Luminous Landscape Forum
Equipment & Techniques => Mirrorless Cameras => Topic started by: lensjack on February 16, 2014, 03:37:38 pm
-
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.
-
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-
-
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.
-
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
-
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.
-
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.
-
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.)
-
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?
-
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.
-
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.
-
3:2 - Just because that's what my DSLR's do.
I sometimes crop 16:9 and now and again I crop to square.
-
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.
-
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.
-
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.
-
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.
-
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.
-
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.
-
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.
-
This Lightroom plug in (http://labs.adobe.com/technologies/lightroomplugins/) 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
-
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.
-
4:3. Most pixels and the aspect ratio is the same as 8x6, which is nice for making contact prints.
-
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.
With some lenses at least, but on the other hand, many lenses produce an image circle significantly larger than the format that they are design for. In particular
- normal to telephoto lens optical designs often produce an image circle of diameter similar to their focal length (until the image is "cropped" by in-lens baffles and such), so longer-than-normal lenses often produce an oversized image circle.
- zooming often functions by enlarging the entire image, so that zoom lenses often produce an "oversized" image circle when at focal lengths longer than their minimum. (One quick way to see this is to put a Nikon DX zoom lens on an FX body and see what happens as you zoom: for example, the 12-24 DX coves the full FX image circle when at 19-24mm.)
What pixel counts do you see in the raw files?
To be concrete, the GH2 sensor has maximum JPEG pixel counts ranging from 4608 x 3456 in 4:3 to 4976 x 2800 in 16:9, so at some stage the sensor outputs at least 4976 x 3456: does the raw file record the whole 4976 x 3456 or just the selected shape crop?
-
I find that if I hope to crop in post, the initial photo format may not have been framed where I can crop effectively. For example, if I shoot people in 4:3 and then crop for 16:9 for display on my HDTV, I can wind up cropping off heads and feet. Often elements that make a pleasing composition cannot be held if you change the format when cropping. Also, by focusing on the framing in camera, I get better overall composition, angles, etc. that just would be lost by not paying attention when shooting. You're taking a chance if not framing to the camera's format when shooting.
-
For example, if I shoot people in 4:3 and then crop for 16:9 for display on my HDTV, I can wind up cropping off heads and feet.
Why not crop for the way you want the image to be (in this case, include the heads and feet, and so make the shape a bit higher than 16:9), and let it be displayed with a bit of blank space at the sides or at top and bottom?
Maybe tastes differ, but I find it strange to mess with my compositional choice of what is in the final image and what is not for the sake of completely filling, top-to-bottom and side-to-side, the Procrustean bed of my computer screen or TV, or the sheet of printing paper I am using. (I was happy to leave various amounts of white space around my dark-room prints, and if necessary cut mats to fit.)
-
Why not crop for the way you want the image to be (in this case, include the heads and feet, and so make the shape a bit higher than 16:9), and let it be displayed with a bit of blank space at the sides or at top and bottom?
Maybe tastes differ, but I find it strange to mess with my compositional choice of what is in the final image and what is not for the sake of completely filling, top-to-bottom and side-to-side, the Procrustean bed of my computer screen or TV, or the sheet of printing paper I am using. (I was happy to leave various amounts of white space around my dark-room prints, and if necessary cut mats to fit.)
+1
-
Why not crop for the way you want the image to be (in this case, include the heads and feet, and so make the shape a bit higher than 16:9), and let it be displayed with a bit of blank space at the sides or at top and bottom?
I agree with this. At the same time, though, I've taken up the option of shooting in 16:9 (mainly with the Sony A7r) and am really enjoying it. When I first started scanning 35mm film I found many landscape-orientation pics worked well with 7:4 crops, which is close to 16:9. I find keeping the same aspect ratio when mixing video with still images to be helpful composition-wise too.
-Dave-
-
Good point Dave. In order to keep them the same size, I even shoot video in 4:3 to match my 4:3 stills. No HD though.
