF diagonal tough, could start to become a lot more difficult and costlier. Perhaps that's one competitive advantage card m43 could play.

Otherwise design issues aren't just related to the one control that will allow users to switch aspect ratios (although I think that's issue n°1, since if it isn't brilliantly designed full stop people will continue to rotate the camera for the occasional vertical shot), but also LCD / EVF aspect ratios, information displays, what to save on the memory card, should aspect ratios be saved or not when powering the camera on or off, etc... A lot of somewhat complicated design stuff that camera manufacturers could be very likely to fail at, given how often they seem to fail at very basic things (hey Leica, what about exposure compensation on your shiny new SL ?). Basically, the risk is that it complicates the camera in any way, shape or form, and introduces too many compromises, which would hinder users' acceptance.

Aaron801 said:

ludwik123 said:

pannumon said:

I find it a major weakness for µ4/3 that the only aspect ratio you can get is 4:3 (except GH1, GH2). I absolutely love 4:3 in portrait orientation (3:4). How do you feel about the 4:3 aspect ratio? Have you converted from 3:2 to 4:3? Do you shoot differently? Do you often change the aspect ratio by cropping? Would you be willing to pay let's say 200$/€/£ more, if you could optionally get the camera with another aspect ratio (it would probably be 3:2, then).

I still use my GH2 and absolutely love the multi-aspect-ratio sensor. The Panasonic 20mm lens may seem a bit odd in terms of focal length (in 35mm-equivalence it's 40mm), but since 4:3 is horizontally narrower than 3:2, it's horizontally pretty close to the classical 35mm (17.5 in µ4/3) focal lenght. This could be one reason why the lens is so popular.

Click to expand...

Don't understand what you are talking about.

My GM1 has aspect ratios, 4:3 3:2 16:9 & 1:1.

I usually shoot 4:3 and crop.

Click to expand...

I think that perhaps the OP is referring to a unique feature that the GH2 has. It's a got a slightly wider (I think) sensor so that when you shoot at a wider format, you get greater number of pixels in there than if you were just to crop an ordinary m4/3 sensor. I'm pretty sure that it's still not the full 16mp, but it's a little more than if you were to crop your GM1 into that same wider aspect ratio.

*note: I might be describing this somewhat inaccurately, but I'm sure that someone will correct me if I have. I'm pretty sure that this is how it works though...

--
my flickr:
www.flickr.com/photos/128435329@N08/

Click to expand...

You are correct. My mistake.

I think 4:3 is a bit of a hindrance to wide angles because the horizontal FOV is less at the same equivalent focal length. So I guess this occasionally impacts landscapes, but not by a lot since you can easily frame for it with the camera. But, you do probably need get a 22mm equivalent lens to match the wideness of a 24mm lens on 3:2.

Where I really like it is for portraits! 4:3 is a lot closer to 5x7, 11x14 and 8x10 formats. Which means I don't have to crop much for portrait printing. When shooting 3:2 is hard to predict exactly how much padding you need for an 8x10 crop so I did fairly often end up with shots that couldn't crop well to the desired print size. This is almost never an issue with 4:3

I just get used to whatever I use for a while. Now 3:2 cameras seem off to me when I shoot them. 4:3 seemed odd for the first month after I switched from an SLR. We humans are pretty adaptable, so not a lot of stress or worry should be given to this.

tkbslc said:

I think 4:3 is a bit of a hindrance to wide angles because the horizontal FOV is less at the same equivalent focal length.

Click to expand...

Interesting point, but how silly are we supposed to get in the quest for making the most of the X-axis for a lens? Gunslit sensors?

Even though most of the time I use cameras in portrait orientation, and sometimes only need 1:2 ratio, I would rather have a less stark orientation of sensors and I would be fine with 4:3 sensors; no point having a 1:1 sensor since I'd almost always be losing pixels by cropping. I'd prefer to have a sensor whose long:short sides are a gentle suggestion to composition rather than a tyranny. In my monitors for example, I prefer 4:3 or 5:4 to 16x9. 6x7 maybe too little 'suggestion', but I could try it.

fishy wishy said:

tkbslc said:

I think 4:3 is a bit of a hindrance to wide angles because the horizontal FOV is less at the same equivalent focal length.

Click to expand...

Interesting point, but how silly are we supposed to get in the quest for making the most of the X-axis for a lens? Gunslit sensors?

Click to expand...

I was comparing to 3:2, so I don't think that is being "silly". Obviously you need some kind of balance. I am sure you didn't think I was advocating 10:1 ratio.

If I had specialized camera bodies, I think I'd take 4:5 for portraits and 2:1 for landscapes, but you have to compromise somewhere in the middle to get a well rounded camera. 2:3 is pretty close to right in the middle of those two. 4:3 is half way between 2:1 and 1:1, so you can argue that's a nice compromise, too. I get along fine with either.

pannumon said:

I find it a major weakness for µ4/3 that the only aspect ratio you can get is 4:3 (except GH1, GH2).

