Why the ever changing aspect ratio???

Discussion in 'Digital Photography' started by Editor www.nutritionsoftware.org, Nov 21, 2003.

  1. I just got a Canon 300D and found that its photo aspect ratio is 1.5.
    My Canon G3 and S10 have 1.33 aspect ratio.

    My question is: what are the aspect ratios of other popular digital cameras?
    Any camera with a 1.0 AP :) to simulate the film's medium format?
    Editor www.nutritionsoftware.org, Nov 21, 2003
    1. Advertisements

  2. Howdy Editor
    The Canon 300D follows other DSLRs, which follow 35 mm
    SLRs, which have a 3:2 aspect.

    The G3 and S10 follow other non-DSLR digital cameras,
    which follow computer screens, which have a 4:3 aspect.
    Non-DSLR cameras are 4:3.
    DSLR cameras are 3:2.
    Digital backs for medium-format cameras are 1:1.

    Michael Reichmann has a typically-thorough survey of
    the state of medium-format digital backs as of today here:


    Hope that helps.

    Stanley Krute, Nov 21, 2003
    1. Advertisements

  3. Editor  www.nutritionsoftware.org

    zbzbzb Guest

    I just got a Canon 300D and found that its photo aspect ratio is 1.5.
    Aspect ratios with cameras have always been screwed up. Look at all the weird
    frame and matte sizes in comparison to typically used cameras. I don't think
    manufacturers could care less about aspect ratios.
    zbzbzb, Nov 21, 2003
  4. Early digicams used 4:3 aspect ratio almost exclusively, because that is the
    aspect ratio of most monitors.
    Most people bought P&S digicams to send pictures over the internet to be viewed
    on a monitor screen.
    Modern DSLR cameras use a 1.5:1 aspect ratio because that is the aspect ratio of
    35 mm film and 4x6 photos (which are by far the most used print format in the
    US). The quality of modern DSLRs is so good that many, if not most, of the
    images end up in print. However, for some reason, the picture frame industry in
    the U.S. has popularized 5 X 7 and 8 X 10 which have still different aspect
    ratios. No matter how you slice it, most of us will end up cropping one way or
    the other.
    Bob Williams
    Robert E. Williams, Nov 21, 2003
  5. Hi Robert
    Seems there's a nice little market niche to be filled by whoever
    brings to market a reasonably-priced line of 4:3 and 3:2
    ratio picture frames.

    Stanley Krute, Nov 21, 2003
  6. Editor  www.nutritionsoftware.org

    Hils Guest

    Aspect ratios with cameras have always been screwed up. Look at all the weird
    This is an excellent summary. One of the ironies of metric paper
    "standards" is that while they are closer to the 3:2 "standards" than
    the old "standards" of 10x8in etc (themselves derived from plate sizes),
    it is so unlikely that anyone will manufacture an electronic sensor of
    sqrt(2):1 that a good investment for anyone with an interest in printing
    would be a good quality guillotine or rotary cutter.

    Standards? Pah! :)
    Hils, Nov 21, 2003
  7. Editor  www.nutritionsoftware.org

    Don Stauffer Guest

    Historical. In a sense it goes back to film and TV history. While there
    were standards of format size and aspect ratio for any given film
    format, virtually all formats were different. There were 8 x 10
    cameras, 4 x 5 cameras (okay, so those two did have same aspect ratio),
    2-1/4 square (120 film) 35mm, and many others.

    Standard broadcast TV had the 4/3 ratio, and since many early digicam
    chips were made for video cameras originally, that format became very

    I am afraid if someone tried to get a consensus on this, to form a
    standard, he'd have a hard time. Personally, I find 4/3 very nice.
    Better than 3/2.
    Don Stauffer, Nov 22, 2003
    1. Advertisements

Ask a Question

Want to reply to this thread or ask your own question?

You'll need to choose a username for the site, which only take a couple of moments (here). After that, you can post your question and our members will help you out.