Pages: [1] 2 3   Go Down

Author Topic: Never understood why some prefer a 4x3 sensor or a 3x2 sensor so passionately?  (Read 11916 times)

hasselbladfan

  • Sr. Member
  • ****
  • Offline Offline
  • Posts: 576

I guess we all have had experiences in the past (or current) with a 24x36 and a 6x6.

Why are some MF shooters so passionate about the 4x3 sensors? Why is Leica sticking to the 3x2?
Logged

ErikKaffehr

  • Sr. Member
  • ****
  • Offline Offline
  • Posts: 11311
    • Echophoto

Because they don't know how to crop?

There are two approaches:
  • Fit subject to crop
  • Fit crop to subject
IMHO, fitting crop to subject is the natural choice.

Best regards
Erik


I guess we all have had experiences in the past (or current) with a 24x36 and a 6x6.

Why are some MF shooters so passionate about the 4x3 sensors? Why is Leica sticking to the 3x2?
Logged
Erik Kaffehr
 

torger

  • Sr. Member
  • ****
  • Offline Offline
  • Posts: 3267

I think it's somewhat related to the film tradition, where it was common that you simply did not crop. Some photographers still shoot that way today.

Another other thing is that if you should fast paced through a viewfinder, the instinctive image composition is easier to do if the shape of the viewfinder matches the final output, and if you prefer 4:3 it's nice to have a 4:3 viewfinder. With EVF etc coming it will be easier to simply reconfigure the viewfinder to any format you want (if the camera allows).

I shoot landscapes, and thus not fast-paced, but I still prefer to not crop much. It's about the subjective shooting experience, I like it when the camera lens optically projects a finished image onto the sensor. I still often crop, 5:4 being one of my more common ratios, but 4:3 is to me just a very good all-around ratio, and there's that special extra satisfaction when a subject fits just perfectly, and the light needs no post-processing.

The passion of 4:3 is sooo good and 3:2 is soooo bad as seen in the forums quite often I think is a side effect of the MFD vs 135 "wars", in that context the Leica S is an interesting exception.
Logged

synn

  • Sr. Member
  • ****
  • Offline Offline
  • Posts: 1235
    • My fine art portfolio

Erik, it's not as simple as that.

For one, I very rarely have any images that I leave as 3:2.
When I shoot portraits, 3:2 is always too damn long or too damn wide and I am cropping away pixels I paid for. This is an utter waster IMO.

So for portraiture, I rarely prefer using the smaller formats anymore.

For landscape work, I work quite often with 16:9 aspect, so the smaller formats actually work quite well (Unless I am shift stitching on the MFD).

As I mostly use the MF kit for portraiture, I can never consider the Leicas as a serious option.

But most importantly, it is not just about cropping it in post, the way one visualize a scene (Fit subject to crop, as you have mentioned) makes a difference in how I shoot and I have heard the same from other photographers too, especially those who were using 6x6 a lot in the past.


Edit: Another possible reason is that 4:3 and 4:5 are closer to the most common print formats compared to 3:2, which is why a lot of photographers preffered these formats in the past. But in the current day, when a lot of images end up being displayed on a widescreen than getting printed, 3:2 has an advantage as well.

Logged
my portfolio: www.sandeepmurali.com

Rob C

  • Sr. Member
  • ****
  • Offline Offline
  • Posts: 24074

For me it was simple: using 135 film I had to make the most of every square mm, and as I was ultimately my own AD, and designing print stuff to suit my available camera formats, filling that frame was the way to go, and also why top Nikons were my cup of tea: 100% viewfinder coverage. It's the reason I never did buy into Leica, either M (especially M) or R bodies. Cost wasn't, then, a problem. Today, where it all has to be financed out of savings, everything's a problem! ;-) (Effing Brexit just made it worse.)

Regarding 6x6: it seemed to make perfect portraits (headshots) and also allow enough space at the sides to crop down to different print shapes. But I prefer uncropped 6x6 images that fit it. As synn said, 135 format is far too narrow when doing vertical heads. I don't however, find it too wide for heads when used as a horizontal; maybe that's conditioning from looking at Vogue double-page speads etc. and the fact that I just enjoy that shape/proportion of horizontal anyway.

