Thinking about changing Aspect ratio

[FrancoD]

One last question everyone. Suppose I want to take a picture of my cat lying in the grass, with my APS-C camera, would it be better to shoot him at 16:9 or native aspect ratio at 3:2 and crop the picture. My guess would be crop the 3:2 but not sure if that would be the right way or not.

I'll try once more.

Take a real good look at the photo I already posted twice and then at the display lnes on your Canon T6 and you will find that you can get more pixels cropping to 16:9 yourself than when done by the camera or just change the position of the cropped area. Look at the 16: 9 area , can you see that there is a bit more on the frame to the side in the 3:2 (red border) version ?





So shooting 3:2 allows you not only to recompose to 16:9 by moving that area a bit further up or down but also just a little bit to one side or the other.

Idealy you get it right in the camera but you will find that many do recompose a bit (crop) on post because they get to fine tune what they saw in the VF.

If it is still not clear, look at the white 16:9 frame in the mushroom photo and imagine been able to move that frame up or downd and or sideway.

But of course you should do what you like to do...

 

[Mark S Abeln]

A 4x6 print is a 2x3 aspect ratio. As is a 12x18.

And when you make borderless prints, something like ⅛ to ¼ of an inch is cropped off of each edge.

 

[Mark S Abeln]

My cameras have those too, just need to turn them on and get use to using them more, lol. Kinda rusty, I`ve been out of photography for a while now . Just trying to figure out if that extra degradation would be noticeable when enlarged that much. It sure would be a much more larger of a picture when viewed.

Your lens and your technique might cause more loss of resolution than just cropping.