Luminous Landscape Forum
Equipment & Techniques => Medium Format / Film / Digital Backs – and Large Sensor Photography => Topic started by: hasselbladfan on July 23, 2016, 02:48:20 pm
-
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?
-
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?
-
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.
-
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.
-
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
-
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.
-
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.
-
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.
-
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...
-
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.
-
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
-
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.
-
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
-
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
-
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.
-
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
-
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.
-
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.
-
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.
-
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-
-
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.
The 5Ds does. You can assign it to the Mn button and change at will crop ratio and also aspect ratio 1:1, 4:3, 16:9 and of course 3:2. The limitation is that you can't use the viewfinder for 4:3 and 16:9. So Live view only. No idea why. You do get 7712x5792 or 44.7 MP though
-
Neither are good.
It has to be square.
-
3x2 ratio is too wide. Unless you want to shoot vertically all the time, the 3x2 ratio is really unsuited to taking photos of people. It makes you have to step further back to fit someone in the frame. If it was 4x3, you could get a lot closer and achieve the composition your looking for, which leads to more background blur or a more 3d look.
I am actually really surprised someone has not made a 36x27mm sensor. You could essentially be able to use the same lenses and everything else, but you would be gaining more sensor real estate.
-
I am actually really surprised someone has not made a 36x27mm sensor. You could essentially be able to use the same lenses and everything else, but you would be gaining more sensor real estate.
A 36x27mm sensor would cause the mirror of DSLRs to be longer and thus the mirrorbox of completely different design... Flange distance would have to be increased and existing lens series (despite the capability of image circle size) wouldn't be usable.
Keeping the existing flange distance, mirrorbox designs, prism designs, focal plane shutters and lens series with digital sensors arrival, was the (only) logical thing for traditional SLR makers during the film days to do...
EDIT: Same thing of course as with traditional MF DSLR makers that all use a mirrorbox compatible with 56x42mm image areas...
-
Good point Theo.
But what if Sony made a 36 x 36 sensor and housed it in a mirrorless evf body? People could select in the menu their preferred format and all existing lenses would be compatible, apart from the need to redesign some petal lens hoods.
Or am I missing something?
OK, just realised a lot of lens would vignette..... back to the drawing board.
Paul
With mirrorless there is no limitation other than the diameter of the lens flange and the flange to sensor distance... Once the maker sets the mechanical construction standards, he can use whatever sensor ratio of sides that has the same diagonal as a different aspect ratio... For instance Sony, that currently uses 3:2 ratio 36x24mm sensor and a flange diameter that looks to be limited to this diagonal, they can make a 34x25.5mm sensor (or about that) of 4:3 ratio or a 29x29mm (about) sensor of 1:1 ratio that one would be able to use his existing line of lenses on.
EDIT: The Leica T mount is even more advanced mechanically... it is of 5mm larger diameter (that's a lot) from the Sony and its flange distance is of +1mm (19mm with respect to 18mm for the Sony)... It can therefore use even wider diameter sensors of larger image area than its current 36x24mm sensor as long as the lenses used have an image circle that is equal or larger than the mount's diameter.
-
But what if Sony made a 36 x 36 sensor and housed it in a mirrorless evf body?
Why not just take a full frame DSLR and crop it to 24x24?
-
Why not just take a full frame DSLR and crop it to 24x24?
But there'd be no point: you can do that already by cropping... the gain would be squaring up on the longer side. Composing to crop isn't as easy as it sounds; also, that extra bit you know you are going to lose annoys the hell out of one when on a tiny format - it's not like cropping 6x6... ;-)
We could go round and around all day.
Rob
-
I'll go round some more. :) Make the sensor 36mm square, put it in an EVF-based body, then choose from a myriad of framing options including 36x24mm vertical (no more need to flip the camera 90° unless you want to) and ~30mm square. Some lenses won't accommodate all the options, others will. Have fun.
-Dave-
-
Personally I prefer square, then 5:4, 4:3 and full panoramic 6:17 or 6:12 equivalents. 3:2, as mentioned by others seems fine for wider landscape images but doesn't resonate with me as it doesn't feel like a natural comfortable source ratio to me. For verticals 3:2 is just too narrow IMHO.
The crop afterwards argument does fly for me. Whenever I crop down a 3:2 image I just wish that I'd shot it on a squarer format in the first place.
-
Years asking for this.
Best
I'll go round some more. :) Make the sensor 36mm square, put it in an EVF-based body, then choose from a myriad of framing options including 36x24mm vertical (no more need to flip the camera 90° unless you want to) and ~30mm square. Some lenses won't accommodate all the options, others will. Have fun.
-Dave-
-
Years asking for this.
Best
Maybe Sony?
;-)
Rob
-
Yes Rob.
Who else? :-\
Maybe Sony?
;-)
Rob
-
I'll go round some more. :) Make the sensor 36mm square, put it in an EVF-based body, then choose from a myriad of framing options including 36x24mm vertical (no more need to flip the camera 90° unless you want to) and ~30mm square. Some lenses won't accommodate all the options, others will. Have fun.
