Login or Join Now

Upload your photos, chat, win prizes and much more

Username:
Password:
Remember Me

Can't Access your Account?

New to ePHOTOzine? Join ePHOTOzine for free!

Like 0

DSLR Aspect Ratio

Join Now

Join ePHOTOzine, the friendliest photography community.

Upload photos, chat with photographers, win prizes and much more for free!

Tony_M
Tony_M  10342 forum posts England
11 Aug 2005 - 1:29 AM

It's taken me a couple of weeks with my new camera (350D) to figure out that I'm now taking shots with a 3:2 aspect ratio compared to 4:3 I used to get with my compact camera.

I suspect I didn't notice for a while as I naievly thought all digicams took 4:3 pics. It was a pleasant surprise when I finally worked it out when re-sizing an image for printing as a 35mm slide.

Sponsored Links
Sponsored Links 
11 Aug 2005 - 1:29 AM

Join ePHOTOzine for free and remove these adverts.

conrad
conrad  1010877 forum posts116 Constructive Critique Points
11 Aug 2005 - 1:44 AM

Glad you take it as a pleasant surprise. I find it difficult sometimes when ordering prints of my images, depending on the print size I choose, of course, but still...

Conrad

nikon5700ite
11 Aug 2005 - 2:58 AM

If you print postcards it is a bonus but results in wasted paper with bigger prints. 4x3 is good if you only print big and compose in the camera.

I would rate the 3:2 one of the disadvantages of the DSLR.

It only came about because Leitz joined two 35mm frames together for the Leica.Smile

bradleysmith
11 Aug 2005 - 7:12 AM

I agree nikon5700ite.

3:2 was really only any good for 4x6 prints.

Four thirds, I mean, 4:3 is much better Wink

chris.maddock
11 Aug 2005 - 7:17 AM

It all depends what you are used to - I went from film (3:2) to DSLR (3:2) so the continuity was perfect.
Then I bought a P&S digital for when I don't feel like lugging the big kit around - and the aspect ratio (4:3) looks all wrong. It also doesn't fit my 15"x10" prints properly Wink

4:3 only came about because that's the common aspect ration of computer monitors.

KRs
Chris

randomrubble
11 Aug 2005 - 7:40 AM

The above is why 16:9 will rule eventually, as we all go widescreen!

Tony_M
Tony_M  10342 forum posts England
11 Aug 2005 - 9:14 AM

On reflection, I can see that a "squarer" format is probably more versatile for cropping and various print sizes.

iansamuel
iansamuel  10271 forum posts United Kingdom
11 Aug 2005 - 9:24 AM

4x3 is better for displaying on a monitor, as you can fill the screen.

With the amount of pixels that comes as standard being so high now, it doesn't matter that much as you can just crop to whatever suits you or the individual image.

Photobox.co.uk do 6x4.5" prints or 6x4 which is really useful as I can get a batch of prints done from any of my cameras, either 4x3 or 3x2.

davidhibberd
11 Aug 2005 - 9:42 AM

Nobody seems to have mentioned subject matter. I shoot almost entirely art nudes and they fit beautifully into the 3/2 format, as do landscapesSmile I take the point about monitors - shame they dont do a 'proper' aspect ratio monitor.

RichardB
RichardB  9328 forum posts United Kingdom
11 Aug 2005 - 12:14 PM

3:2 is nothing to do with Golden Sections as this seems to think ?

davidhibberd
11 Aug 2005 - 12:45 PM

3:2 is much more elegant than the extremely ugly 4:3 Smile

RichardB
RichardB  9328 forum posts United Kingdom
11 Aug 2005 - 12:47 PM

I agree - I think the link I posted explains why.

ellis rowell
12 Aug 2005 - 1:56 AM

I don't really see that it matters, my next camera will do 4:3, 3:2 and 16:9. The same sensor does all, it's rather like the old film cameras where you could fit a mask to get 8, 12 or 16 on a 120. There were also half frame 35mm cameras.

Printing: I use A format, crop my pictures to A format ratio and can then print out at A4, A5 or A6 as I wish.

Projection: A Format works out well anyway. But you could use any ratio if you want to waste half your screen space (your audience might not like it). Screens need to be 1:1 ratio to be able to show landscape and portrait.

Monitors and Tv's: With the advent of TFT screens the shots can orientated by rotating the screen 90 degrees (no doubt this could all be built into a projection program to automatically rotate the screen for portrait pictures).

davidhibberd
12 Aug 2005 - 3:51 AM

Thats your choice entirelySmile

I was simply pointing out where my preference lies.

strawman
strawman  1022010 forum posts United Kingdom16 Constructive Critique Points
12 Aug 2005 - 3:57 AM

I too like the 3x2 as its less square and you can use that to your advantage some times. Still every camera I have ever owned does 4x3 and 3x2 as just a case of agreeing the crop factor, lets face it thats all the camera will do, its just automating a crop factor Smile

Add a Comment

You must be a member to leave a comment

Username:
Password:
Remember me:
Un-tick this box if you want to login each time you visit.