composing in 4:3 easier than 3:2

shaolen · 03-17-2017, 09:48 AM - **1 Like**

So I started shooting on Fujifilm bridge cameras which were 4:3 aspect ratio. I always found myself taking good looking photos. Then I moved to pentax DSLRS and I noticed that a lot of my photos didn't look as pleasing. I recently bought an old Olympus e-pl1 to just shoot for fun and once again in finding it much easier to compose shots that I like. Anyone else find 4:3 to be easier to compose. Perhaps I need a 645Z which I believe is in that aspect ratio

**mattb123** · 03-17-2017, 09:59 AM - **2 Likes**

Yes, your only logical course of action is to buy a Z.

I have a 645D (and a film 645) and I also like the ratio better for a lot of shots. I suppose you could also just crop your 3:2 images too.

mikeSF · 03-17-2017, 10:23 AM

Originally posted by shaolen

So I started shooting on Fujifilm bridge cameras which were 4:3 aspect ratio. I always found myself taking good looking photos. Then I moved to pentax DSLRS and I noticed that a lot of my photos didn't look as pleasing. I recently bought an old Olympus e-pl1 to just shoot for fun and once again in finding it much easier to compose shots that I like. Anyone else find 4:3 to be easier to compose. Perhaps I need a 645Z which I believe is in that aspect ratio

oh i much prefer 4:3 (3:4) aspect ratio for composing.
However, I maintain that human vision does not support a rectangle, so neither is more "natural" than the other, lol.

Fcsnt54 · 03-17-2017, 10:28 AM

Its my favorite ratio as well. I wish they could allow us to choose it in the k-1

lytrytyr · 03-17-2017, 11:14 AM - **1 Like**

Originally posted by mattb123

Yes, your only logical course of action is to buy a Z.

Or a Q. In fact, for the price of the Z, you could buy twenty Qs.

**mattb123** · 03-17-2017, 11:52 AM - **2 Likes**

Originally posted by lytrytyr

Or a Q. In fact, for the price of the Z, you could buy twenty Qs.

If you could figure out a way to align and tripod mount them all and fire them with a big IR signal, you could exceed the Z's resolution (but perhaps not its IQ).

shaolen · 03-17-2017, 11:57 AM

Originally posted by mattb123

If you could figure out a way to align and tripod mount them all and fire them with a big IR signal, you could exceed the Z's resolution (but perhaps not its IQ).

Hahaha ok we need to do a YouTube video of this

**mattb123** · 03-17-2017, 12:53 PM

Originally posted by shaolen

Hahaha ok we need to do a YouTube video of this

Ok, let me know when you have all the Q's and I'll offer my advice.

mikeSF · 03-17-2017, 01:23 PM

Originally posted by mattb123

If you could figure out a way to align and tripod mount them all and fire them with a big IR signal, you could exceed the Z's resolution (but perhaps not its IQ).

Like a bullet time array. That would be fun to see.

ccc_ · 03-17-2017, 01:24 PM

when I shot film...I composed

then a scanner and photoshop let me skip that onerous detail

since I've gone digital I just shoot and compose while cropping

for what it's worth i'm very fond of 16:9

reh321 · 03-17-2017, 03:06 PM

Originally posted by shaolen

So I started shooting on Fujifilm bridge cameras which were 4:3 aspect ratio. I always found myself taking good looking photos. Then I moved to pentax DSLRS and I noticed that a lot of my photos didn't look as pleasing. I recently bought an old Olympus e-pl1 to just shoot for fun and once again in finding it much easier to compose shots that I like. Anyone else find 4:3 to be easier to compose. Perhaps I need a 645Z which I believe is in that aspect ratio

I much much prefer 3:2. It fits most of the pictures I take much better than 4:3 does.

---------- Post added 03-17-17 at 06:08 PM ----------

Originally posted by ccc_

when I shot film...I composed

then a scanner and photoshop let me skip that onerous detail

since I've gone digital I just shoot and compose while cropping

for what it's worth i'm very fond of 16:9

I still compose with digital the same as I did with film.
There are some things you just cannot "fix" in PP.