Rob

synn

  • Sr. Member
  • ****
  • Offline Offline
  • Posts: 1235
    • My fine art portfolio

Very good point about the double spreads, Rob. It shows how the field that a photographer works in conditions their preferences for formats too.
For me, my portrait work is meant to hang on walls, so I find 135 too wide, but I can see how it fits perfectly for something meant for a magazine.
Logged
my portfolio: www.sandeepmurali.com

razrblck

  • Sr. Member
  • ****
  • Offline Offline
  • Posts: 482
  • Chill
    • Instagram

I feel like 3:2 for portraits is awkward the way I compose scenes. In general I often crop to 4:3, 1:1 or go cinema wide with 2.4:1. Because of that, composing in the viewfinder can be hard, and I use grids all the time to aid with that.

Magazine covers are a lot closer to 4:3 in vertical, though horizontally they work better with 3:2 on spreads as Rob said.
Logged
Instagram (updated often)

synn

  • Sr. Member
  • ****
  • Offline Offline
  • Posts: 1235
    • My fine art portfolio

My pet hate is seeing presentations of multiple images using varying formats. I know, I know, somewhat OCD, but there again I fully admit that I am.

I fully concur.

When I am presenting a set of images, I prefer to have them all in the same aspect ratio. Any other way and they don't feel "Together" anymore.
My current project involves only 16:9 images. There are some nice images in other aspects too, but I am not planning to display them in this set for this exact reason.
Logged
my portfolio: www.sandeepmurali.com

Theodoros

  • Sr. Member
  • ****
  • Offline Offline
  • Posts: 2454

I guess we all have had experiences in the past (or current) with a 24x36 and a 6x6.

Why are some MF shooters so passionate about the 4x3 sensors? Why is Leica sticking to the 3x2?

Leica is sticking with 3:2 because... they where the first that suggested it!
There is no reason behind aspect ratios, it was the film industry that suggested them and the cameras where (off course) made depending on what was available from the film industry...

Digital sensors follow what was the most popular aspect ratios with film. There is an (obvious) reason behind that... To preserve the already developed habits so that the new media wouldn't require different approach from the user coming from film.

There is no better or worst aspect ratio... There can only be what suits each individual best.. There is no standard anymore for print sizes... with roll paper printers (that are the standard for fine art prints) one can print whatever aspect ratio he likes without wasting any paper at all...

Logged

BobShaw

  • Sr. Member
  • ****
  • Offline Offline
  • Posts: 2218
    • Aspiration Images

To me you crop when you have the image sitting on your screen. It will hardly ever be perfect at the time of shooting. If the ratio you use is 3:2 then it is always too rectangular for portraits and too square for landscapes. I have sold the same image in several aspect ratios.

If you are using flash or using a waist level finder then you may want to avoid rotating the camera so a more square aspect may be good. The thing with 6x6 was that it was actually bigger and bigger is better.

To me I want more pixels on the long edge for landscapes so rectangular is preferred.
Logged
Website - http://AspirationImages.com
Studio and Commercial Photography

Hywel

  • Sr. Member
  • ****
  • Offline Offline
  • Posts: 294
    • http://www.restrainedelegance.com

I quite like 3:2 for landscapes, but often prefer wider- cinemascope wide.

I find 3:2 for people OK, but prefer broader: 4:3 broad.

I shoot people for almost my whole income (though I'm trying to build some landscape business too).

So for my work-horse camera, for my day job, I'd rather have 4:3. Anything which lets me compose as I see it in the moment helps me capture the image I'm going to sell. I end up cropping images from my A7R much more than my Blad, which saves time. But more, it lets me get diagonal and Dutch-tilt compositions tightly composed in camera: I find I prefer the end result of my people photography when shooting with a tool that's 4:3.

No religious devotion, just a personal artistic preference.

Same way I've just NEVER taken to square format. I've seen some lovely images shot that way, but I'm not the photographer to shoot them.

Cheers, Hywel
Logged

pegelli

  • Sr. Member
  • ****
  • Offline Offline
  • Posts: 1664
    • http://pegelli.smugmug.com/

I think every aspect ratio is a compromise and never perfect for every shot.