-
To be concrete, the GH2 sensor has maximum JPEG pixel counts ranging from 4608 x 3456 in 4:3 to 4976 x 2800 in 16:9, so at some stage the sensor outputs at least 4976 x 3456: does the raw file record the whole 4976 x 3456 or just the selected shape crop?
While I would not bet a very large amount of money on it, simply because I haven't personally verified it, I currently believe that for the Gh2, the raw file will only contain the selected shape crop, and thus it doesn't output the whole 18MP of the oversized sensor. I've never been able to 'reset' it out of whatever the recorded aspect ratio is, and I've never read about anyone using any other raw converters that allowed it either.
I've no idea why they stopped making this type of oversized sensor. I'm sure the cost would be a bit higher due to lower volume, but I'd have thought that it would be an attractive USP for their higher end cameras. Its one of the reasons I still use a GH2 for wide angle shots!
-
While I would not bet a very large amount of money on it, simply because I haven't personally verified it, I currently believe that for the Gh2, the raw file will only contain the selected shape crop, and thus it doesn't output the whole 18MP of the oversized sensor. I've never been able to 'reset' it out of whatever the recorded aspect ratio is, and I've never read about anyone using any other raw converters that allowed it either.
Try using the Adobe recover edges plugin I linked to a few posts back and see if that finds the missing pixels.
-
While I would not bet a very large amount of money on it, simply because I haven't personally verified it, I currently believe that for the Gh2, the raw file will only contain the selected shape crop, and thus it doesn't output the whole 18MP of the oversized sensor. I've never been able to 'reset' it out of whatever the recorded aspect ratio is, and I've never read about anyone using any other raw converters that allowed it either.
On my GH1, the raw file comes out sized to the selected aspect ratio.
I've no idea why they stopped making this type of over-sized sensor.
I have a feeling that most users just didn't get it (the constant diagonal thing and it's advantages).
Personally I love it :-)
cheers,
-
Try using the Adobe recover edges plugin I linked to a few posts back and see if that finds the missing pixels.
From the Adobe RE notes:
"(*) This does not work with Nikon and Panasonic models, since cameras from
these vendors crop the raw data itself to the chosen aspect ratio. "
-
I recall that BCooter said that he found the 4:3 aspect
good for portraits (not seeing him replying, above).
For myself, using the LX3 which allows a choice by
sliding tab of 4:3, 3:2, or 16:9 (1:1 got via menu;
this came in a firmware upgrade --moved to tab
for LX5 & -7), I found 3:2 least used, 4:3 most;
16:9 is a natural one where e.g. landscape width
or some vertical length is wanted --and widest
angle (~= 22mm equiv FoV). For many things
that caught my eye, 4:3 fit.
To date, the multi-aspect sensor is common only to the Panasonic GH1[5] and its successor the Panasonic Lumix DMC-GH2.[6]
It was & still is common in the LX3/5/7, but
was lost to the GH3.
--dl*
====
-
From the Adobe RE notes:
"(*) This does not work with Nikon and Panasonic models, since cameras from
these vendors crop the raw data itself to the chosen aspect ratio. "
That's a bit mean! >:(
-
The Gh3's I mostly use for video so the format is usually 16x9.
The stills from the gh3 can be set at 16x9, 23, 43, 1:1, but the panasonic crops the raw image to whatever format you set (go figure).
For 43 stills I use the olympus em1 and em5 and they do not crop the raw images regardless of the format you set in the camera (for stills).
The em-1 has a slight line in it if you set it for 4:3 that defines the 2:3 crop which is great for horizontals.
I wish they'd all just shoot the full 43 resolution and give you access in the camera with the slight lines for horizontal 23 and vertical 43.
It really doesn't matter because the Olympus shoots a much superior still, the gh3's great video.
IMO
BC
P.S. One thing. The Olympus is a beautiful and well built camera and I love it, though it's not the most intuitive in the world.
