There's always been some thing not right with digital and I think I may have been lured into the megapixel trap.  To get the 'best', results i.e. most mega pixels, a lot of cameras are set to 4:3 ratio, i.e old TV screens to get the most super dooper resolution.  Thing is try and print (now there's a thought) that image on a 6 x 4 inch standard print and it doesn't work. Switch to 3:2 (35mm film) ratio and the resolution 'degrades' (if not APS-C (& I guess full frame)) as it's different to the sensor shape, but the piccies seem much more comfortable to view as a result and print. Thoughts?

If your megapixel size is large enough, then cropping to a different aspect ratio has no real impact.  I tend to take at least one image with 'excess' in the borders so I can happily crop the scene.  I know it is an anathema to the old film based photographers but using 64GB SD cards, the only limitation I have is battery life (and time). 

You can crop from the higher res to your preferred print aspect ratio, or shoot in a different aspect ratio. Cropping can always be done from more, you (probably) can't re-take the picture a week or two later if you decide you actually want more pixels.

That being said, unless you are maxing out the print size, you're probably fine with either route.

3:2 works great for our standard 4x6...
Ill frame my shots how I like. Usually i like 3:2 or 1:1 ratios best. I typically take at 3:2, sometimes 3:4, crop in post. There are plenty of pixels. Resolution doesnt degrade...it may induce some sensor "crop" depending on your sensor (the lumix lx3 it wont loose pixels, sensor is a bit oversized so it actually gives you extra widthin 3:2 and extra height in 3x4 rather than "cropping") but in reality it doesnt matter at the mp used today.

Any image saved at over about 4096 pixels will easily print to A3 at 300 dpi, so it's not really an issue with most modern cameras, as already pointed out. Scaling in Photoshop or similar is so good that you won't notice any difference afterwards. And cleverer scaling still (with something like ON1's Perfect Resize, which uses fractal interpolation), and then smart sharpening can raise the apparent size much higher.

Many apologies, ZombieCake; I've done lots of photography both on film and digital, but I simply don't understand what your problem is; could you elucidate a bit?

Hi,
Thanks for the replies I was having a rather bad printing day. Was referring (rather badly on re-reading so apologies there) to 4:3 taken to the fill frame & printing to 3:2 paper and so losing a bit of the image and my daftness for setting it all wrong in the first place.  Sorry for any inconvenience.  Still, a good time to buy shares in Canon ink 

I've had some cheap digital cameras....  Some cheap film cameras, and one that was not cheap.
Best results perversly came from an old Box Brownie....  Thats due entirly to the large format of the negative, can't do much with a Brownie but you always get a good ngative!

Seriously, its the qualityof the lens, good camera with crap lens = my old Pentax, cheap camera but decent lens = my old Werra... could do anything with that.

Digital the same I'll give up mega pixels for a decent lens, then use gimp for post processing.  You can fiddle aspect ratio but if quality of lens is poor you can't correct (anything) as well as if otherwise.    I think I'm saying something like a good lens is like going up an order of megapixel.