Square-format eye-level FF DSLR ... has its time come, or no?
Nov 14, 2017 01:39:36 #
Nov 14, 2017 01:53:17 #
TonyP wrote:
Yep 
Okay, Tony ... gotya ... that's the LX-100 - right?
Lumix, yeah?
Nov 14, 2017 02:54:52 #
Chris T wrote:
That's interesting, Del ...
So, a WIDE-screen actually creates the effect it is l-o-n-g-e-r than wiiiiiiiiide, huh?
Thanks, Del ....
Sorry, Richard ....
So, a WIDE-screen actually creates the effect it is l-o-n-g-e-r than wiiiiiiiiide, huh?
Thanks, Del ....
Sorry, Richard ....
I can think of no other exlanation. Perhaps we should turn our computers on their sides - then the square pic might look wider than longer?
Nov 14, 2017 03:08:41 #
Chris T wrote:
Okay, Tony ... gotya ... that's the LX-100 - right?
Lumix, yeah?
Lumix, yeah?
Yep. You’re on to it. If you are interested, most of the latest pics on my website are from this little beauty.
(Not the South American ones, they were taken with either the D7100 or my much earlier LUMIX LX3)
Haven’t used the 1:1 format much as usually crop for web and screen size.
Nov 14, 2017 03:11:16 #
Delderby wrote:
I can think of no other exlanation. Perhaps we should turn our computers on their sides - then the square pic might look wider than longer?
Funny you should write that, Del ... no less than THREE TIMES, in the past month, some idiot turned my desktop around on one of my three networked PCs ... finally put all of the icons back the right way, just today, as a matter of fact ....
I had NO IDEA a hacker could even DO that ... just lay my desktop around at right angles ... so the only way to read it was to lay your head over to the side ... finally had to disconnect it from the network ... was driving me batty ....
You're right, Del ... it was an illusion ... last time I looked at the flower, it DID seem more square ....
Baffles me, though, Del ... I mean - wouldn't it make sense, that, if it's off - it would favor the wider width of a wide screen?
NOT the other way around - right?
Nov 14, 2017 03:15:58 #
Nov 14, 2017 03:26:00 #
splatbass wrote:
One word: crop
There's a lot to be said for using the whole frame, though, Splat ....
And what if you did? ... Cropping would really upset the apple-cart, huh?
Nov 14, 2017 03:38:36 #
Chris T wrote:
Funny you should write that, Del ... no less than ... (show quote)
Might make a redwood look like an oak?
Nov 14, 2017 03:53:07 #
TonyP wrote:
Yep. You’re on to it. If you are interested, most of the latest pics on my website are from this little beauty.
(Not the South American ones, they were taken with either the D7100 or my much earlier LUMIX LX3)
Haven’t used the 1:1 format much as usually crop for web and screen size.
(Not the South American ones, they were taken with either the D7100 or my much earlier LUMIX LX3)
Haven’t used the 1:1 format much as usually crop for web and screen size.
Now ... are both of these Lumix jobs - bridges ... or are they MFTs?
I don't think Panasonic uses that LX designation Stateside .... but, I may be wrong ....
Nov 14, 2017 03:54:37 #
Delderby wrote:
Might make a redwood look like an oak?
Or a redwood look like a Sequoia ....
Nov 14, 2017 04:32:52 #
Chris T wrote:
There's a lot to be said for using the whole frame, though, Splat ....
And what if you did? ... Cropping would really upset the apple-cart, huh?
And what if you did? ... Cropping would really upset the apple-cart, huh?
I do it once in a while. Sometimes square is the only way to make the composition work.
Nov 14, 2017 07:47:12 #
Robert Bailey
Loc: Canada
Canon cameras (but not Nikon) allow you to set the "ASPECT RATIO".
(There are other brands besides Canon with this option.)
Your options are 16:9 (the shape of a flat-screen TV), 4:3 (the shape of a traditional TV)
3:2 (the shape of a 35mm negative), or 1:1 (a square).
This option is only available if you are shooting Jpegs.
If you are shooting in Raw, then you are automatically in the 3:2 aspect ratio.
(There are other brands besides Canon with this option.)
Your options are 16:9 (the shape of a flat-screen TV), 4:3 (the shape of a traditional TV)
3:2 (the shape of a 35mm negative), or 1:1 (a square).
This option is only available if you are shooting Jpegs.
If you are shooting in Raw, then you are automatically in the 3:2 aspect ratio.
Nov 14, 2017 07:51:50 #
Nov 14, 2017 11:01:55 #
Fritz Henle (RIP) was known as Mr. Rollei for his mastery of the square format Rolleiflex TLR.
Nov 14, 2017 11:11:09 #
I love the 6x6 format of my Rolleiflex TLR & SLR film cameras. Clients really like them too. Even a child I took at 2 years old is proud of those unique square pics framed on the walls at her home. She’s 19 years old now and is still wanting to meet me.
A huge advantage with square format is you don’t ever need to tip the camera sideways. If anything, just crop later. Most all my clients loved the square format and prefer it. Literally no limit with enlargements. My largest was a white Rolls Royce at night downtown Tokyo in Ginza with all the neon blurred in the background. 40 inch square photo. Flawless.
I’d love to have a native square 6x6 digital camera. Rollei compatible lenses (dream on...). I do scan MF film though. Kinda stuck with 35mm digital at the moment. It’s budget...
A huge advantage with square format is you don’t ever need to tip the camera sideways. If anything, just crop later. Most all my clients loved the square format and prefer it. Literally no limit with enlargements. My largest was a white Rolls Royce at night downtown Tokyo in Ginza with all the neon blurred in the background. 40 inch square photo. Flawless.
I’d love to have a native square 6x6 digital camera. Rollei compatible lenses (dream on...). I do scan MF film though. Kinda stuck with 35mm digital at the moment. It’s budget...
If you want to reply, then register here. Registration is free and your account is created instantly, so you can post right away.