The S5 does not have a real 3:2 aspect ratio. As you can see here:.

Http://www.dpreview.com/news/0705/07050703canons5is.asp.

4:3 - 3264x24483:2 - 3264x1832.

The S5 only achieves a 3:2 aspect ratio by taking the 4:3 image and cropping the vertical pixels down to 3:2. Essentially, this is the exact same as taking a 4:3 image and cropping it down yourself in an image editing application..

There are other cameras with true 3:2 (but most cameras, including your current one, use a cropped down 4:3), but I would not decide on a camera solely because of that..

The easiest way is to just shoot wider, and when you print, make sure you pre-crop the photos yourself, instead of letting the photo lab crop pictures for you...

I appreciate your explanation..

I never understood that the cameras were "cheating" to get that 3:2 and that helps to know...

Nathan Yan wrote:.

The S5 does not have a real 3:2 aspect ratio..

Sure it does..

As you can see here:.

Http://www.dpreview.com/news/0705/07050703canons5is.asp.

4:3 - 3264x24483:2 - 3264x1832.

Yes, you are correct, those numbers correspond to 4:3 and 3:2..

The S5 only achieves a 3:2 aspect ratio by taking the 4:3 image andcropping the vertical pixels down to 3:2..

And what is wrong with that? If you want 3:2 out of the camera and not 4:3, it gives it to you..

Essentially, this is theexact same as taking a 4:3 image and cropping it down yourself in animage editing application..

Except that you (hopefully?) see 3:2 in the viewfinder and get 3:2 straight out of the camera. No need to mess with an image editing application if you don't want to..

There are other cameras with true 3:2 (but most cameras, includingyour current one, use a cropped down 4:3), but I would not decide ona camera solely because of that..

It's one thing to consider, depending on how you want to shoot and edit..

The easiest way is to just shoot wider, and when you print, make sureyou pre-crop the photos yourself, instead of letting the photo labcrop pictures for you..

The easiest way is to let your camera show and capture the aspect ratio you want..

You can argue that if you take the full shot, you have more flexibility in what you crop, and I'd agree with you. But you can't say it is easiest. More work != easiest..

Seen in a fortune cookie:Fear is the darkroom where negatives are developed..

Sharpiefan wrote:.

I never understood that the cameras were "cheating" to get that 3:2and that helps to know..

It isn't cheating, it's simply doing things for you instead of you having to do them yourself..

Seen in a fortune cookie:Fear is the darkroom where negatives are developed..

Nickleback wrote:.

There are other cameras with true 3:2 (but most cameras, includingyour current one, use a cropped down 4:3), but I would not decide ona camera solely because of that..

The easiest way is to just shoot wider, and when you print, make sureyou pre-crop the photos yourself, instead of letting the photo labcrop pictures for you..

The easiest way is to let your camera show and capture the aspectratio you want..

You can argue that if you take the full shot, you have moreflexibility in what you crop, and I'd agree with you. But you can'tsay it is easiest. More work != easiest..

The poster was contemplating about whether or not to buy a camera specifically for 3:2, and my advice was not to buy a camera specifically for 3:2 - it'd be easier to crop from a 4:3 (thus allowing more choice in cameras) than hunt for a camera specifically with 3:2...

Nickleback wrote:.

Sharpiefan wrote:.

I never understood that the cameras were "cheating" to get that 3:2and that helps to know..

It isn't cheating, it's simply doing things for you instead of youhaving to do them yourself..

While I wouldn't say it's cheating either (like you've said, it's a shortcut tool for those who don't want to bother with post-processing), I do think a lot of consumers have been confused by 3:2 or 16:9 features, thinking it changes the aspect ratio while still giving them full-frame coverage (i.e. covering the full image circle and not having a field-of-view crop), which it does not...

Nathan Yan wrote:.

The poster was contemplating about whether or not to buy a cameraspecifically for 3:2, and my advice was not to buy a cameraspecifically for 3:2 - it'd be easier to crop from a 4:3 (thusallowing more choice in cameras) than hunt for a camera specificallywith 3:2..

