aspect ratios - 4:3 vs 3:2

kenw · May 12, 2012

Great Bustard said:
I pay keen attention to Language. See Louis' "Ansel" thread for an example.

That's certainly not a bad thing!

Great Bustard said:
Guess I'm not a "thoughtful 3:2 shooter".

I certainly didn't mean to imply that! As you describe you "think" out the composition using the 3:2 aspect of your viewfinder. Not unlike in film days you had to shoot with your emulsion in mind as PP options were limited. Different approaches to the same problem.

Great Bustard said:
I tend to compose in the viewfinder, not on the computer monitor. For sure, there are times I eff up and need to crop, but 95% of the time, the composition I captured is the composition I wanted.

Well I rarely compose on the monitor either - usually too late by then. But I do compose in camera with a final aspect in mind. Since that is usually 4:5 or 5:7 I find 4:3 to be the most flexible in preserving imager area and FoV.

--
Ken W
See profile for equipment list

Aleo Veuliah · May 12, 2012

--
Simplicity is the ultimate sophistication.

God is the tangential point between zero and infinity.

Imagination is more important than knowledge.

God always take the simplest way.

http://aleo-photo.org

http://blog.aleo-photo.org

boggis the cat · May 13, 2012

Great Bustard said:
boggis the cat said:

Great Bustard said:

[Ideally] 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...

Wasn't it you who likes to claim that the final crop is the only relevant factor in determining the usefulness of a sensor aspect ratio?

http://forums.dpreview.com/forums/read.asp?forum=1022&message=41481274

Click to expand...

For a sensor inscribed in the image circle.

For a sensor circumscribing the image circle, any crop other than 1:1 will necessarily drop a larger portion of the sensor area.

1:1 is the most efficient use of the available light, 5:4 less so, 4:3 less so again, etc.

Great Bustard said:
Great Bustard said:

You seem to agree with me that a 1:1 sensor allowing variable aspect ratio would make the most sense.

Click to expand...

For a sensor circumscribed about the image circle.

Great Bustard said:

If you restrict the widest (or tallest, for vertical orientation) aspect ratio to e.g. 2:1 then you needn't fully circumscribe the image circle, either.

Click to expand...

A big advantage of a square sensor that circumscribes the image circle is that the camera need not be rotated for landscape vs portrait aspect ratios, which is particularly useful if using on-camera bounced flash.

My point is that you need only circumscribe the rectangle with the largest aspect ratio, and restricting that to a reasonable limit will reduce the sensor size required (or allow for a larger image circle, depending on which way you look at it).

The sensor need only cover the area of the image circle used, and the lesser the unused "corner areas" (outside the image circle), the better.

Great Bustard said:
Great Bustard said:

I am also surprised that no manufacturer has decided that such a system offers a competitive advantage, outside of Panasonic's limited implementations. (Perhaps they have a broad patent that covers this?)

Click to expand...

Canon missed their opportunity with the G1X.

The G1X has a fixed lens, and seems to be more of an attempt to find the largest sensor they can get away with in a high-quality "compact" camera -- note that they didn't opt for their APS-C variant, but went with a squarer, 4:3, ratio.

They can still decide to produce a 1:1 based system with their mirrorless competitor. I'm not optimistic about that, but Canon can and do innovate -- something often ignored in both members of the camera "duopoly".

Sgt_Strider · Jan 27, 2013

Marty4650 said:
Marty4650 wrote:

If your goal is to perfectly fit your computer monitor, and "waste no pixels" then the ideal sensor aspect ratio might be 16:9... or perhaps even 16:7. This might be best for people who never print photos, and who can only compose photos in "widescreen" mode.

But if your goal is to take photos in the aspect ration that best suits the composition, then you will have to use lots of different aspect ratios. And there are only two ways to currently do this. Either crop the photo (after the fact, or before using in-camera masking) or simply own a lot of cameras with different aspect ratios.

There are many compositions for which 4:3 works a lot better than 3:2. For example, vertical shots and portraits. Similarly, there are others where 3:2 might be better, like landscape shots. And there are times that 1:1 is the best possible choice.

If 3:2 was the "best aspect ratio" then someone must explain why $30,000 medium format cameras usually provide a 6:7 or 5:4 or even 1:1 aspect ratio. If customers wanted 3:2, then surely someone would sell those to them.

I think Great Bustard has the best idea. Simply use a "way over-sized" sensor so the image circle is circumscribed. There are just too many advantages to this idea, and the cost should be reasonable now that sensor prices have started coming down. Panasonic actually did something similar to this by using a "slightly over-sized" sensor to reduce the image loss due to cropping.

As good as the Olympus OM-D results seem to be, I cannot help but think that image quality would be even better if a "way over-sized" Sony 16.2 MP APS-C sensor was used (the very same sensor used in the Nikon D7000, Pentax K5 and Sony NEX5, A55, and A580).

