Which aspect ratio you shoot and why ?


The Image Stimulator
The Netherlands
As to me I'm shooting 4:3 to get max. pixel output from the G1. (which is equiped with 43-sensor).
Aspect ratio G2:
1:1 (Hasselblad)
4:3 (mu-43)
3:2 (Leica)
16:9 (Cinema)
(by the way the NEX doesn't have 4:3 why is that)
Which aspect ratio you prefer ? Why ?
Does all of these aspect ratio match size of displays and paper ?
Do look forward hearing from you, thanks in advance.

Kind regards, Herman
I mainly shoot raw and my current lineup of cameras do not feature flexible aspect ratio when shooting raw. So it is 3:4 with compacts and 2:3 with dSLRs. I prefer 3:4, however. Somehow I crop 3:4 images more and get more accurate compositions out of them, it is also a less 'dynamic' proportion than 2:3 or 16:9 (which are either too wide or too tall on some occasions). The ratio also seems a bit nostalgic to me, reminds me of pre-35mm film days.
I use a G-1 currently and leave it set at 4:3. For me, any other setting is a poor idea.

I'm a very experienced photographer (over 50 years of using serious cameras, several more if you count snapshot box cameras). My shooting falls into two categories, my personal serious art photography and the documentary work I do for my day job designing signage. In both cases the final shape of the printed image is dictated by the shape of the subject.

I'm experienced enough to visualize the final image without the camera artificially masking the image for me. Also, I always print my own images after some amount of post processing so I can do the cropping to shape in PP. I don't need the native camera file to be cropped to shape so that a straight from the camera image can be printed at the local drug store.

Since I don't use a GH-1, the route to be best quality (most pixels in the final image) is to always leave the camera at 4:3 since the other aspect ratios are merely in-camera crops of the full sensor area. The GH-1 is the only currently available camera that actually uses the full image circle of the lens with switching to different aspect ratios instead of simply cutting off a portion of the sensor's native aspect ration image.
I'm kind of odd because I shoot RAW + JPG so have the full 4/3 crop (on the EP-1) available as a "digital negative" anyway, but I prefer to compose "in-camera" and do as little post processing as possible, so I will often change the aspect ratio depending on the subject and also the art filter. For example I quite often use 6x6 format with the Grainy B&W filter as it reminds me of the old 120 roll film shots from the 50s:


(EP-1 with 14-42 kit lens)

Otherwise I will tailor the aspect ratio to the subject, although I must admit I do have a sneaking regard for the 16:9 format in portrait orientation (i.e. tall and thin) as I think that often makes for quite an unusual shot where otherwise (with one of the wide vertical formats) it would be a bit more run-of-the-mill.

For example here is one of my shots of a very familiar subject from Egypt that I think would have had far less impact if I'd used 3:2 or 4:3 format:


(Lumix LX-2)
I always shoot in native aspect ratio and crop if I see fit.

I like the 4:3 aspect ratio of small sensor cameras because they capture more of the vertical aspects of any given scene than 3:2 at any focal length. It gives me maximum 'real estate' to work with, and shows as much of the scene as the focal length can take, so to speak.

I often enjoy using 16:9, as it fills the average computer monitor and gives a cinematic look. For even greater cinematic effect, I occasionally use 2.35:1, with is the anamorphic aspect ratio often used in movies. I often examine movies to see how they use composition in 16:9 or 2.35:1 or 2.4:1.

1:1 is a bit of fun as well. :)
I hadn't really thought about the topic. I have retained the 4:3 aspect from my bigger Oly bodies. It is quite clear that I am in that "rut " where old equals comfort. I do favor "landscape" framing versus "portrait" framing as I compose my images that way. I do shoot RAW and process mostly in Lightroom with NIK.

With the E-PL1, I've had too much fun with the video and filters to think this deeply
I shoot whatever aspect ratio makes sense for my composition. On my GH1 I shoot primarily in 3:2 since that's a nice compromise between 16:9 and 4:3, and on the GH1 it gets me slightly wider horizontal FOV over 4:3. However, I do switch aspect ratios if the situation demands it. For film I shoot 3:2 (35mm), 1:1 (MF), and down the road 6:9 (MF) and 4:5 (LF).
I mainly shoot 3:2 (often even with my GX100). I also crop to other formats depending on the composition. But 3:2 to me seems to be more pleasing than 4:3 maybe also a force of habit.

I shoot 16:9 mostly. I like the landscape format.
The Dlux-4 has a lever to change the ratio. As I - in the Leica forum - suggested, that it would be better to hide this option in the menu, I was attacked heavily. It seems, that there are people, who - just before taking a picture - decide what aspect ration fits better. Not bad of course, to optimize the use of the pixel area.
I try to use whatever the particular camera "is" - with the idea that what I see is what I want, however in practice, truth be told, that is not always the case...it's often the case but not always. When I see the image afterwards on my computer screen, I make the final cut. Most of the time, it's just a slightly smaller version if it's different at all. That just the other day I had an image that I liked but not quite...then I chose the 16:9 in order to remove too much water on a landscape/seascape shot and it worked much, much better.