In what aspect ratio do you shoot MFT stills? And why?

[lensjack]

I've run across folks saying they opt for 3:2 because it's the look they're used to. I'm wondering if this is widespread, and whether most MFT users feel strongly one way or the other.

[Telecaster]

I use 4:3, occasionally 16:9 and less often square. Never particularly cared for 3:2, though I've put up with it when necessary due to the cameras I've owned & used at various times. IMO 3:2 is a "tweener" aspect ratio, either too wide or not wide enough. But this is a subjective thing...there is no objectively better or worse involved.

-Dave-

[PhotoEcosse]

4:3 - because that is the proportionality of my sensor and I believe in using as much of the available pixelage as possible when framing my shot and then cropping, if desired, afterwards.

I suppose that, ideally, I would really like an MFT camera with a square sensor to make the most of the lens. But I don't expect to see one anytime soon.

Much of the time I am printing at 16" x 12", so the 4:3 ratio suits that - but I do subscribe to the view that aspect ration is an integral component of composition and will crop to square or to letterbox if it suits the subject.

[Alan Klein]

4:3.  I haven't shot DSLR ever and I haven't shot film SLR 3:2 in a long long time.  I also shoot 6x7 medium format film which closer matches the 4:3.  I don't line 16:9 - too hard to compose.  But whatever camera format I uise, I try to frame in camera

[SZRitter]

4:3, but just this weekend as I was shooting I was beginning to wish for a 3:2 ratio. Started with 35mm, so it is something I'm more comfortable with. I usually leave my cameras at their native format to get the most of the sensor.

Personally, I like 4:3 for portraits and certain subjects, but for sports and landscapes, I think I prefer wider, so at least 3:2.

I do shot a TLR with a 6x6 size, so square is fun to do.

EDIT: I should add, if they boosted the megapixel count up a bit to 24mp or more, I would have less issue trying to shoot other formats on the camera.

[langier]

I default to 4:3 but love both the 16:9 and the 1:1 crops. My m43 camera has both a "waste-level" and 90-degree tilt-up EVF so it's like both my old Rollieflex TLR and my Hasselblad, but smaller, lighter and cheaper, but just as square.

Leaving it at 4:3 gets me the maximum image data which I can toss out later to crop to the other aspect ratios if I so desire in post.

[BJL]

Like most replies here, I almost always use the "full sensor output" 4:3 and then crop later if needed; my crops are unlikely to fit exactly to any of the offered shapes, and 4:3 is a shape that I prefer more often than 3:2 anyway.

One exception is when taking a panoramic snap-shot that I intend just for quick sharing via email or some website. Then I might use a wide-screen JPEG shape to save some time and effort. (The raw file still records the full 4:3 sensor image anyway.)

[Alan Klein]

If your camera shoot RAW + jpeg, and you shot in let's say 16:9 and the camera's native format is 4:3, wouldn't the RAW remain 4:3 and the jpeg 16:9?

[BJL]

If your camera shoot RAW + jpeg, and you shot in let's say 16:9 and the camera's native format is 4:3, wouldn't the RAW remain 4:3 and the jpeg 16:9?

Yes: on the E-M5 anyway, the raw file is at most flagged with the intended crop, so any crop is just a JPEG thing. So, like white balance.

[Martin Ranger]

I shoot in the native aspect ratio of my camera and crop later, depending on how I composed the image. On average, my portraits tend to be more towards 4:3, and my landscape-oriented images wider, but in most cases I don't crop according to a fixed ratio. I seem to be ending up around 10:7-ish a lot, though.

[scooby70]

3:2 - Just because that's what my DSLR's do.

I sometimes crop 16:9 and now and again I crop to square.

[JV]

I use the native format of my camera whether that is 4:3, 3:2 or square 6x6 film.

I quite frankly have never really understood why some people have such strong opinions favoring one aspect ratio over another.

[AFairley]

I shoot m4/3 in 4:3 and I also shoot the full frame Nikon at 4:3 (I have the viewfinder masked with a translucent strip at the edges).  I would shoot the Nikon in 5:4 mode but Nikon crops the raws and I like having the recoverable edges if I missframe a little.

[PhotoEcosse]

 I should add, if they boosted the megapixel count up a bit to 24mp or more, I would have less issue trying to shoot other formats on the camera.

Indeed.

I am reminded that a wedding photographer of my acquaintance bought a pair of Nikon D800 bodies when they first came out and, since then, he has never held a camera "upright". He shoots everything in landscape format and crops to portrait when required.

[zlatko-b]

I use 3:2 because I use MFT along with a DSLR for events and want the ratios to match.  And it's what I'm used to.  But I shoot raw, so the option to go to 4:3 is still there.

[Remo Nonaz]

I have a GH2, which actually has extra pixels so that the 4:3, 3:2 and 16:9 formats all get 14MP per image. (The actual numbers are  15.925, 15.054, 13.932.) Only 1:1 is a crop. Because of this I do change my format to match the image I am capturing. I tend to use 3:2 more than 4:3 and use 16:9 for especially wide situations. I never use 1:1 since that is just a crop of 4:3.  

What is more telling is what I am using for matting my prints. I used to purchase pre-cut mattes with an inside dimension of 11 x 14. This size is close to 4:3. But,  I’ve found that frequently I want an inside dimension of 10 x 15 or 11 x 16, which are 3:2. So now I purchase 16 x 20 blank mattes and cut them myself as needed.

[GLJ]

I have a GH2, which actually has extra pixels so that the 4:3, 3:2 and 16:9 formats all get 14MP per image. (The actual numbers are  15.925, 15.054, 13.932.) Only 1:1 is a crop.

Its also handy that the 16:9 ratio on the GH2 does actually make your wide angle lenses even wider than if they are on something like an EM5/EM1/GH3 etc that have conventional sized 4/3 sensors.

[Remo Nonaz]

That is correct. A 14mm lens in 16:9 format on the GH2 is about equal to a 24mm lens on a 35mm camera. A little bonus with the GH2 - don't know why Panasonic dropped it on later models.

If the camera didn't have this feature, I wouldn't bother with frame formatting at all. Just shoot the biggest image you can get and crop it later.

[jjj]

This Lightroom plug in may be of use for those who do crop on their raw files.
I wonder if you get the whole sensor with the GH2 as it must be slightly bigger if the 16:9 crop is wider than the 4:3 standard and supposedly full version

[Remo Nonaz]

You don't. Some time ago I was using software that did not understand the RW2 raw files correctly and it would display the whole, uncropped output of the sensor (along with other issues, making this unusable), which was interesting to see. This is how it is explained on Wikipedia:

The 2009 introduction of the Panasonic Lumix DMC-GH1 camera extends the 4:3 format image aspect ratio recording capabilities to native 16:9 and 3:2 image aspect ratio formats, rather than crops of a native 4:3 image. The GH1 uses a bigger sensor matrix that uses the full diagonal of the image circle in all three formats. This is called multi-aspect capability. To date, the multi-aspect sensor is common only to the Panasonic GH1[5] and its successor the Panasonic Lumix DMC-GH2.[6]

If you could get the whole sensor, what you would wind up with would be a few more pixels but serious vignetting (no data) in the corners since you would be extending the frame too far.