**Digitalis** · 03-17-2017, 04:01 PM

Aspect ratios that I find easiest to work with:
1:1>4:3>6:17>16:10>3.2

Aegon · 03-17-2017, 08:00 PM - **1 Like**

I agree.

I consider µ43 to be a 4:3 version of an APS-C sensor because it is close in size to an APS-C sensor with the sides removed to make what is, in my opinion, a better aspect ratio. Reducing the diagonal this way also lets the lenses get faster and smaller with better usage of an image circle.

**Digitalis** · 03-17-2017, 08:20 PM

Originally posted by Aegon

Reducing the diagonal this way also lets the lenses get faster and smaller

Unfortunately top of the line µ43 lenses are almost as big as full format lenses.

AtitG · 03-17-2017, 08:53 PM

yeah, for the equivalent depth of field, FF lenses are a lot cheaper too.

03-17-2017, 09:48 AM - 1 Like	#1
shaolen Veteran Member Join Date: May 2012 Location: Phoenix AZ Posts: 1,047	composing in 4:3 easier than 3:2 So I started shooting on Fujifilm bridge cameras which were 4:3 aspect ratio. I always found myself taking good looking photos. Then I moved to pentax DSLRS and I noticed that a lot of my photos didn't look as pleasing. I recently bought an old Olympus e-pl1 to just shoot for fun and once again in finding it much easier to compose shots that I like. Anyone else find 4:3 to be easier to compose. Perhaps I need a 645Z which I believe is in that aspect ratio

Similar Threads
Thread	Thread Starter	Forum	Replies	Last Post
Macro Bees-Easier to shoot than bats!!!!	charliezap	Post Your Photos!	17	07-29-2012 05:19 AM
Composing while focusing with live view magnification	DanielT74	Pentax K-5 & K-5 II	4	09-19-2011 05:02 PM
Nature Easier than people!	Rupert	Photo Critique	8	08-22-2010 12:16 PM
some B & W conversions are easier than others	NaClH2O	Post Your Photos!	3	07-14-2007 08:23 PM

03-17-2017, 09:59 AM - 2 Likes	#2
mattb123 Site Supporter Join Date: Apr 2010 Location: Colorado High Country Photos: Gallery Posts: 10,872	Yes, your only logical course of action is to buy a Z. I have a 645D (and a film 645) and I also like the ratio better for a lot of shots. I suppose you could also just crop your 3:2 images too.

03-17-2017, 10:23 AM	#3
mikeSF Pentaxian Join Date: Jan 2009 Location: East Bay Area, CA Photos: Gallery Posts: 6,620	Originally posted by shaolen So I started shooting on Fujifilm bridge cameras which were 4:3 aspect ratio. I always found myself taking good looking photos. Then I moved to pentax DSLRS and I noticed that a lot of my photos didn't look as pleasing. I recently bought an old Olympus e-pl1 to just shoot for fun and once again in finding it much easier to compose shots that I like. Anyone else find 4:3 to be easier to compose. Perhaps I need a 645Z which I believe is in that aspect ratio oh i much prefer 4:3 (3:4) aspect ratio for composing. However, I maintain that human vision does not support a rectangle, so neither is more "natural" than the other, lol.

03-17-2017, 10:28 AM	#4
Fcsnt54 Veteran Member Join Date: Nov 2015 Location: California Posts: 621	Its my favorite ratio as well. I wish they could allow us to choose it in the k-1

03-17-2017, 11:14 AM - 1 Like	#5
lytrytyr Pentaxian Join Date: Nov 2011 Photos: Gallery \| Albums Posts: 4,310	Originally posted by mattb123 Yes, your only logical course of action is to buy a Z. Or a Q. In fact, for the price of the Z, you could buy twenty Qs.