Of course, then the camera might have to be a little bigger, but that might end up being a very good thing for people who use longer and heavier lenses.
--
Marty
http://www.fluidr.com/photos/marty4650/sets/72157606210120132
http://www.flickr.com/photos/marty4650/sets/72157606210120132/show/
my blog: http://marty4650.blogspot.com/
Olympus E-30
Olympus E-P1
Sony SLT-A55

I think you're right! What I don't understand is why neither Panasonic or Olympus is using an oversized sensor for their top of the line cameras and then give its users the choice of which aspect ratio to use? Surely it can't cost that much more to make such a implementation?

Nic727 · May 27, 2018

Ok so here I am with my question.

I know a lot of cameras are taking image in 4:3 format by default. I don't have any problem with the 4:3, but I actually think that 3:2 should become the new standard.

Personally, I think 4:3 is too square. I know that the 1:1 ratio exist, but there is not a lot of difference with the 4:3.

3:2 for example, is much wider and can take really good pictures.

Look at this guy website https://en.schmidchris.com/collections/

Most of his images are 3:2 or 16:9. I can't see how his website would look like if it was square or 4:3.

But I think it depends of the pictures you are taking.

Landscape, Nature, Wildlife : 3:2 and 16:9

City and Portrait : 4:3

What do you think?

LeeS · May 27, 2018

Nic727 said:
Ok so here I am with my question.

I know a lot of cameras are taking image in 4:3 format by default. I don't have any problem with the 4:3, but I actually think that 3:2 should become the new standard.

Personally, I think 4:3 is too square. I know that the 1:1 ratio exist, but there is not a lot of difference with the 4:3.

3:2 for example, is much wider and can take really good pictures.

Look at this guy website https://en.schmidchris.com/collections/

Most of his images are 3:2 or 16:9. I can't see how his website would look like if it was square or 4:3.

But I think it depends of the pictures you are taking.

Landscape, Nature, Wildlife : 3:2 and 16:9

City and Portrait : 4:3

What do you think?

For starters, it would be good to start with a new thread rather than reply to a 6 year old one.

Secondly, the camera's native aspect ratio does not dictate the aspect ratio of the final output. The latter will vary with the subject and the composition.

Lee

d3xmeister · May 27, 2018

Nic727 said:
What do you think?

First I think that all you said is personal preference and nothing more. ,,filling a screen,, really has nothing to do with a good picture. Second, if one aspect ratio looks better than another, it is based on the composition and subject matter only. I have 4 types of screens that I use daily 16:10, 16:9, 3:2 and 4:3 so even if you want to base your aspect ratio choice by that, which one to chose from ?

Personally I think all these aspect ratios are stupid in digital, and make absolutely no sense. A square sensor makes much more sense to me. It would not waste a large chunk of the lens capturing area, and you can crop to your liking in post or even in camera if you want.

Nic727 · May 27, 2018

d3xmeister said:
Nic727 said:

What do you think?

Click to expand...

First I think that all you said is personal preference and nothing more. ,,filling a screen,, really has nothing to do with a good picture. Second, if one aspect ratio looks better than another, it is based on the composition and subject matter only. I have 4 types of screens that I use daily 16:10, 16:9, 3:2 and 4:3 so even if you want to base your aspect ratio choice by that, which one to chose from ?

Personally I think all these aspect ratios are stupid in digital, and make absolutely no sense. A square sensor makes much more sense to me. It would not waste a large chunk of the lens capturing area, and you can crop to your liking in post or even in camera if you want.

You have a valid point here about cropping. I thought about that after I posted... that would be much easier for everyone else to capture square and crop after in the ratio you want.

And sorry about reviving this old thread

john isaacs · May 27, 2018

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?

Alistair
--

http://www.flickr.com/photos/twonker/

The point is to cover the image circle with a square sensor, then adjust the frame size to keep the frame within the image circle. That maximizes the use of the image circle. A 3:2 frame would be wider than a 4:3 frame as a result.

007peter · May 27, 2018

sdh said:
sdh wrote: Im curious what others think.

You need both. I much prefer 4:3 when it comes to Vertical Portrait photos, as 3:2 is simply too TALL. However, the opposite is true when it comes to landscape for me.

In landscape I strongly prefer wider 3:2 ratio over squarish 4:3 ratio. For me, 4:3 Landscape look too much like an Old TUBE Television to me, I much prefer the wider 16:9 LCD screen:

Search

aspect ratios - 4:3 vs 3:2

kenw

Veteran Member

Aleo Veuliah

Forum Pro

boggis the cat

Veteran Member

Sgt_Strider

Senior Member

Nic727

Well-known member

LeeS

Leading Member

d3xmeister

Senior Member

Nic727

Well-known member

john isaacs

Forum Pro

007peter

Forum Pro

Similar threads

Keyboard shortcuts