Recently I loaded some images onto a digital photo frame and found it extraordinarily difficult to find images that cropped well into the 16:9 aspect. I tend to try and fill my frame when I shoot and a 3:2 or 4:3 suits my vision of the world much more precisely. Below are a couple of images that compare native camera aspect to a 16:9 crop of the same image.
Maybe I am missing something because, in landscape, to achieve the same width with both images the 16:9 lacks height. This means in scenes with dramatic skies or interesting foregrounds something gas to go. In portrait mode it is width that is lacking. 16:9, as a native aspect, always leaves me wondering how to fill the frame properly.
Guess I will just stick with 3:2 and 4:3 ratios for the majority of shots. Stitching multiple images into a panorama though, well that's another story.