What aspect ratios do Pentax users like?

Mark Ransom wrote:

MightyMike wrote:

Mark Ransom wrote:

Phil A Martin wrote:

In like 6x7 primarily after my Mamiya RB67 but 4x3 approximates to that in digital, so my Panasonic LX100 is mainly left on that ratio or occasionally 1x1. My DSLR is obviously 3x2 and I find that too wide for my taste but as I'm composing in that ratio, I leave it like that and don't alter it later. What I would like but will never get, is a full frame 4x3 camera with the sensor the same width as FF but with a length conforming to 4x3 ratio. I know I could crop an FF EVF camera but I'd still be fretting about the lost pixels.

For a given image circle, the closer you get to square the more pixels you end up with. I think a 1:1 sensor would be really cool.

Except... then you lose those pixels you'd have had in the wider ratios, a nice thought, you wouldn't even have to rotate the camera for portrait orientation, but again you lose all that additional information on the sides of the image. That is of course if you're sensor only fits in the image circle, if instead its actually larger than the image circle that could be good.

I've tried to make that argument in the past, but too many people are against it. "What's so hard about rotating the camera to portrait?"

That was the reasoning behind the old square format cameras as used by the press. Take the photo and crop it for the press later. The thing is it would have been hard to rotate a TLR with a rectangular negative. The Mamiya RB 67 over comes this by having a rotating back, hence RB but with a modern DSLR and a grip attached, it really is no bother shooting vertically. That's in part why I favour having a battery pack attached.

With the prices of FF sensors coming down, it wouldn't be hard to use one as an oversized square APS-C. You'd throw away 1/3 of the pixels, but that wouldn't be a show stopper.