[BrianR]

I can see how it would be nice to have custom composition frames, which should be doable in live view. In lieu of Pentax handling this in software, you can do it yourself with black gaffers tape and any target of the aspect ration you want - just line it up in liveview to maximize the space, then lay down the tape. Or get all classy and make cardboard frames you can easily swap out to mask the live view screen on the fly. Use 10 cents of black cardboard per frame and charge $5 each and you've got yourself a legit product photographers will snap up.

[biz-engineer]

Pictures these days are more likely to be viewed on a 16:9 or similar device than the old 4:3 style square computer monitors or TVs, that's the mainstream.

Last time I looked at LeeRolls 16:9 vertical lady on a 16:9 horizontal display it broke my neck. It's true that we don't use that many VGA tube displays anymore, but some museum still do

[leekil]

For a different peerspective... Maybe it's because I mostly shoot 35mm/FF, or maybe it's just the way I like to shoot, but I use the wider 3:2 frame to put more space around the subject, or to move it off to one side. It's harder to do that in an aspect ratio that is "more square".

[Paul the Sunman]

For a different peerspective... Maybe it's because I mostly shoot 35mm/FF, or maybe it's just the way I like to shoot, but I use the wider 3:2 frame to put more space around the subject, or to move it off to one side. It's harder to do that in an aspect ratio that is "more square".

I like 1:1, but this is certainly a very valid point.

[Wheatfield]

That's the whole point of what I said. Anymore people posting things like "Just crop it" missed my point entirely. I do "Just crop it" almost all the time, and as such its a waste of sensor real-estate.


And no, you are wrong. A 4:3 sensor ratio is by definition taller, and thus has a higher linear resolution than a cropped 3:2. I don't know what you're thinking there.

Perhaps you aren’t making a strong enough point to get.

You lose the horizontal resolution that the 2:3 ratio gives you. Ultimately it’s pretty much a zero sum.

If I recall one, of the reasons we even have the 645 ratio is because prolific shooters like Ansel Adams kept cropping their 6x6 negatives, so someone had the bright idea to just make a camera that stopped wasting that valuable film space.



---------- Post added 02-07-19 at 01:50 PM ----------

Also as the Full Frame market becomes more crowded, manufactures are going to have to differentiate themselves from the competition to survive. A 5:4 sensor would be appealing to many photographers.

By the time 645 came along Adams was pretty much done with roll film. The 645 format came along to give photographers more shots per roll, and, as you said, to produce a format that allowed minimal cropping to 8x10. A lot of photographers hated the format because it wasn’t square and thusly both limited their cropping options and necessitated turning the camera vertical for portraits.
The format was reasonably popular with landscape shooters, but for wedding and studio users it was like Listerine. They used it because it kept film costs down.
I had a Bronica ETR-S back in the day. It was not a nice camera for verticals and the negs were a pain to print because of the orientation of the image. You had to have a prism finder to shoot verticals, and the ergonomics were less than stellar when vertical.

---------- Post added 02-08-19 at 12:09 AM ----------

I think we are spoiled. Just make a small framing device you hold in your hands with the appropriate ratio if you have trouble framing from the viewfinder to a non-native ratio. Or as a friend did years ago - take the freaking focusing screen and mark it where you want. I even saw one guy mask off a portion of the focusing screen frame using a magic marker. Mind you this was on a film camera. I used to shoot an F2a with the "TV" focusing screen which had 4:3 marks on it to help when framing for TV purposes. I liked the screen for other reasons and ignored the marks.

^^^^^^^this^^^^^^^
Any camera I used for weddings had the screens scribed for 4x5. Usually I just took the screen out and drew lines on with a sharp pencil.

[bcp38]

Camera lens design is based on the sensor size and aspect ratio among other things. If you were using a different size sensor, some lenses would have noticeable vignetting, and practically you would need to design a new series of lenses. Also the mirror design and mirror slap would be slightly different if you aren't on 3x2

[Leumas]

Camera lens design is based on the sensor size and aspect ratio among other things. If you were using a different size sensor, some lenses would have noticeable vignetting, and practically you would need to design a new series of lenses. Also the mirror design and mirror slap would be slightly different if you aren't on 3x2

A 4:3 ratio can be achieved on the same circle of projection that any FF lens outputs. If you were trying to maintain legacy support with any mount than it'd have to be a mirrorless design.
But I didn't mention legacy support, nor even that such a system would even be a Pentax. Just that a 4:3 or 5:4 FF sensor would appeal to MANY photographers, myself included, as I rarely use 3:2 and find it a pretty useless ratio for most compositions myself.

---

Last edited by Leumas; 02-08-2019 at 06:06 PM.

[ProfessorBuzz]

Get a Ricoh Theta V and then you can crop any way you want ;-)

[tuco]

[Leumas]

Is that an overlay you have in the viewfinder or something?

[tuco]

Is that an overlay you have in the viewfinder or something?

It's the difference between 4:3 and 3:2. A 4:3 crop overplayed on a 3:2 image.

[Leumas]

It's the difference between 4:3 and 3:2. A 4:3 crop overplayed on a 3:2 image.

That much I assumed, I guess I'm trying to understand the point of your post.

[tuco]

That much I assumed, I guess I'm trying to understand the point of your post.

It helps to see the actual difference between the standard 6:9 aspect and the 6:8 aspect ratio you are wishing the photo industry would change to.

[Leumas]

It helps to see the actual difference between the standard 6:9 aspect and the 6:8 aspect ratio you are wishing the photo industry would change to.

As I said in the original post. I almost always crop to 4:3 or 5:4 so I'm quite aware of it's relation to 3:2.

5:4 would be my preferred sensor, as that is the most usable for both a landscape and portrait orientation. Which is why most print sizes revolve around that ratio. 35mm has only recently been the defacto "professional" format. In the days of film, 35mm was for hobbyists or travel/journalism. The bulk of professional work was 6x7 medium format, 5x4 Large format, or 8x10. All of which used the 5:4 ratio; so I'm not wishing for the photo industry to really "change" per say, but rather to go back to something that makes more sense.

Aspect Ratio: What it is and Why it Matters

[tuco]

...
5:4 would be my preferred sensor, as that is the most usable for both a landscape and portrait orientation.

Have you owned and used any medium format film cameras?