1. Welcome to Mu-43.com—a friendly Micro 4/3 camera & photography discussion forum!

    If you are thinking of buying a camera or need help with your photos, you will find our forum members full of advice! Click here to join for free!

LX100: Aspect Ratio: Your favourite ?

Discussion in 'Panasonic Cameras' started by colonelpurple, Nov 21, 2014.

  1. colonelpurple

    colonelpurple Mu-43 Regular

    Feb 7, 2013
    Which aspect ratio do you find yourself using the most of the LX100 ?
  2. robbie36

    robbie36 Mu-43 All-Pro

    Sep 25, 2010
    rob collins
    This is quite an interesting topic. There is a theory that our judgment of what is our favorite aspect is tied to a certain ratio - I am sure people have heard of the 'golden ratio' 'golden spiral' or 'golden rectangle' 'phi' etc.. Actually it turns out that most of this stuff is total nonsense - just a popular myth. For anyone who is particularly interested in this I recommend this rather long lecture.


    By far the most likely explanation is that our preferred 'aspect ratio' or even 'aspect size' is determined by what we see most commonly.

    Let me give you 2 examples.

    1) When I grew up in the 1970s I spent a lot of time watching TV. At the time the TV standard was 4:3. At the time this looked totally natural to me. Since then TVs have moved on to 16:9. Take a look at a 4:3 TV show now and it looks positively weird.

    2) When I first got a computer, its screen was 15". I remember I got a 17" screen and it looked positively huge. I then got a 22" screen and wondered for a day or two whether it was actually too big - would I strain my neck from looking from one side to another. Same with the 27"....but now it looks positively small.

    Actually the same applies to TV screen sizes. 36" TV seemed huge. Then a 42" inch TV seemed big. I got a 60" inch TV and wondered if I would ever get a bigger screen but a couple of days ago someone said that I should replace my TV.

    The reality is that up until 2003 we all had 4:3 screens. From 2003 onwards 16:10 screens became popular. 16:10 being reasonably close to the golden rectangle. By 2008 80% of computer screens were 16:10. But then the economics of LCD screens made 16:9 screens more economical and by 2015 their will be no 16:10 computer screens available. 16:10 still lives on with tablets like the ipad.
    • Like Like x 2
  3. lightmonkey

    lightmonkey Mu-43 Veteran

    Dec 22, 2013
    completely varies.

    4:3 is good for portraits.

    for landscape orientation i generally prefer 16:9 as it better matches our wide field of view. 4:3 horizontal and sometimes even 3:2 feel a bit cropped on the sides.

    that said, sometimes 1:1 works depending on composition - if there isnt much of itnerest on the sides
    • Like Like x 1
  4. Amin Sabet

    Amin Sabet Administrator

    Apr 10, 2009
    Boston, MA (USA)
    Mostly 4:3 for me.
  5. marlof

    marlof Mu-43 Regular Subscribing Member

    Jun 18, 2010
    The Netherlands
    It's a bit of a mixture for me, but over 70% is 4:3, so I guess that's my preference.
  6. lakemcd

    lakemcd Mu-43 Regular

    May 27, 2013
    Interesting topic. I don't have a LX100 but I'd like to jump in anyway. For vertically oriented shots I find I prefer either 4:3 or square. Horizontal ones I tend to crop toward the wide end 16:9 etc..or square.

    Having said that I recently had a few of my pieces printed, matted and framed. Man is that expensive if it's not the standard sizes of 8x10, 11x14 etc...
  7. alexcox

    alexcox Mu-43 Rookie

    Mar 31, 2014
    Alex Cox
    What difference does it make? Micro four thirds, by definition, locks you into a 4/3 ratio if you are shooting RAW. The other options are just crops of jpegs.
  8. snkenai

    snkenai Mu-43 Top Veteran

    Sep 5, 2010
    I shoot the native format, and crop as needed. Usually, there is a need to "clean up", the edges somewhat, anyway.
  9. Talanis

    Talanis Mu-43 Top Veteran

    Oct 15, 2012
    Sherbrooke, Canada
    Eric Cote
    Not with the LX100. It has a multi-aspect ratio sensor. If you choose 16:9, your RAW file will be 4480x2520 pixels and in 4x3, it is 4112x3088. So making the choice at the moment you click makes a small difference in the pixels you will have.
  10. mattia

    mattia Mu-43 Hall of Famer

    May 3, 2012
    The Netherlands
    Still 3:2 for most things, but 4:3 for portraits is growing on me. Landscapes I prefer to stitch anyway..
  11. val

    val Mu-43 Top Veteran

    Dec 19, 2013
    I've been shooting 4:3 for awhile but for some reason I still like 16:9 for landscapes and 3:2 for portraits.

    Doesn't help that my monitor is 16:9 so 4:3 looks really strange when I edit on it.
  1. This site uses cookies to help personalise content, tailor your experience and to keep you logged in if you register.
    By continuing to use this site, you are consenting to our use of cookies.