Working against 3:2...

Started 7 months ago | Discussions thread
BluenoseNS Regular Member • Posts: 455
Re: Working against 3:2...

bobn2 wrote:

And-roid wrote:

bobn2 wrote:

And-roid wrote:

bobn2 wrote:

And-roid wrote:

Funny Valentine wrote:

the biggest advantage of 3:2 is......not being a smartphone format. All smartphones are 4:3 so when you have a native 3:2 image it gives it a more "professional / high end" look .

Also 3:2 works a lot better for landscapes, wide angle lenses.

4:3 works fine when you have one subject in focus in your framing, such as portrait, macro and some wildlife cases.

but 3:2 is more versatile overall.

Lol, 4:3 has 3:2 contained within it.

And 3:2 has 4:3 contained within it' It's just a question of in which direction your crop lines go, horizontal or vertical.

You are grossly misinformed,

Not I. Attend to the beam in your own eye.

You cannot crop 3:2 to 4:3 without a huge perspective change, it starts out with a smaller field of view and you just crop it to oblivion by doing what you and other 3:2 obsessives claim.

We aren't the 'obsessives' here. As I've said several times, I'm quite agnostic about sensor aspect ratio. I use cameras with both 4:3 and 3:2 aspect ratio sensors. It's not a big deal. You on the other hand are an obsessive, having to make stuff up to justify your obsessive view that 4:3 has some intrinsic superiority. It's just not the case. Sure, cropping a 3:2 sensor to 4:3 reduces the horizontal field of view. Cropping from 4:3 to 3:2 reduces the vertical field of view. Cropping both to 16:9 results in a reduction of vertical field of view, but less for the 3:2 than the 4:3

You cannot do this with 3:2 ratio sensors, ain't going to happen!

Happens all the time. Your photos illustrate nothing of any importance.

Crop the 3:2 ratio image to make it look like the 4:3 one then? To me that is a pretty significant difference, beyond significant, defining, basically 3:2 sensors are not good for photographers, especially those requiring 4:3.

You're completely obsessed by the horizontal crop. Let's try to explain it very, very simply. If you crop 3:2 to 4:3 you crop of two vertical bands at the sides. If you crop 4:3 to 3:2 you crop two horizontal bands to and bottom. You reduce the width of the 3:2 by cropping. You reduce the height of the 4:3 by cropping. Both operations are as possible as each other. You lose some width one way, you lose some height the other way. Since the lens focal length gives you the magnification (by simple trigonometry) the magnification is no different if you mount a lens of the same focal length on a 3:2 or 4:3 camera.

You keep on repeating the same old nonsense. I suspect you'll just keep on repeating it, because you seemed to be locked into this idea that the actuality is some kind of plot on behalf of the nefarious band of ne'erdowells that prefers 3:2.

OR... he could just be mistaken.

I swear some people on this forum are hyper vigilant to spot out any and all errors by others and use words such as ‘obsessed, nonsense, locked in, , implications of belief in plots etc’

god the irony

 BluenoseNS's gear list:BluenoseNS's gear list
Olympus PEN E-P5 Olympus PEN-F
Post (hide subjects) Posted by
Keyboard shortcuts:
FForum PPrevious NNext WNext unread UUpvote SSubscribe RReply QQuote BBookmark MMy threads
Color scheme? Blue / Yellow