[MJKoski]

Well yes. 5:4 is my choice right now but not many digital make use of it. Fuji GFX has 5:4 composing mode in liveview and it still gives over 40MP file so that is of course an option. But, this is actually fun test. Shoot a scene with 4:3 system so that it includes all you want it to include. Now try the same with 3:2 system - you have back off from tall subjects to get them fully in the frame in case you crop in post. Perspective changes. To me it matters a great deal. Of course, some do not care that much.

K-1 sensor shift allows going around this obstacle when shifting up and down and then combining vertical panorama. T/S lenses allow even greater adjustments and easily give 5:4, or 4:5 vertical frame, using the same principle. One can of course do traditional panoramas with a panorama head setup but that will not help keeping lines straight in architectural photos and this may require heavy perspective correction with wide angle options.

[Fcsnt54]

Well yes. 5:4 is my choice right now but not many digital make use of it. Fuji GFX has 5:4 composing mode in liveview and it still gives over 40MP file so that is of course an option. But, this is actually fun test. Shoot a scene with 4:3 system so that it includes all you want it to include. Now try the same with 3:2 system - you have back off from tall subjects to get them fully in the frame in case you crop in post. Perspective changes. To me it matters a great deal. Of course, some do not care that much.

I agree, its the reason i got rid of my kmount gear and am only shooting with my phone, m43, and medium format. Those three compliment each other really well, and dont require cropping to 4:3 format. phone for convenience, m43 for speed and video(great for medium/large printers), and MF for image quality(large detailed prints).

[LensBeginner]

To me it matters a great deal. Of course, some do not care that much.

Or maybe those "some" care as much as you do, but have different tastes, or are looking for a different way to express their ideas...


You are just carrying on talking like "yours" was the only sensible way to do photography... I feel generous today, so I'll chalk it to a language barrier issue.

[normhead]

Where as for people who crop to 16:9 for viewing on their 50" or bigger 4k TVs, find ourselves cropping quite bit and would crop more if the original image was 4x5. 3x2 is a happy medium. The interesting thing for me, is that since I've moved to 16:9 many of my landscapes look better and of over 700 files, only maybe 10 have been so much better at 4x5 or 3x2 to convince me I need to keep my 3x2 format.

I'm guessing I would prefer a 4x5 camera for portraits but apart from that, I don't see the attraction. Given my experience with 16:9 I find myself thinking of 5:4 as old tech. Even my group portrait of my grandkids and daughter from last summer is printed at 2:1. Think how small this file would have been taken with a 5:4 sensor.



Printed 24x12 I definitely got way more resolution than a 4x5 sensor would have given me. compared to a 4x5. so while it's nice that those who's shooting style favours 5:4 sensors, I'd categorically deny that everyone will end up using more pixels with a 5:4 crop.

A 645D has 7294 horizontal pixels. My k-1 is 7360. For 99% of my images I get more pixels from a K-1 than I would from a 645D. I'd caution users against assuming they are going to get more resolution out of a 5:4 sensor just because it's 5:4. Do the analysis of how you crop your images before you decide that's right for you.

If I were considering a 5:4 sensor I'd take a random 20 images and crop them for best effect, then analyze my results. There are a lot of images where it doesn't matter much, but in many cases 3x2 is going to be the best comprimise, giving you decent crops from 2:1 to 5:4 with fewer wasted pixels. The biggest advantage to 5:4 or 4:5 in most situations is, you used to be able to get 4 pictures from a standard 8x10 sheet of photo paper. Modern paper doesn't even come in 8x10 or 4x5 anymore. But you can get 4x6. IN film days I used to send a lot of my prints out for custom printing so I could get 12x8 prints made. Even in film days 4:5 had it's limits.

---

Last edited by normhead; 05-25-2018 at 12:01 PM.

[Rondec]

Are we really arguing about crop ratios?

(To me it is neither here nor there. Modern sensors have enough resolution to allow for decent amount of cropping and still print at a nice size, regardless of aspect ratios of the sensor. Except for the phone sensor mentioned above)...

[Fcsnt54]

Are we really arguing about crop ratios?

(To me it is neither here nor there. Modern sensors have enough resolution to allow for decent amount of cropping and still print at a nice size, regardless of aspect ratios of the sensor. Except for the phone sensor mentioned above)...

No i dont think so? i mean theres a discussion on aspect ratios with peoples preferences... but it is nice that there is a choice

Iphone: 4:3
Android: 16:9?
M43: 4:3
Apsc: 3:2
FF: 3:2
MF: 4:3
LF: 5:4...

[leekil]

Yet I can only buy frames in 4x5 formats.

This is somewhat maddening, though perhaps most of the phone photos are closer to this, at 3x4 ratio.

I can get 3x2 frames pretty commonly, though there is less of a selection than 4x5.

