- Dec 15, 2009
Hi bashar, the E-P1 certainly does have square format as an option it's labelled 6:6 for some reason.
I just realized after reading your post that I voted wrong. I meant to vote for 3/2 because I like the longer aspect much more than the squatty looking 4/3. When my clients order 8x10's it makes me twitch! I'd much prefer to make 4x6's or 5x7's or 8x12's for them. Traditional portraiture often lent itself to a 4/3 look, but contemporary portraiture pops much better, generally, when you have the flexibility if 3/2 and sometimes even 16/9. And scenics/landscapes usually are great served up in 16/9.3:2 because it just looks right, followed by 16:9 because its very interesting to work with and when used correctly is great for landscapes/city scapes. 4/3 has always looked strange to me...
yes, 645 has been a standard film aspect ratio for the professional portrait photographer for decades. I've photographed thousands of high school seniors on 645 format.... it makes a very close transition to the traditional 4x5 pro proofs we used and the many 8x10 prints that were so standard for so long. Now today, its funny to me how I dislike that aspect ratio with contemporary portrait work... I have such a hard time shooting 3/2 aspect and translating them into good 8x10 compositions when clients order that size.4:3 is actually 3.75:3 if my calculations are correct 22.5: 18
its pretty close to 4:3 for practical purposes
4:3 is also the same as the ratio of the pentax 6 X4.5 large format and its pretty nice imho