The OP wanted to produce 4x6 prints with minimal effort, specifically not having to crop every picture out of the camera. I'd say getting getting a camera that has a 3:2 mode is quite useful for this purpose, and it is in fact easier to have the camera do this work for you..

Seen in a fortune cookie:Fear is the darkroom where negatives are developed..

Nathan Yan wrote:.

I do think a lot of consumers have been confused by3:2 or 16:9 features, thinking it changes the aspect ratio whilestill giving them full-frame coverage (i.e. covering the full imagecircle and not having a field-of-view crop), which it does not..

APS film was similar, giving you the choice of 3 crops. I don't think consumers are confused. I think they don't care. Why should they? They get what they want..

Seen in a fortune cookie:Fear is the darkroom where negatives are developed..

Nickleback wrote:.

The OP wanted to produce 4x6 prints with minimal effort, specificallynot having to crop every picture out of the camera. I'd say gettinggetting a camera that has a 3:2 mode is quite useful for thispurpose, and it is in fact easier to have the camera do this work foryou..

I'm inclined to agree. Though I'd have to think about other aspects of the cameras before going for the one that offers 3:2. Cropping all your photos manually seems like a bit of a chore; I'd prefer to just keep in mind that you're going to be cropping off the top & bottom, compose with that in mind, and let the lab crop for you (should be easy to find one that crops all 4:3 shots to 4x6 leaving an equal bit off top & bottom). You could even put a bit of tape over the LCD to show crop lines..

Personally, I decided to skip the annoying 4x6 prints *and* albums altogether ... no more trying to find the right combination of vertical and horizontals to fit the pages - and use print photo books instead. I've used Shutterfly books in the past and am about to try a small book from blurb.com. Multiple layouts, flexibility in crops ... no more finagling prints into an album ... add text as you see fit ...

Want to move it from one page to another where a different crop/aspect ratio fits better ? No problem; you're still working with your original max resolution file  This is the kind of stuff enabled by digital photography ... say goodbye to your 4x6 prints and be free !.

- DennisGallery at http://kingofthebeasts.smugmug.com..

Thanks everyone..

I hope I understand correctly now that this kind of 3:2 setting is not really cheating because by choosing it the user elects to make a trade-off at the start. With a final outcome in mind (say a 4x6 print in my case) I choose to sacrifice part of my potential image and the ability to make larger prints in 4:3 for the convenience of seeing my shot framed in 3:2 at the time of shooting and then cropped in-camera..

So this is going to be a dumb question, (this is a beginner's forum...) but what kind of camera could have both ratios and have both be "real"? Is this even possible? I'm not sure which models the poster below is refering to so I haven't looked at them. Do they just have a true 3:2 and not 4:3? I'm guessing that if it's even possible to have both it must be very high end..

Nathan Yan wrote:.

The S5 does not have a real 3:2 aspect ratio..

There are other cameras with true 3:2 (but most cameras, includingyour current one, use a cropped down 4:3.

In the end I guess it just comes down to my priorities as a photographer and the final outcome I am looking for. I can see how choosing this 3:2 ratio could be very restricting or liberating depending on those priorities...

Sharpiefan wrote:.

What kind of camera could have both ratios and haveboth be "real"? Is this even possible?.

It's quite possible. The Panasonic TZ3 is one example, there may be others. They use a sensor that is a bit bigger than the lens image circle, allowing you to choose 16:9, 3:2 and 4:3, each one having the same diagonal..

I'm guessing that if it's evenpossible to have both it must be very high end..

The TZ3 is a $300 camera..

Http://www.dpreview.com/reviews/panasonictz3/.

In the end I guess it just comes down to my priorities as aphotographer and the final outcome I am looking for..

Yep..

Seen in a fortune cookie:Fear is the darkroom where negatives are developed..