[RGlasel]

Are we really arguing about crop ratios?

Yes, and it isn't the first time, either. There have been heated discussions here about the perfection of square cropping and someone trying to patent a square photo tablet (If I remember correctly).


In the world outside of photography, 3:2 ratios are not often used, even the 24 x 36 poster frames used for point of sale materials work best with graphical header and footer panels to identify the brand or some kind of address, leaving the meat of the message in something closer to 24 x 32 size. If 35mm film wasn't such a good format for making handheld cameras held to our faces, I suspect 3:2 ratios would be unheard of in photography as well.


Form follows function, so the format equivalency argument doesn't really hold. Taking pictures with a Q is not functionally equivalent to taking pictures with a 645Z, even though both cameras have digital sensors and interchangeable lenses.

[Fcsnt54]

This is somewhat maddening, though perhaps most of the phone photos are closer to this, at 3x4 ratio.



I can get 3x2 frames pretty commonly, though there is less of a selection than 4x5.

Idk it seams where im from there is a wide selection of various sizes including the matts that go along with the different size frames. If there was one frame thats a little more difficult to get a hold of, that would be the 4:3 size frame.

[normhead]

I measured a window, it was 4:3. Does that help in any way?

I've taken to having custom frames made at the printers. For $40 they'd do whatever size my print is. My days of looking for bargains on frames is over. Hurrah.

Form follows function, so the format equivalency argument doesn't really hold. Taking pictures with a Q is not functionally equivalent to taking pictures with a 645Z, even though both cameras have digital sensors and interchangeable lenses.

Depends on what you are trying to do. Some parameters (table top, extreme telephotos, fish-eye) the 645z is hard-pressed to compare. An 8x10 print of a day light scene? The Q and the 645z are closer than you think, with the 645z excelling in dynamic range and color rendition, and the Q in depth of field. There are many parameters to consider, I think that was what Ming was trying to get at.

[Fcsnt54]

I measured a window, it was 4:3. Does that help in any way?

I've taken to having custom frames made at the printers. For $40 they'd do whatever size my print is. My days of looking for bargains on frames is over. Hurrah.

Im jealous. A local Frame store is going out of business, and their frames are up to 60-70% off. With that deal I cant help but snag a couple.

[Rondec]

Yes, and it isn't the first time, either. There have been heated discussions here about the perfection of square cropping and someone trying to patent a square photo tablet (If I remember correctly).


In the world outside of photography, 3:2 ratios are not often used, even the 24 x 36 poster frames used for point of sale materials work best with graphical header and footer panels to identify the brand or some kind of address, leaving the meat of the message in something closer to 24 x 32 size. If 35mm film wasn't such a good format for making handheld cameras held to our faces, I suspect 3:2 ratios would be unheard of in photography as well.


Form follows function, so the format equivalency argument doesn't really hold. Taking pictures with a Q is not functionally equivalent to taking pictures with a 645Z, even though both cameras have digital sensors and interchangeable lenses.

Perhaps.

Few photos are printed these days and most computer monitors are 16:9, for what it's worth.

Personally, I shoot a lot of landscapes and prefer a 3:2 ratio versus 4:3 for those sorts of shot. As far as frames go, the beauty of the internet is that you can find most any aspect ratio you are looking for. But much of this is personal preference and if someone loves 4:3 that's great too.

[normhead]

The Q and the 645z are closer than you think, with the 645z excelling in dynamic range and color rendition, and the Q in depth of field. There are many parameters to consider, I think that was what Ming was trying to get at.

This part of the discussion can only be framed by what percentage of the images you take will be similar and which will be different. Between APS_c and FF about 90-95% of the images will be about the same. I'm guessing it will be less between a Q and 645z. But unless someone who uses both comes up with a number based on knowledge of images taken by the two systems , I'm not buying any of the "no overlap" theory., that statement is pretty much useless. I take a picture with my K-1, my wife takes the same picture with her Q. We look at them when we get home, sometimes we prefer the really wide depth of field of the Q image. That's reality.

"Taking pictures with a Q is not functionally equivalent to taking pictures with a 645Z, even though both cameras have digital sensors and interchangeable lenses." isn't. It can be functionally equivalent, there are things both do better than the other, but my guess is the majority of the images viewed on a normal monitor won't be that much different if you shoot a series of images using different parameters.

Bigger sensors are capable of handling demanding circumstances, but improvement is only noticed on the images where that capability is use. Most images don't use even a fraction of the capability of either.

[LensBeginner]

Are we really arguing about crop ratios?

Since they are an integral part of photography, they are something that gives different artistic possibilities, and we are in the General Photography section... why not?


I was only against the idea that "just one ratio is the best-est, all the other are worthless"; apart from that I use different ones, and have nothing against people who choose to frame differently from me.