Hi Dave,
Easier said than done. Not only does the price of such a sensor go up a lot (it might need 4 stitched patterns to fill, and it will have lower yield). Also, it requires new series of lenses with a significantly larger (e.g. 51 mm instead of 44 mm) image circle, giving bulkier/heavier lenses, especially for those with wider apertures.
Cheers,
Bart
-
Hi Bart,
I agree on the issue with costs, but I don't thing the image circle is that crucial, many lenses cover quite a bit more than 43 mm and there are many options to fit framing within a 43 mm image circle.
Best regards
Erik
Hi Dave,
Easier said than done. Not only does the price of such a sensor go up a lot (it might need 4 stitched patterns to fill, and it will have lower yield). Also, it requires new series of lenses with a significantly larger (e.g. 51 mm instead of 44 mm) image circle, giving bulkier/heavier lenses, especially if those with wider apertures.
Cheers,
Bart
-
I shoot with in camera composition in mind although I will crop if required. I guess that comes from decades of shooting 35mm film. Now, when I shoot MF 6x7 film, I have no choice of format unless I crop afterwards.
The interesting thing is when I go traveling on vacation with a digital camera and shoot both 16:9 video clips and 4:3 stills and then put them all on a video BluRay DVD to show on my HDTV. Jumping from 4:3 stills with some 16:9 movie clips mixed in bothered me so I cropped my 4:3 stills to 16:9 so the show is all 16:9. That doesn't work very good because often the composition cropping fails due to the change in format. So on the the last trip I shot stills in 16:9 to match the movies. But I miss the 4:3 format because you lose the height and 16:9 often is just too wide for most things.
Maybe I'll try 3:2 stills. It might not be so glaring to the 16:9 videos.
-
Thanks, guys. Good discussion. Good insights.
-
Easier said than done.
Yup. But: what Erik said! Anyway, this is (for me) more about blue-sky wishes than real-world expectations.
-Dave-
-
this is (for me) more about blue-sky wishes than real-world expectations.
Yep. Can't imagine any of this ever happening.
-
A 36x27mm sensor would cause the mirror of DSLRs to be longer and thus the mirrorbox of completely different design... Flange distance would have to be increased and existing lens series (despite the capability of image circle size) wouldn't be usable.
Keeping the existing flange distance, mirrorbox designs, prism designs, focal plane shutters and lens series with digital sensors arrival, was the (only) logical thing for traditional SLR makers during the film days to do...
EDIT: Same thing of course as with traditional MF DSLR makers that all use a mirrorbox compatible with 56x42mm image areas...
Hmm, I kind of disagree with most of that except for the mirror design. Most serious cameras going forward for 35mm are going to be mirrorless, so its really not an issue.
I don't see why flange distance would change at all. the 36x24mm sensor is literally cutting off the image coming from the lens. If more sensor was there, there is no reason why it would not capture it.
-
Hmm, I kind of disagree with most of that except for the mirror design. Most serious cameras going forward for 35mm are going to be mirrorless, so its really not an issue.
It would really be helpful, before you disagree by... agree (!!!) to read what the conversation at the time was about... If you look back then, It was on the proposal to have 27X36mm sensors on (mirrorbox) DSLRs (which will be with us for as long as photography exists... Mirrorless (or their market penetration) have nothing to do with the subject I was replying on... In fact I state that mirrorless can have whatever image ratio as long as the sensor diagonal is kept constant, some few comments later...
I don't see why flange distance would change at all. the 36x24mm sensor is literally cutting off the image coming from the lens. If more sensor was there, there is no reason why it would not capture it.
Not the case at all... Mirrors in mirrorbox DSLRs are designed so that they can project the 24mm height to the viewfinder... If the sensor was of 27mm of height, the image projected in the (optical) VF would still be a cropped one of 24mm height... This means that a longer mirror (expanded towards the flange) would be required as to add the 3mm missing and then the flange distance should be increased as to allow for a longer mirror...
More than that, other than the longer mirror, the mirrorbox design geometry should be altered altogether... This is due to the center of the image area need to be retained in line with the lens axis, which would then require the mirror center for 27mm image area to be aligned on the very same axis (in other words the center of the mirror distance to the VF's screen should be increased so that focus ability would be retained...). Other than that, the VF's pentaprism would require to be (completely) redesigned...
-
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...
There are actually technical reasons for why Leica chose 3:2 for the S; for starters they wanted to minimize the flange distance as much as possible for greater freedom in lens design and compatability, and that meant having a shorter mirror box. And what do you need for that? Yeah, a shorter mirror.
The closer the format is to square, the greater the angular travel of the mirror, which increases vibrations and reduces shot speed... It's just simple geometry. A 3mm difference might not seem like much, but it's about 10% of the plane height, which bears a multiplicative effect once physics come into play.
Having used an S on a few occasions and being an owner of a 645Z, I can tell that there is a difference in the amount of recoil produced by each camera during exposure; the S is smoother and easier to hold at lower shutter speeds, although both have quite a bit less vibrations than a Phase SLR.
-
Kodak did make a 16MP, 36mm x 36mm CCD sensor used by Hasselblad CFV, and that was the only camera that I know of, that used that square sensor.
-
The historical (1996) back Dicomed Bigshot also had a square sensor, at huge size 60x60mm. The more sensor technology has progressed the less likely it seems to see custom sizes. It can change again though.