Originally posted by Leumas I've come to realize that 3:2 is a terrible ratio for most things for me.
I'm also having the same concern. Although 3:2 is the best ratio that allow the least overall pixel loss for doing both landscape (16:9, horizontally) and portrait (4:3 or 5:4 vertical). A 5:4 sensor would be better for vertical shots but you would waste more of the sensor area whenever you want to crop for a wide horizontal view that better suit the human vision.
Originally posted by photoptimist The K-1 has a "Crop" position on Function Dial and really nice electronically-controlled crop-frame lines in the view finder that are invisible unless turned-on.
I haven't found any 4:3 or 16:9 composition frame with the K1 , neither in OVF nor in live view mode. How do you do that? (the GFX50 offer all crop modes both EVF and LV).
Originally posted by Paul the Sunman As I've said before, lenses are round. Why not a round sensor and people can crop as they like.
Cropping in post from a larger area sensor isn't always possible because of we might want to include some perspective anchored to the frame. Lack of frame reference at the time of composition is a problem.
Originally posted by clackers Obviously Olympus and Panasonic use 4:3, Leumas, but 35mm both full frame and crop have always used 3:2.
The question is, why 35mm film used 3:2 in the first place (compromise?).
Originally posted by Leumas Hehe I like that idea! …..But yeah, prohibitively expensive in practice.
Square sensor is actually cheaper to produce than rectangular, per unit area.
So in fact, 3:2 is the best compromise for doing both landscape and portrait, however, Pentax seriously lack in the software implementation, they must implement the aspect ratios for composition, if not it means Pentax engineer don't know what there are doing anymore. This is something important in photography, it should be reported to Ricoh Imaging. I wonder what the GRIII will bring in term of aspect ratios.
---------- Post added 07-02-19 at 08:34 ----------
Originally posted by Leumas But I guess my point is why are we maintaining the 3:2 standard when most of the landscape, and even portrait shooters I follow usually crop to another ratio.
3:2 is almost the best aspect ratio for minimum loss of pixels when cropping 3:2 to 16:9 or 3:2 to 4:3. Pentax K1, 36Mp 3:2, crop to 16:9 gives 30Mpixels, crop to 4:3 gives 32Mpixels, and crop to 5:4 gives about 30Mp. If the sensor was 5:4 , you would get 100% of pixels when shooting vertical (keeping the 5:4 ratio), but you would waste a lot of the sensor area when shooting panoramic.
So for me , the only issue with 3:2 is not having the edges masked out for framing 16:9 , 4:3 and 5:4. It's a basic but very essential for composition.