aspect ratio (Page 2): I believe the 6D offers aspect ratio grid lines in live view. I do not know if they are available through the view finder. However, they simply help you make...

dsmeltz Loc: Philadelphia

I believe the 6D offers aspect ratio grid lines in live view. I do not know if they are available through the view finder. However, they simply help you make sure you are covering what you need to cover for you desired ratio.

jeep_daddy Loc: Prescott AZ

The 3:2 ratio is the "native" ratio because that is what is give based on the sensors dimensions. When a camera offers other aspect ratios, it's simply using the native ratio of 3:2 and then cropping that picture to another ratio "in camera". It's only doing this to the jpg image files produced by the camera. It's not affecting the raw images. As far as professional publications go, they usually want the full 3:2 native picture and then their editing department will crop them to fit the piece (page or cover). So it's best to let them make it fit.

Lugano wrote:

hello everybody,

My Canon 6d offers several aspect ratios: 3:2 4:3 16:9 and 1:1
So far I had been shooting only in 3:2 ratio

Now, I would like to learn what each ratio implies and if magazine photo editors prefer one ratio to another and why.
I know that I can get some of this information in internet, but I am more interested in practical results based on experiences.
I hope this question makes sense,

Thank you very much

Lugano

With age I have became more impatient not less.
I don't know if I could wait for slides to come back from the lab anymore

df61743 Loc: Corpus Christi, TX

Lugano wrote:

Very valuable advise jcboy3, I tend to crop/edit on camera

My recommendation would be to NEVER crop or edit on camera. Save those function for post processing, on a computer with a decent resolution screen, and photo editing software of your choice. There, you can crop to whatever aspect ratio is appropriate.

R.G.'s advice is sound. Making maximum use of the sensor (3:2) will give you the most opportunities when it comes to cropping.

Longshadow Loc: Audubon, PA, United States

df61743 wrote:

My recommendation would be to NEVER crop or edit on camera. Save those function for post processing, on a computer with a decent resolution screen, and photo editing software of your choice. There, you can crop to whatever aspect ratio is appropriate.

R.G.'s advice is sound. Making maximum use of the sensor (3:2) will give you the most opportunities when it comes to cropping.

If you crop in post you loose pixels. If you crop in camera you retain all of the pixels.
I crop in the camera over 95% of the time. Unless I might be going for square or something.

R.G. Loc: Scotland

Longshadow wrote:

If you crop in post you loose pixels. If you crop in camera you retain all of the pixels.
I crop in the camera over 95% of the time. Unless I might be going for square or something.

Eliminating pixels is exactly what cropping in camera does. You're better giving yourself the largest number of pixels to choose from, then make your choice at your own speed in the comfort of your own home.

Longshadow Loc: Audubon, PA, United States

R.G. wrote:

Eliminating pixels is exactly what cropping in camera does. You're better giving yourself the largest number of pixels to choose from, then make your choice at your own speed in the comfort of your own home.

Sorry, I'm talking about cropping in-camera with a zoom, not the software.
You are absolutely right if you are using the camera software to zoom and crop after the image is captured, you are losing pixels.

R.G. Loc: Scotland

Longshadow wrote:

Sorry, I'm talking about cropping in-camera with a zoom, not the software.
You are absolutely right if you are using the camera software to zoom and crop after the image is captured, you are losing pixels.

Yes, getting the composition exactly right in-camera is the best option, but not something that we always succeed at. I was thinking more of unnecessarily eliminating pixels by choosing an aspect ratio other than 3:2. And shooting slightly wide gives us less-than-perfect humans a bit of leeway for getting it right in PP.

Longshadow Loc: Audubon, PA, United States

R.G. wrote:

Yes, getting the composition exactly right in-camera is the best option, but not something that we always succeed at. I was thinking more of unnecessarily eliminating pixels by choosing an aspect ratio other than 3:2. And shooting slightly wide gives us less-than-perfect humans a bit of leeway for getting it right in PP.

It does, a cropping buffer.
(Real handy if you happen to be not quite level.)
I have two cameras with different native aspect ratios, as well as selectable options. I always use the full frame.

R.G. Loc: Scotland

Longshadow wrote:

It does, a cropping buffer.
(Real handy if you happen to be not quite level.)

That brings back memories of watching vital components disappear out of frame when the shot is straightened

. It's called learning the hard way

.

Longshadow Loc: Audubon, PA, United States

R.G. wrote:

That brings back memories of watching vital components disappear out of frame when the shot is straightened

. It's called learning the hard way

.

Yup, still happens on occasion.

Hyperhad Loc: Thunder Bay, Canada

Remember too, that using one of the crop modes in your camera means you are getting less MP. With my D850, I get the following MP's for each crop mode:

3:2 45.7MP
1.2x 25MP
1.5x (DX) 15MP
5:4 30MP
1:1 crop modes 30.3MP

aellman Loc: Boston MA

bkyser wrote:

If you get the answer here, doesn't that mean that... (show quote)

Your statement that 8x10 prints are to small for wall display ignores the critical factor of viewing distance. For example,
on a stairway wall or narrow hallway where viewing distance is 3 to 4 feet, 8x10s are more than large enough. It's
prudent to think twice before making sweeping generalizations based on limited information or individual opinion. >Alan