Questioning the 3x2 Format

[gtownby]

Advertisement (gone after registration)

The S2 news is exciting. I am happy that Hasselblad will have a competitor.

 

But I have to question Leica choosing the 3x2 format for professional photographers. Pick up any photo-intensive magazine, especially in fashion or design, and you will see pages laid out with photos in 4x5 format. And how many brides are going to want their portraits taken with that tall vertical perspective?

 

Yes, you can crop, but then you're wasting pixels.

 

(Fine-art photography is another story. I personally love the wide 3x2 format. But the S2 is certainly not priced for that market.)

[Advertisement]

The Leica Q3 is available for pre-order at B&H Photo Video and Adorama

[Michael Hiles]

I suspect that they went with their heritage, and the fact that regardless of the final aspect ratio in publications, everyone is used to 35mm as a standard, even when there is no film behind the lens.

 

More esoteric, 3:2 is very close to the golden ratio, which is visually satisfying. It looks better than 5:4, in many people's opinion.

[PeterP]

 

More esoteric, 3:2 is very close to the golden ratio, which is visually satisfying. It looks better than 5:4, in many people's opinion.

 

 

I would agree w/ you on horizontal , 5:4 (or rather 4:5) looks better in vertical.

 

I generally keep the 2:3 or even go to 9:16 in horizontal , but as a norm tend to crop to 4:5 in vertical - I just find it more pleasing .

 

So it probably isa good choice.

 

PeterP

[PeterP]

I might add that our viewing aesthetic in general has shifted beyond 5:4 . TV screens , computer screens which used to be 4:5 are now 2:3 or 9:16.

 

PeterP

[lxlim]

I have a professional need for the 3x2 format which fits my clients' needs better. I would say it depends because I waste less pixels in my situation.

[lxlim]

I would agree w/ you on horizontal , 5:4 (or rather 4:5) looks better in vertical.

 

I generally keep the 2:3 or even go to 9:16 in horizontal , but as a norm tend to crop to 4:5 in vertical - I just find it more pleasing .

 

So it probably isa good choice.

 

PeterP

 

Its the same for myself except I rarely shoot portrait format.

[adan]

Advertisement (gone after registration)

Gordon, I mostly agree with you - prefer 2:3 format myself, think 4:5 or 4:3 fits a single magazine page/cover better.

 

But a magazine spread is 4:3 + 4:3 (or 4:6 = 2:3 = S2)

 

A crop from 37 Mpixels to 4:3 is STILL a bigger image than a Hassy 31 Mpixel uncropped (microscopically).

 

And a 4:3 original would have to be cropped anyway if it covered 2 pages.

 

2:3 falls perfectly between Golden Proportion (1.6:1) and Root-2 proportion (1.4:1)

 

Never let the paper manufacturers make your creative decisions for you!

[Rolo]

Never let the paper manufacturers make your creative decisions for you!

 

It's the publishers who do that.

 

6x7 is the perfect ratio, IMO. For the press, 3x2 vertical will inevitably suffer a severe crop and that needs to accounted for in the taking.

 

Artists and amateurs can shoot whatever shape they want.

 

Rolo

[peterv]

For the press, 3x2 vertical will inevitably suffer a severe crop and that needs to accounted for in the taking.

Rolo

 

Yes but with 37,5 MP there's more than enough information in the file to do this, so IMHO no problem at all.

 

Cheers,

 

Peter

[ChrisC]

....6x7 is the perfect ratio, IMO.....

 

Rolo - I wholeheartedly agree, and I have drafted a disgruntled letter to Leica which I will release when I win the lottery and order an S2.

 

It seems that Leica-legacy has reared it's head again. I mostly crop from the M8 and I would have thought the target market of the S2 would be far better served with a 6x7 format use of the image circle; perhaps Leica should have referred to successful professional Roll-film format traditions where the format was usually 6x6 or 6x7, rather than the 35 mm film tradition. In my roll-film days I found 6x7 great for cropping back to a square for some work, and great for cropping the picture bottom [to effect 'rising front'] images of 6x9 ratio.

 

None of this will effect my life though, I'm just killing time here whilst waiting for my lottery win. Wish it would hurry up.

