4:3's Aspect Ratio

I was reading a forum post about the square format of traditional Medium Format

cameras and I realized that one of the reasons I am drawn to the 4:3's format is

that the aspect ratio has the same intimate 'feel' of a square format. There

isn't much breadth to the form but it has considerable depth.

 

Indeed, I think it lends itself to cropping to square quite readily. And I feel

that the techniques for shooting landscapes and candids with a 4:3s camera is

much closer to shooting them in a square MF than it is to shooting them in 35mm

format.

 

Am I the only one who feels this way? Are you finding yourself doing things

technique wise that are closer to larger format techniques?

Different formats for different compositions.

 

Personally, I like the 3:2 format better than 4:3 most of the time.

Most of what I actually print is printed at 8x10 or 8.5x11. The amount I have to crop my Olympus files is substantially less- I pretty much don't need to worry about the wide side of the image, unlike the days of shooting film and having to make sure I kept well short of the sides to get an 8x10 print that didn't crop something off I didn't want to lose.

Lots of times, I print/display square. It's the intimacy of that lack of breadth. It's got something to do with being forced to look at the world thru a smaller window, you have less to work with, but less distraction as well.

Since I shoot both formats (Nikon D50 and Olympis 5060) I've begun resizing everything to 7"x10", right in-between. Makes cutting mats very simple.

Sorry about misspelling "Olympus".

Hi Glenn,

 

One of the biggest gripes of *medium-format film* to digital pro's is the *35mm* aspect

ratio (too skinny for portraits and uprights in general). For me, being an avid MF guy

Olympus really got this bit right and I agree that it's a very pleasing format to work with.

 

If you look over the (professional) Canon forums you'll find lots of information on this

topic, Canon do listen, recently they offered 4:3 (cropped) focussing screens to their pro's

for just this purpose.

 

Makes you wonder if (read: when) Canon will offer a 4:3 equiped camera for their editorial/

commercial photographers.

 

Now, if only Olympus could give us a Canon (FF) sized view-finder, then all in the world

would be good ;-)

 

Best,

Chris

Christopher, you get what I'm talking about, I think. It isn't which aspect ratio I use that is important. It is WHY I use it.

Yes, Glen it's all how about how the image *feels* with me too. On a side note, the very

best *skinny* format for landscape imaging is Bronica's 35mm wide back, I think it was

24x54mm, perfect in my opion (24x36mm not quite wide enough for me).

Now, I shoot the XPan, nice, but is just not *as nice* as the 54mm wide Bronica frame.

 

As for 4:3, yes, it just feels right AND as you say crops beautifully to suare OR is great as

is!

 

I think the difference between 4:3, 2:3 is very akin to that of the Bronica 35mm wide and

XPan frames - "you either get it OR you don't."

 

All the best,

Chris

<i>"Now, if only Olympus could give us a Canon (FF) sized view-finder, then all in the world would be good ;-)"</i>

<p>

Don't know about Canon's 1-series cameras but I have the 5D and its viewfinder is not so much larger than my old 10D - and certainly much smaller than the viewfinder of my OM-1. I would like to get a FF digital camera with an OM-1 kind of viewfinder...

....Don't know about Canon's 1-series cameras but I have the 5D and its viewfinder is not

so much larger than my old 10D - and certainly much smaller than the viewfinder of my

OM-1. I would like to get a FF digital camera with an OM-1 kind of viewfinder....

 

I think that all the viewfinders (on pro-line cameras have been *high eyepoint* (smaller)

AND the 5D is 95% (thereabouts), plus high-eye point, so that's two strikes against it!

 

The 5D however IS huge compaired to my E1, as for my OM2n's, I cannot remember, they

got traded for the F3 when it was introduced (a mistake) a long time ago.

 

Chris

Don't know about the E-1 as I've never handled one, but I'd estimate the OM-1 viewfinder to be at least double the apparent area (say about 1.5x larger in each dimension) as the 5D's viewfinder. Anyway, I get by...

 

;-)

I adapted easily to 4:3. It seems natural to me. What else is there to say. I suppose my love for the square may explain it. 126 in the early days. Then the Bronica square. Now if we got a true Euclidian square wouldn't need to look for L shaped quick release plates.

I found the transition from 3:2 to 4:3 quite natural. Here is an uncropped image in 4:3 format (Olympus E-1 with ZD 300/2.8 + 1.4x).

 

Cheers!

 

Hans<div></div>

I'm an MF guy and like the similarity of the 4:3 setup as well. You just have to juggle the math to crop to either square or 3:2. Nice to have that option, or as so ably suggested above, leave it right where it is.

 

Cheers,

Ray Hull