As you might know already, the imaging area of a camera is circular, since the lens is a circle. Since we have rectangular sensors, we're unable to actually use all of this light - we can only cut out a rectangular portion of it..

If we had a 4:3 sensor, we'd cut out a 4x3 rectangle like this:.

Image control:Zoom outZoom 100%Zoom inExpand AllOpen in new window.

If we had a 3:2 sensor, we'd cut out a 3x2 rectangle like this:.

Image control:Zoom outZoom 100%Zoom inExpand AllOpen in new window.

As you can see, the aspect ratio significantly affects how much of the image we capture. If we were willing to live with less vertical image area, we could extend our coverage horizontally, and vice versa. So you could go between 4:3 and 3:2, and it's really all subjective - you'll find lots of debate about which is better for what, but you can't say either is clearly superior to the other..

Now, most all camera sensors are either 4:3 or 3:2. For the S5, which is a 4:3 sensor, how does it get a 3:2 image? It simply crops out the middle. Here is how they all look overlayed:.

Image control:Zoom outZoom 100%Zoom inExpand AllOpen in new window.

As you can see here, after we've already cut out a 4:3 rectangle (red) from the original imaging circle, to get 3:2 we further cut out a 3:2 rectangle from the 4:3 crop (green). This is NOT the same as if we had started with a native 3:2 sensor (3:2)..

This is a native 4:3.

Image control:Zoom outZoom 100%Zoom inExpand AllOpen in new window.

This is a native 3:2.

Image control:Zoom outZoom 100%Zoom inExpand AllOpen in new window.

And this is the 3:2 cropped down from 4:3.

Image control:Zoom outZoom 100%Zoom inExpand AllOpen in new window.

As you can see, 4:3 will give you a bit more vertical coverage, and 3:2 will give you more horizontal coverage. But unlike the merits of 3:2 vs. 4:3, this cropped 4:3 is worse than both 3:2 and 4:3 - it has less pixels (resolution) and covers less imaging area (shrinking your field of view - your 28mm wide angle lens now shrinks down to only 30mm vertically, for example). You could achieve the exact same result by cropping by yourself from a 4:3 or a 3:2, and then you'd get the choice of where to crop, not just automatically taking a center crop..

There are a few cameras out there which offer native 3:2 sensors, but mostly these are SLRs. There are a few cameras that actually offer a true full-frame 4:3, 3:2, and even 16:9 option. The Panasonic TZ3 is an example of this:.

Http://www.dpreview.com/reviews/panasonictz3/.

4:3 - 3072x23043:2 - 3216x214416:9 - 3328x1872.

Like in the example above, the TZ3 can take a 4:3, 3:2, or 16:9 rectangular slice, all of which cover the full frame (thus TZ3's claim of 28mm coverage at all aspect ratios is correct, something that few of the other manufacturers can claim)...

Sharpiefan wrote:.

So this is going to be a dumb question, (this is a beginner'sforum...) but what kind of camera could have both ratios and haveboth be "real"? Is this even possible?.

See Nathan's detailed reply - the sensor has a fixed aspect ratio and anything else you choose is a crop..

And that's fine. Even have an 8x10 made from a 35mm negative ? Any time anyone makes a print whose aspect doesn't match that of the sensor/film they captured it on, they're cropping. There's nothing wrong with it..

Note: the less you crop, the better ... you can get bigger prints with more detail, so ideally you want a camera whose native aspect ratio is close to what you plan to print all the time. 4:3 is a fine compromise, with little lost in a 4x6; little lost in the other direction in an 8x10, close to a 5x7..

In the end I guess it just comes down to my priorities as aphotographer and the final outcome I am looking for..

It's much simpler than that ... you have little choice in native aspect ratio; just accept that you're buying a camera with a 4:3 sensor. If you want to print 2:3, do it. The only real choice is whether you want the convenience of in-camera cropping to 2:3 (complete with LCD display showing the cropped photo), want to do it manually, or just let the lab crop all your pics..

- DennisGallery at http://kingofthebeasts.smugmug.com..