 

.............. Chris

[paulmoore]

IF!! I get my lucky hands on this S2 then I will be using it professionally in a cropped manner.. I don't need the 3:2 on a everyday basis for work.. I can and will use it for my personal work in the 3:2 more often.. so, this being a professional camera I wish they had made it 32x42 but now find that is a minor complaint given the larger real estate of the chip.. cropping is a unavoidable aspect of commercial life..there are so many end uses that one crop will not fit all professional jobs.. When it hits the streets it will not warrant hate mail by me.. I have overall praise for the them getting it to the market.

[mgcd]

I generally make my living on 3:2, if a subject calls for some cropping so be it. But 3:2 truly works for me.

 

Cheers,

[ndjambrose]

I generally make my living on 3:2, if a subject calls for some cropping so be it. But 3:2 truly works for me.

 

Cheers,

 

Ditto. I've tried everything. The only two formats I've ever liked have been 3:2 and 1:1.

[sdai]

The 3x2 aspect ratio make a lot of sense IMO ... I guess Leica's real intention is to attract folks moving UP from the high end 35mm DSLR market. Those who are already locked into the Hassy or Rollei system probably couldn't care less no matter what.

[lxlim]

The 3x2 aspect ratio make a lot of sense IMO ... I guess Leica's real intention is to attract folks moving UP from the high end 35mm DSLR market. Those who are already locked into the Hassy or Rollei system probably couldn't care less no matter what.

 

Agreed, sigh! I find myself justifying and rationalizing an S2 in 2010's budget. The only thing that is an obstacle is my distrust of AF in the market I plan to use it in. That and the unlike feature of pocketwizard capability(for remote camera triggering) being added to the S2.

 

Regarding AF. I used it all the time on my Canons but when I need to be quick and precise, somehow it does not do the job reliably. Thus my presence in M8 land.

[SJP]

The only sensible sensor shape is 6x4

[stunsworth]

The only sensible sensor shape is 6x4

 

I prefer 3x2 myself <grin>

[SJP]

[Advertisement]

Hallo,

Look here: Interesting Leica gear

[ptomsu]

The 3:2 ratio is exactly as in the original Leica Format. So I do not wonder why Leica choose this again.

 

From my own experience and which formats I used over the past years and liked most I can say:

 

- 6x6 (square) - interesting format, I liked to play around, but the final picture is almost always a rectangle, so this means waste of too many expensive pixels

- 4:3 (like FT system) - I am not impressed by this format, although it is probably the optimum for publishing

- 3:2 (classic Leica and now S2) - this is the format I find myself using and liking most, it allows for very natural layouts and is definitely the optimum in between all the other formats

- 16:9 (HD, etc) - I like this format as well and on my Dlux3 I find myself using it almost exclusively, but for a MF Pro camera it would have been kind of a waste both of MP and image circle

 

So the answer for me is - Kudos to Leica they stayed with the original 3:2 format

[ewelch]

The S2 news is exciting. I am happy that Hasselblad will have a competitor.

 

But I have to question Leica choosing the 3x2 format for professional photographers. Pick up any photo-intensive magazine, especially in fashion or design, and you will see pages laid out with photos in 4x5 format. And how many brides are going to want their portraits taken with that tall vertical perspective?

 

Yes, you can crop, but then you're wasting pixels.

 

(Fine-art photography is another story. I personally love the wide 3x2 format. But the S2 is certainly not priced for that market.)

 

When I was attending grad school (University of Missouri School of Journalism) I did some work for a professor, Paul Stevens. He's the founder of the Freedom of Information Center at the University, (and a founder of the movement for the legislation that lead to FOI).

 

Anyway, Paul was also considered one of the leading experts in magazine design and typography. One of the things I remember him saying is that the 35mm format ratio - 3:2 - is ideal according to the way the human eye works. So, you're not correct in stating that photo intensive magazines prefer the 4x5 format. And looking at most magazines I know of closely, and it's easy to see he is correct. (My degree includes graphics desk management, so this is in my area of expertise.)

 

Wedding photographers and portrait photographers, yes, 4x5 works. They use that format because that's what they've used since the beginning. But not designers in the magazine world. The best ratio is, in fact, 3:2 for using photos in magazines and other kinds of publications.