My camera can shoot in 4 different aspect ratios (4:3, 3:2, 16:9, and 1:1). Aside from personal preference of composition are there any advantages to choosing one over the other? Is there an industry standard?

  • \$\begingroup\$ What camera do you have? That might be relevant as it tells us what your native aspect ratio is. \$\endgroup\$
    – Reid
    Jul 19, 2010 at 2:05
  • 1
    \$\begingroup\$ I've got a Panasonic GF1... I think it's native aspect ratio is 4:3. \$\endgroup\$ Jul 19, 2010 at 2:21
  • \$\begingroup\$ For the history of various aspect ratios, see What historic reasons are there for common aspect ratios? \$\endgroup\$
    – mattdm
    Dec 21, 2012 at 3:35

7 Answers 7


My short answer: Always make images with your full sensor, and crop in post. In your case that's probably 4:3. Why throw away data sooner when you can do so later if necessary?

(Of course, this may be moot if you're shooting in raw and get all the data regardless of the in-camera crop. In that case, shoot with whatever suits your fancy, since you can always change it later.)

Another consideration: If your mental checklist for each frame includes choosing an aspect ratio, that's one more step you need to deal with when making every single image. And I assume changing aspect ratios involves a fair amount of button & menu fiddling.

  • \$\begingroup\$ So if I'm shooting raw it doesn't matter? Can you explain a bit more? \$\endgroup\$ Jul 19, 2010 at 2:07
  • \$\begingroup\$ Shooting raw means that you are going to get the direct capture data from the sensor, which includes the native aspect ratio for your camera (in your case 4:3). The cropping that you choose is not actually done until you process the raw image. \$\endgroup\$
    – chills42
    Jul 19, 2010 at 15:10
  • 1
    \$\begingroup\$ YES! +1 Always be greedy for as much data as you can get. ;) \$\endgroup\$
    – AJ Finch
    Jul 19, 2010 at 15:49
  • \$\begingroup\$ I agree with the not throwing away data concept however some vendors e.g. Sony, allow you to set the viewfinder to 16:9 and after you have imported in Lightroom you have access to the full sensor RAW with the crop already set to the 16:9 framing. \$\endgroup\$
    – timbo
    Nov 19, 2014 at 6:37

It's really just down to what kind of image you are trying to create.

  • 4:3 a common format for digital compact cameras as this matches standard TV and monitor aspect ratios.
  • 3:2 is the original standard for 35mm film shooting, many DSLRs continue to use this ratio and many compact digital cameras support this as an option too.
  • 16:9 is widescreen TV.
  • 1:1 is just square (obviously)

If you have a requirement to display on a TV/monitor, go 4:3. If you have a requirement to display on a widescreen TV/monitor go for 16:9. If you need to print to match a particular frame you may find it easier to take at the correct ratio rather than cropping later.

Most printing companies offer at a minimum both 6"x4.5" (to match 4:3 ratio images) and 6"x4" (to match 3/2 ratio images) so you are unlikely to have any problems printing at either ratio.

You'll find that most modern basic albums and frames you buy on the high street will probably be 4:3 as they cater for the general consumer market which is largely digital now, but there's plenty of 3:2 frames around though, and plenty of weird shapes/ratios too.

Other than that, just choose whatever suits your subject/shot/composition the best.

[More on wikipedia]

  • 1
    \$\begingroup\$ I would disagree that 4:3 is considered "standard" for digital photos, given that the DSLRs from Canon and Nikon are 3:2. \$\endgroup\$
    – ahockley
    Jul 18, 2010 at 20:33
  • 1
    \$\begingroup\$ @ahockley: Point taken, I've re-worded to differentiate between compact and SLR (and dropped the word "standard"). Hows that? \$\endgroup\$ Jul 18, 2010 at 20:38
  • \$\begingroup\$ just to make sure for my own camera: I have a full frame, Nikon D-810, so generally I should put it on 3:2 ratio? thanks \$\endgroup\$
    – Brandon
    Jan 21, 2016 at 15:02

Other than preference/composition, the only other consideration is that if you're making a print, shooting to the same aspect ratio as the print means that you won't have to crop any of the final image.


  • for a 4x6 print, a 2:3 image won't require cropping, where a 4:3 would.
  • for an 8x10 print, either 2:3 or 4:3 will require cropping, but the 2:3 won't lose as much of the image.

The standard for still photography has generally been 3:2 since that is the standard for 35mm film, which has continued into most DSLR systems. One notable exception to this is the Micro four-thirds system that has gone to a 4:3 native aspect ratio.

As everything goes digital, that is beginning to change because 16:9 and 4:3 are common lcd monitor aspect ratios.

  • 5
    \$\begingroup\$ 4:3 and 16:9 are popular as they share sensors from video devices, which are driven by TV ratios. Quite a few of the widescreen computer monitors I've seen/used have actually been 16:10 \$\endgroup\$ Jul 18, 2010 at 20:09
  • \$\begingroup\$ This answers (to some degree) the standards for sensor aspect ratio, but not the part about advantages or uses. \$\endgroup\$
    – mattdm
    Dec 2, 2015 at 11:58

It's all down to the artistic effect you're after, but you might find that when getting prints done, they tend to favour specific ratios.

Historically, 3:2 has it's history with 35mm and on through DSLRs, with 4:3 having history in TV (and video) cameras, which is why a number of compacts use this ratio. 16:9 was available on APS format cameras, although I've not seen much support for printing in these ratios except from APS film. Medium format favoured square exposures.

Of course, with the digital age, you can crop to whatever ratio you like -- I tend to print using the either 3:2 or 1:1 ratios as I personally find them most pleasing


The aspect ratio setting could save you some time for certain tasks though.

Let's say you are shooting time lapse pictures or video anyway and you require a specific format you can already deal with the aspect ratio before shooting.

First of all this will safe you some time in post processing. Secondly, it can avoid trouble if the newly shoot footage is part of a bigger project that is using a certain aspect ratio.

But for your everyday shoots that you process with your normal workflow, you should go for no crop at all and try to retain as much information as possible.

Another reason why you would go a certain aspect ratio is creativity. Your framing and composition for a 4:3 picture is certainly different from a 16:9 picture.


personally I always shoot in 16:9. Does anyone really have a square monitor these days? I want to see the image full screen on monitor or tv, and for print there is plenty of resolution to make large prints. I just hate seeing square images on a wide screen.

  • 3
    \$\begingroup\$ This reasoning is a bit backwards. Most sensors are not 16:9, so you are throwing away information that is meaningful for print by not using the full sensor. Screens on the other hand don't exceed 8MP (4k display) or generally 2MP for a 1080p display. You can easily make a 16:9 crop of a full size image and not lose any resolution, but you aren't going to get back the portion of the sensor you ignore and that's going to limit how large you can print. \$\endgroup\$
    – AJ Henderson
    Oct 24, 2017 at 4:38

Your Answer

By clicking “Post Your Answer”, you agree to our terms of service and acknowledge you have read our privacy policy.

Not the answer you're looking for? Browse other questions tagged or ask your own question.