03-17-2017, 11:52 AM - 2 Likes	#6
mattb123 Site Supporter Join Date: Apr 2010 Location: Colorado High Country Photos: Gallery Posts: 10,872	Originally posted by lytrytyr Or a Q. In fact, for the price of the Z, you could buy twenty Qs. If you could figure out a way to align and tripod mount them all and fire them with a big IR signal, you could exceed the Z's resolution (but perhaps not its IQ).

03-17-2017, 11:57 AM	#7
shaolen Veteran Member Join Date: May 2012 Location: Phoenix AZ Posts: 1,047 Original Poster	Originally posted by mattb123 If you could figure out a way to align and tripod mount them all and fire them with a big IR signal, you could exceed the Z's resolution (but perhaps not its IQ). Hahaha ok we need to do a YouTube video of this

03-17-2017, 12:53 PM	#8
mattb123 Site Supporter Join Date: Apr 2010 Location: Colorado High Country Photos: Gallery Posts: 10,872	Originally posted by shaolen Hahaha ok we need to do a YouTube video of this Ok, let me know when you have all the Q's and I'll offer my advice.

03-17-2017, 01:23 PM	#9
mikeSF Pentaxian Join Date: Jan 2009 Location: East Bay Area, CA Photos: Gallery Posts: 6,620	Originally posted by mattb123 If you could figure out a way to align and tripod mount them all and fire them with a big IR signal, you could exceed the Z's resolution (but perhaps not its IQ). Like a bullet time array. That would be fun to see.

03-17-2017, 01:24 PM	#10
ccc_ Veteran Member Join Date: Aug 2015 Photos: Gallery Posts: 1,400	when I shot film...I composed then a scanner and photoshop let me skip that onerous detail since I've gone digital I just shoot and compose while cropping for what it's worth i'm very fond of 16:9

03-17-2017, 03:06 PM	#11
reh321 Pentaxian Join Date: Nov 2014 Location: South Bend, IN, USA Photos: Gallery \| Albums Posts: 23,177	Originally posted by shaolen So I started shooting on Fujifilm bridge cameras which were 4:3 aspect ratio. I always found myself taking good looking photos. Then I moved to pentax DSLRS and I noticed that a lot of my photos didn't look as pleasing. I recently bought an old Olympus e-pl1 to just shoot for fun and once again in finding it much easier to compose shots that I like. Anyone else find 4:3 to be easier to compose. Perhaps I need a 645Z which I believe is in that aspect ratio I much much prefer 3:2. It fits most of the pictures I take much better than 4:3 does. ---------- Post added 03-17-17 at 06:08 PM ---------- Originally posted by ccc_ when I shot film...I composed then a scanner and photoshop let me skip that onerous detail since I've gone digital I just shoot and compose while cropping for what it's worth i'm very fond of 16:9 I still compose with digital the same as I did with film. There are some things you just cannot "fix" in PP.

03-17-2017, 04:01 PM	#12
Digitalis Site Supporter Join Date: Mar 2009 Location: Melbourne, Victoria Photos: Gallery Posts: 11,694	Aspect ratios that I find easiest to work with: 1:1>4:3>6:17>16:10>3.2

03-17-2017, 08:00 PM - 1 Like	#13
Aegon Site Supporter Join Date: Jan 2008 Location: Portland, OR Posts: 1,416	I agree. I consider µ43 to be a 4:3 version of an APS-C sensor because it is close in size to an APS-C sensor with the sides removed to make what is, in my opinion, a better aspect ratio. Reducing the diagonal this way also lets the lenses get faster and smaller with better usage of an image circle.

03-17-2017, 08:20 PM	#14
Digitalis Site Supporter Join Date: Mar 2009 Location: Melbourne, Victoria Photos: Gallery Posts: 11,694	Originally posted by Aegon Reducing the diagonal this way also lets the lenses get faster and smaller Unfortunately top of the line µ43 lenses are almost as big as full format lenses.

03-17-2017, 08:53 PM	#15
AtitG Senior Member Join Date: Jan 2014 Posts: 269	yeah, for the equivalent depth of field, FF lenses are a lot cheaper too.