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.