[matthew]

I was trying to ignore a TV ad for the Nikon D50 the other day -- "Now you can take photos just like the pros" -- when I noticed the images displayed on the LCD. The LCD looks like a 4:3 aspect ratio, but the image sensor is 3:2.

Okay, maybe I'm slow to catch on. I didn't spend a lot of time shopping for DSLRs. Looking at some review sites, it looks like even the most expensive 35mm-derived cameras have 4:3 LCDs.

I understand that these are mostly used for displaying menus, but are people using DSLRs really needing to put up with letterboxed image review?

Is it time to rethink the usefulness of the movie-camera 3:2 aspect ratio when even camera manufactures aren't accommodating it? When cropping photos, what aspect ratios do you prefer, and why do you choose the ratio(s) you do?

[shuttertalk]

Hm... interesting point Matt. Is the D50 3:2 only?

I think with Canon you get to choose between 4:3 and 3:2 formats, the default being 4:3. (Someone correct me if I'm wrong).

The 3:2 format is a carryover from the film days - for people who want the traditional aspect ratio, and also for printing - 6x4 prints are 3:2 ratio...

Ultimately though, I believe the 4:3 format came about because of standard PC monitors, where users would be doing most of their viewing. With widescreen monitors becoming more prolific these days, I think it's mighty confusing out there...

[EnglishBob]

My Canon Rebel is 3:2 only, my kodak P&S lets me choose. 3:2 or 4:3.

[StudioJ]

I've often wondered that myself Matthew. I don't know why they don't make a 3:2 LCD for cameras unless they all come from the same place and they make them to suit point and shoots and SLR's with their different ratios.

I crop in four ways normally which are the standard 1.33:1 (3:2), 1.25:1 (8 x 10), panoramic and for A4 sized which when doubled becomes A3 etc mainly so it suits the print sizes that I sell.

[matthew]

I use a10x8 ratio for just about everything these days. I used to use 3:2, because That's What It's Supposed To Be, but I didn't like throwing away so many pixels, and I was using an 8x10 ratio for portrait orientation anyway. Now I've naturally started 'seeing' in that ratio, and if I ever need to print, I'd be looking at 20x16 ratio instead of 17x11 for the best quality anyway. (I have a 4:3 sensor.)

It just struck me as ironic that manufacturers are putting bigger and bigger LCDs on their cameras, when some of the size is wasted because of the sensor/screen mismatch. For SLRs, it seems like digital remains an afterthought.