Click to expand...

Please try again. Almost every Micro 4/3 offers 4:3, 3:2, 1:1 and 16:9 framing; some even offer 4:3 vertical.

Fuji is now offering 3:2, 16:9, 1:1. Sony finally put out a camera with those ratios too (RX1R II).

pannumon said:

How do you feel about the 4:3 aspect ratio?

Click to expand...

It's alright. I'd prefer 5:4 and 5:2. I usually shoot 1:1 or 16:9. I'll occasionally shoot 4:3. I can't stand 3:2.

pannumon said:

Do you often change the aspect ratio by cropping?

Click to expand...

Yes. In-camera cropping, thank you EVF.

pannumon said:

Would you be willing to pay let's say 200$/€/£ more, if you could optionally get the camera with another aspect ratio (it would probably be 3:2, then).

Click to expand...

Only if I got to pick the precise ratios. Seems unlikely.

pannumon said:

I still use my GH2 and absolutely love the multi-aspect-ratio sensor.

Click to expand...

Ehh. Good for videographers, not too important unless you use 16:9 most of the time.

pannumon said:

The Panasonic 20mm lens may seem a bit odd in terms of focal length (in 35mm-equivalence it's 40mm), but since 4:3 is horizontally narrower than 3:2, it's horizontally pretty close to the classical 35mm (17.5 in µ4/3) focal lenght. This could be one reason why the lens is so popular.

Click to expand...

I think Panasonic designed it that way, but that's not why it was popular. It's because it was one of the first fast, small, reasonably sharp lenses for M4/3. There was no real competition when it came out. Today, there's numerous excellent 25mm lenses; the 17mm f/1.8 Oly lens is excellent, too.

SpinOne said:

pannumon said:

I find it a major weakness for µ4/3 that the only aspect ratio you can get is 4:3 (except GH1, GH2).

Click to expand...

Please try again. Almost every Micro 4/3 offers 4:3, 3:2, 1:1 and 16:9 framing; some even offer 4:3 vertical.

Fuji is now offering 3:2, 16:9, 1:1. Sony finally put out a camera with those ratios too (RX1R II).

Click to expand...

Aside from the two cameras he mentioned, the rest merely crop the original frame. You aren't shooting at those ratios, you are cropping 3:4 to those ratios. It makes a big difference. A native 3:2 sensor will have noticeably more width and less height vs a 4:3 ratio sensor when shot at the same diagonal. A 4:3 sensor shot at 3:2 will just have less height, yet the same width.

SpinOne said:

SpinOne said:

How do you feel about the 4:3 aspect ratio?

Click to expand...

It's alright. I'd prefer 5:4 and 5:2. I usually shoot 1:1 or 16:9. I'll occasionally shoot 4:3. I can't stand 3:2.

SpinOne said:

Do you often change the aspect ratio by cropping?

Click to expand...

Yes. In-camera cropping, thank you EVF.

SpinOne said:

Would you be willing to pay let's say 200$/€/£ more, if you could optionally get the camera with another aspect ratio (it would probably be 3:2, then).

Click to expand...

Only if I got to pick the precise ratios. Seems unlikely.

SpinOne said:

I still use my GH2 and absolutely love the multi-aspect-ratio sensor.

Click to expand...

Ehh. Good for videographers, not too important unless you use 16:9 most of the time.

SpinOne said:

The Panasonic 20mm lens may seem a bit odd in terms of focal length (in 35mm-equivalence it's 40mm), but since 4:3 is horizontally narrower than 3:2, it's horizontally pretty close to the classical 35mm (17.5 in µ4/3) focal lenght. This could be one reason why the lens is so popular.

Click to expand...

I think Panasonic designed it that way, but that's not why it was popular. It's because it was one of the first fast, small, reasonably sharp lenses for M4/3. There was no real competition when it came out. Today, there's numerous excellent 25mm lenses; the 17mm f/1.8 Oly lens is excellent, too.

Click to expand...

I think that math is off. If it is horizontally narrower, then it could not be similar to a wider AOV on a Wider aspect ratio. It could be similar vertically to 35mm equivalent on 3:2, though, since 4:3 is a taller aspect ratio. (I understand that was his point, not yours, but you continued it)

I think that's probably the majority view, but I don't really feel that way. I do think that for the most part very tall formats don't work so well for portraits. On the other hand though, I've seen landscape shots done with a square format that I really liked. Of course the traditional way of lookng at landscape is more of a cinematic type thing but in some ways I think that's become a bit of a cliche. Landscape to me can be envisioned in all sorts of different ways with all sorts of different compositional strategies and if an image can work well in a s 4:3 or 1:1 space it's a bonus for me as it's a bit of a fresher approach to it...