What if FF and APS-C also switch to 4:3 aspect ratio ?

[J A C S]

What reason is there to switch to 4:3?

3:2 portrait generally looks very unpleasant. 4:3 is much better for portraits.

Headshot?

Full torso?

Standing?

Couple?

Group?

A single person standing a 3:2 in portrait orientation I can't imagine looking worse than 4:3

I don't like 3:2 portraits in portrait orientation and rarely horizontal.

For portrait: 4:5 and this goes back a long way.

Yousuf Karsh mostly shot with the Calumet C-1 8x10 (anatomyfilms.com)

For portrait any aspect is much better than 3:2.

Leonardo would beg to differ. The most famous portrait of all time is almost exactly 3:2

It is not famous for its aspect ratio.

Obviously it didn't hurt.

4:3 (1.33) – Medium format, Micro Four Thirds, most smartphones and some point-and-shoot cameras have 4:3 sensors. It is the most popular aspect ratio today.

Actually, the most popular format is whatever aspect ratio the phones have, 16:9 or so, That 4:3 image is cropped to 16:9 unless you change that but most people do not.

The most popular ratio for movie clips is 10:16 (vertical).

Then use your phone or iPad for photography

 

[Adso of Melk]

There is no denying that 4:3 format is a more natural vision for our eyes.

I will deny it. I'm certain I am seeing in a wider AR than 4:3.

I'm certain I am seeing in a AR taller than 3:2.

 

[Adso of Melk]

What reason is there to switch to 4:3?

3:2 portrait generally looks very unpleasant. 4:3 is much better for portraits.

Headshot?

Full torso?

Standing?

Couple?

Group?

A single person standing a 3:2 in portrait orientation I can't imagine looking worse than 4:3

I don't like 3:2 portraits in portrait orientation and rarely horizontal.

For portrait: 4:5 and this goes back a long way.

Yousuf Karsh mostly shot with the Calumet C-1 8x10 (anatomyfilms.com)

For portrait any aspect is much better than 3:2.

Leonardo would beg to differ. The most famous portrait of all time is almost exactly 3:2

It is not famous for its aspect ratio.

Obviously it didn't hurt.

4:3 (1.33) – Medium format, Micro Four Thirds, most smartphones and some point-and-shoot cameras have 4:3 sensors. It is the most popular aspect ratio today.

Then use your phone or iPad for photography

Don't forget the medium format and micro four thirds.

 

[Sittatunga]

Do you know anyone who shoot stills in 16:9 because of PC screen? Photo's AR doesn't have anything to do with screen.

APS film was designed to do just that (30.2 x 16.7mm).

Nor is 16:9 anything new. Many of Kodak's early cameras produced a 4.5x2.5 inch negative.

 

[Fogel70]

Will there be lot of resistance ? or a technical hurdle ?

The existing FF lenses are designed for 24x36 mm.

Except for the baffles, they are designed for a 43.27 mm diameter image circle. They don't care what the shape is as long as it's inside that circle.

There are some that might care.

I said above "except for the baffles".

For Sony FE it is probably not possible to use a 4:3 sensor because of the connector make it very tight already with a 36x24 mm sensor. Both on lens and camera.

So for Sony a 4:3 sensor would have to be 32x24 mm. Which does not make much sense, as they could just offer a 4:3 crop mode instead if they want to support 4:3.

Edit: It seems that Sony already support 4:3 crop mode on their newer cameras.

 

[Michael Benveniste]

Like smartphones and medium format, any reasons for FF/APS-C not to switch to 4:3 aspect ratio ?

Will there be lot of resistance ? or a technical hurdle ?

As I posted on a different topic recently, this ship has sailed:


Okay, it's still a Barque, not a ship.


Resistance? Well, you only have to read this thread get your answer. There were debates over aspect ratios in the era of tintypes and every technology since. I will say that a square format makes a lot of sense if you are using a waist level finder, but beyond that they are all compromises that will work better for some subjects than others.



Technical hurdles? Not really, as long as you realize that it wouldn't be "FF" or "APS-C" anymore. It would have been no more expensive to build 17x22.7mm sensors into 35mm film camera based systems than it was 16x24mm. Lenses designed for 35mm film would still work, and lenses designed for the new format could get away with a fractionally smaller image circle.



So-called full frame, though, would have been a bit more of a challenge, since manufacturers wouldn't be able to adapt bits from 35mm film cameras quite as easily. In addition, some legacy lenses had rectangular masks and wouldn't be compatible, and most lenses with "petal-style" lens hoods would need new hoods. None of that is difficult, but it would have taken time and money.



So assuming that the general public would have preferred a 4:3 ratio, and that's a huge assumption, why didn't it happen 20+ years ago? In large part because Nikon and Canon were and are large companies with lots of corporate inertia. So was Kodak. They were used to selling gear with a 3:2 aspect ratio and didn't look very hard for a reason to change. Whether they were correct in that assessment I can't say. On one hand, for literally decades NIkon has underestimated photographers' willingness to embrace new technology. On the other hand, when Hasselblad introduced its H1 camera, there was substantial pushback against the 645 format.



After Canon decided to stay with their 1.6x crop factor for the Digital Rebel and dSLR's became mainstream, it was too late to reconsider that decision.
--

Light travels at 2.13085531 × 10^14 smoots per fortnight. Catch some today!