Until they can come up with round sensors and you can have any aspect ratio you want with minimal waste it will stay that way.
Logged
pieter, aka pegelli

gebseng

  • Full Member
  • ***
  • Offline Offline
  • Posts: 173

What I find strange is that there is not a single full format camera (DSLR or mirrorless, including Canon, Nikon, Sony, Fuji, Pentax) that allows shooting 4:3 on a 3:2 sensor. They all offer 16:9, some 1:1, Nikon even 4:5, but why not 4:3? For my work, this is a big reason I went m4/3rds.

geb
Logged

Theodoros

  • Sr. Member
  • ****
  • Offline Offline
  • Posts: 2454


Until they can come up with round sensors and you can have any aspect ratio you want with minimal waste it will stay that way.

Round sensors?   :o  Do you want the entire imaging industry to apply for bankruptcy?  ;D 
Logged

JoeKitchen

  • Sr. Member
  • ****
  • Offline Offline
  • Posts: 5022

I never liked 2:3; I always thought it was too wide on the landscape side.  For horizontals I thought it was okay, but for verticals it was always way too tall. 

3:4 is just so much nicer, and I never really understood that until I started shooting MFD. 

Insofar as cropping, I am kind of split on this. 

For all of my architectural work, I always frame for no cropping, and the images are always stronger then working the other way around.  When you pay that much attention to what is in your frame, the images will just be better.  However, I admit that sometimes I prefer a vertical that is even less tall, and will crop to 4:5. 

Now for ad work, it is kind of different.  Most designers/architects won't crop the images ever, but ADs will need to use the images in many different formats.  So here I tend to shoot wider to leave room for cropping.  With that said, I almost always add a crop overlay on the tethered screen while working so I have a visual reference of how the shot will frame with the ideal crop. 
Logged
"Photography is one percent inspiration and ninety-nine percent

Bart_van_der_Wolf

  • Sr. Member
  • ****
  • Offline Offline
  • Posts: 8913

What I find strange is that there is not a single full format camera (DSLR or mirrorless, including Canon, Nikon, Sony, Fuji, Pentax) that allows shooting 4:3 on a 3:2 sensor.

Hi geb,

My EOS-1Ds mark III does. It offers 6:6 , 3:4 , 4:5 , 6:7 , 10:12 , 5:7.

Cheers,
Bart
Logged
== If you do what you did, you'll get what you got. ==

razrblck

  • Sr. Member
  • ****
  • Offline Offline
  • Posts: 482
  • Chill
    • Instagram

Speaking of crops, I've noticed many popular Instagram accounts using a 7:6 crop (about 1.17:1), which seems to give on the app the largest possible image without hiding the name nor the favorite, comment, share buttons. And because of the constant horizontal crop, such images appear rather large without the need to scroll (a 3:2 vertical image would be larger, but it wouldn't fit fully in the screen when viewing it on a phone).

I've also had to set my phone camera app to shoot in 4:3 because that is the full size image area. By default it wants to force 16:9 to fill the screen, but it wastes so much usable image area (especially if you like to crop to a square afterwards). I think the iPhone has similar settings.
Logged
Instagram (updated often)

gebseng

  • Full Member
  • ***
  • Offline Offline
  • Posts: 173

Hi geb,

My EOS-1Ds mark III does. It offers 6:6 , 3:4 , 4:5 , 6:7 , 10:12 , 5:7.

Cheers,
Bart

Thanks for the info! It seems that the newer Canons don't have this feature anymore, at least not the 5D/6D series which are more suitable for the architectural/interiors works that I do mostly.
Logged

pegelli

  • Sr. Member
  • ****
  • Offline Offline
  • Posts: 1664
    • http://pegelli.smugmug.com/

Well this OP is really about sensor size, so talking about in camera cropping options is a bit off topic. However I do agree that it would be easy (and advisable) for camera makers to allow much more in camera cropping options (with the correctly cropped live view/viewfinder image) then they are doing today.
Logged
pieter, aka pegelli

Telecaster

  • Sr. Member
  • ****
  • Offline Offline
  • Posts: 3686

I find it impossible to get worked up about this stuff. For compositional reasons I prefer 4:3, but I managed fine for decades with 3:2 cameras (often framing with a 4:3 or 1:1 crop in mind). One thing I've discovered in using EVF cameras is that I also like working with 16:9 horizontal.

-Dave-
Logged
Pages: [1] 2 3   Go Up