The gh3 and soon the gh4 are very intuitive and have an easy menu, just the right amount of actually switches and buttons and do great autofocus.
I wish the gh3/4 had a little more style to it as the olympus which is a beautiful machine.
The panasonics, as good as they are (which is very, very good) look like they were designed by the guy that does tupperware and the plastic trash bins outside your house.
Still combining the two systems makes sense and is easy since they use the same format lenses.
-
I whish camera makers would take in-camera composition more seriously. I talked to a Sony guy recently and asked him why the a7r does not support 1:1. He looked at me like I was asking him what an "au-to-mo-bile" does. His reply was "Well, you buy photoshop, you make a square selection, you erase what’s around it." I told him that he should not expect me to hand over the money for an a7r.
-
I whish camera makers would take in-camera composition more seriously.
Obviously Mirrorless is very price aware and I think is worried about breaking into higher priced dslr territory.
I'd love to see a professional mirrorless camera, that stopped worrying about addning another $700 to $1000 on the retail price.
Take the em1. It's a great camera, maybe overall the best camera I've used, (for stills). The menu is complicated because it doesn't return back to where you finished (which makes no sense) but overall the camera is jewel like and offers a lot of quality in image and shooting.
Olympus makes a vf-4 add on viewfinder. for the em-1 it moves your nose off the rear screen, it adds waist level functionality, but it takes up the hot shoe slot, with no thought about adding another flash or something like a pocket wizard. At least they put an old fashion pc plug in it (which they didn't do on the em-5) but you have to find a place to mount a flash or a slave and it is just a base oversight that they didn't embed a hotshoe on the vf-4.
Same with tethering. Sony kind of does it, olympus, fuji, panasonic and olympus just don't, and honestly what does that take, a firmware update?
I think it's just an oversight that they think that only an advanced amateur will work with their cameras and all professionals use 10 year old designed dslrs and only medium format.
I guess I could understand it if the camera companies were selling everything they made and their sales were going up, but the reverse is happening and they are
It's funny, after using the m43 cameras which gives you wysiwyg, I just bought a Leica S2 (the first version) and the first thing I noticed looking through an ovf for the first time in 3 months, was when I moved the knobs nothing happened in the viewfinder. At first I thought, wow something is wrong.
Crazy, because 6 months ago I felt the opposite and evf.
Mirrorless has the ability to really change how we all work, but we really, really need a professional version of one of these cameras, without any missed functions, especially easy ones like tethering.
IMO
BC
-
I have to say when I looked through the X-T1's viewfinder and started playing around with film looks and getting as you describe a wysiwig view, it felt this is exactly how digital cameras with viewfinders should work. I've often using a pocket camera that way with the rear screen.
And also unlike using OVFs you will get to see the actual true DoF when using a wide aperture lens. Using an f1.4 lens with Canon's groundglass which reduces DoF to an apparent F2.8 makes for difficult focusing and also tricky composing as the DoF is so very different.
-
I use 3:2 because I prefer that aspect ratio. With 4:3 I get either too much sky or too much foreground. Maybe 16:9 would be more appealing for landscapes, but I have never really tried that.
-
From the Adobe RE notes:
"(*) This does not work with Nikon and Panasonic models, since cameras from
these vendors crop the raw data itself to the chosen aspect ratio. "
I guess there might be sensible arguments for reading out only parts of the sensor. I.e. heat, energy consumption, framerates etc.
From a simplistic "lenses are expensive and hard to make" viewpoint, it sure sounds reasonable to try to capture as much as possible of the image circle.
I do remember the transition from 4:3 to 16:9 where family & friends were constantly trying to keep their new shiny 16:9 tv filled with content that tended to be 4:3. I occasionally see tv programmes that seems to have been 16:9 letterboxed into 4:3 letterboxed into 16:9 letterboxed into.... It seems safe to say that the content delivery to those channels is not overseen by many competent, caring people.
-h