If you're as old as the hills as I am, you probably grew up thinking that photos were to be taken in the 4:3 aspect ratio, mostly horizontal (vertical grips didn't exist back in the stone age when I still lived in a cave). 4:3 was the "small" format from the 120 roll film format Kodak established back in 1901. The "medium" size was 1:1, while the "largish" size was 3:2. Oh dear. Aspect ratio confusion from the beginning.
The 135 (35mm) format was introduced by Kodak in 1934, and is essentially 3:2 in aspect ratio. Confusingly, you could get 4x6" (3:2) prints from the lab from your negatives, or larger 8x10" (5:4) prints (as well as other 5:4 sizes). To this day you'll find that picture frame sizes in stores tend to be in that 5:4 aspect ratio, despite the fact that none of the actual current default capture sizes have that same definition.
In terms of that default capture, digital has given us 4:3 (4/3, m4/3, and some medium format) or 3:2 (1", APS-C, and full frame), plus lets us crop the capture in camera variously, typically 1:1, 5:4, and 16:9, but some other oddities, as well (18:9 anyone?).
The world has moved on from paper, and we have a whole generation who grew up with thinking the world is 16:9. Or more recently due to TikTok, 9:16 (see screenshot at right).
Pentax was the first to give a nod to the TikToking world, curiously with a film camera called simply the 17. Of course, it doesn't quite line up correctly, being 17:24, which is a bit short vertically.
Rumors now have it that Fujifilm has decided that they can create the next viral camera with the new generation by taking a 1" sensor and turning it sideways, basically providing 9:16 stills and video in a small compact camera.
Fujifilm apparently noticed how many who bought their last viral hit, the X100, were using it vertically instead of horizontally. I, too, noticed that at the most recent WPPI conference, where a number of instructors and influencers had just gotten their (40mp!) X100IV cameras and seemingly were always turning them sideways. That's sort of awkward for a dials-controlled camera, as the dials then flip away from your controlling hand, making you either turn the camera back or reach over it to make a change. Moreover, I can't believe how many I see one-hand the camera while turning it vertically, which compounds the problem.
This potential new Fujifilm camera, if it appears in 2025 as rumored, would be another example of something that seems to be finally happening in Japan, which is to begin fully embracing the fact that images, and even videos, are shared on smartphones now, not printed. Indeed, pretty much every digital display is 16:9 these days, so it isn't just sharing images on smartphones that's necessary, but also tablets, TVs, laptops, and even computer monitors.
Here's the rub, though: the reason why vertical 9:16 works better on smartphones (and to some degree tablets) is because of the way you hold them normally. You don't try to grasp the sides that are 16 apart; instead your hand grasps better using the 9 apart sides. However, for laptops, computer monitors, and TVs orienting them horizontally plays better to our vision attributes.
So in case you haven't already figured it out, the gating element on that possible Fujifilm TikTok100 is actually a very tricky problem: how do you orient/use the displays? Selfie is still a significant thing with this group, so how do you orient a flip out display? Is it now flip over?
The camera makers have spent 70+ years "perfecting" (and bastardizing) the "grip it and push it against your face" design that pretty much makes them horizontal (unless they extend the body to nearly square in shape with a vertical grip). The smartphone makers, on the other hand, have "perfected" (and bastardized) the "hold it two-handed in front of you" design (which, by the way, only works with pre-presbyopic eyesight or bifocals; thus the reason why the young have no problem with it but the elderly often do). Note that DJI, of all companies, has actually figured out how to solve the display problem: witness the DJI Osmo Pocket 3, with its rotating screen (and rotating camera, for that matter).
We need new, young blood entering the serious photography (and video) markets. For the camera makers to continue to succeed, they need to cater to a group that grew up with a smartphone in their pocket and the accompanying sharing apps. Right now it's a pretty big leap from 9:16 1080P-sized capture to the 3:2 8K-sized capture the camera companies really want to sell. Not just in price, but also in "usability" from the standpoint of that younger crowd.
It's pivot time for the camera companies (literally in the case of the Pocket 3 ;~). They either embrace what's really driving the imaging business now and give those users higher capability options with more control and potential, or they can watch us old digital dinosaurs die off and their existing camera businesses decline to nothing.
Bonus: In case you haven't been paying attention, I've been using 16:9 as my aspect ratio for quite some time now. Every now and then I'll get someone sending me email saying that they "want the full photo" instead of what they presume to be a horizontal crop. It is often a horizontal crop, but my viewfinder has long been set to show the 16:9 aspect ratio for framing. Some of my clients don't care, as they're mostly social media to start with (though some edit my work further to Instagram's 1:1). Only the newspapers seem to complain now, though they should pay attention to why I use 16:9 on that front page image: doing so places the image fully "above the fold" on a desktop screen, with room for the most recent content still visible below it.
Which brings me to an aside: I'm in the midst of considering redesigns for the sites. I've learned to hate the "doom scroll reveal" designs that everyone seems to be using today (example: Apple). Yes, that works well for small displays, such as smartphones, but the site designers rely far too much on a full frame banner image and title to do all the initial work; to see anything meaningful, you have to doom scroll. That's not particularly useful for a site that is dealing with news and constantly changing content. I don't believe in wasting my readers' time: you can come to my sites and see if there's anything usefully new at a glance. If not, doom URL to your next favorite site ;~).
