Square format SLR?
Feb 17, 2019 22:39:50 #
wdross wrote:
Most medium format sensors are bigger than 36 square. It is getting up to the 54 square that all of us mediun format former film users want.
And THAT is where the money involved leads to a very small niche .....
Feb 17, 2019 23:39:15 #
True, but not for the reason you think.
The lens projects a circle of light on the focal plane. The sensor fits its 36 x 24mm wide rectangle into that circle. To make that square would require reducing the width equal any rise in the height. My quick calculation is the square frame would need to be 30 x 30 mm to cover the same area as a FF shot.
The lens projects a circle of light on the focal plane. The sensor fits its 36 x 24mm wide rectangle into that circle. To make that square would require reducing the width equal any rise in the height. My quick calculation is the square frame would need to be 30 x 30 mm to cover the same area as a FF shot.
Feb 18, 2019 00:23:05 #
mwsilvers wrote:
Why would any manufacturer take the time, effort and
expense to design and make a camera for a tiny niche
audience? If there had been a big enough market for
such a camera it would already exist.
Why would any manufacturer take the time, effort and
expense to design and make a camera for a tiny niche
audience? If there had been a big enough market for
such a camera it would already exist.
The reason is cuz things have changed.
Horizontal format allows a shorter mirror box but
the mirror box cameras are going away. The "time
effort and expense" [your words] is thus reduced
somewhat.
32x32mm square format can use existing optical
design, same image circle as 24x36. So what you
call a niche market would be a huge problem if a
whole new complete system were involved ... BUT
in this case it's just an alternate body offering for
the existing lenses. No new lens mount needed.
It's a modification of an existing [NON-SLR] body
to create an attractive new choice within existing
systems such as Sony a7XX, Nikon Z or Canon R.
.
Feb 18, 2019 00:58:00 #
SS319 wrote:
I think the reason that manufacturers passed on the square format was for artistic and economic reasons. Thousands of years ago, Da Vinci and others taught that the square and the circle were static and that the human eye found the rectangle and elispe to be more pleasing.
Your historical sources seem to be rather faulty! Countless religious panels were done in square format during the Medieval period in Europe. And Da Vinci neither lived thousands of years ago, nor is there a record that he taught anything on the aesthetics of shapes. Also, that camera manufacturers passed on the square format for artistic reasons isn't entirely true either. The great majority of TLR cameras use square format.
Feb 18, 2019 05:17:10 #
Gilkar wrote:
Before the digital revolution, I used square forma... (show quote)
Yes, easy. Buy a secondhand TLR Rolleiflex and use film, then scan it with an Epson photo scanner. I’ve got 2, a Rolleicord and a Rolleiflex, but I’m not selling. Quite a few other makes around.
Feb 18, 2019 07:07:29 #
AndyH wrote:
I'm sure the bean counters have found reasons not to do it. It's all about economy of production in this, as in many other areas.
Andy
Andy
"Economy of production" means; continued production.
Feb 18, 2019 07:22:26 #
Wanderer2
Loc: Colorado Rocky Mountains
AndyH wrote:
That would be cropping - I think the idea of a 36x36 format is splendid as a compromise with medium format, but I doubt there would be a market. Maybe 24x24 as a compromise between APS and FF would have a better chance of selling?
Andy
Andy
The Pentax K-1 FF camera has a 1:1 crop option. I believe that results in 24X24.
Feb 18, 2019 08:46:04 #
I don't think they'll be retooling the cameras to square formats because they would have to reformat the Computer screens , the I phone lcds , even the TV screens as they more closely resemble the old 35mm rectangular layouts. And that is probably why it never came back......simply not practical to Reinvent The Wheel...so to speak.
The original TV sets were square and they were ugly little suckers with tiny green cathode ray tubes.....not to forget the movie industry that set the standards with 35mm & 90mm films and don't forget Panavision that also shaped the use of rectangular (horizontal viewing) for a nicer angle of view and a larger landscaped-like display. That may have had a hand in the history of why the square format died.......who knows.
Maybe some here will pop-in with the real truth and we'll get a real history lesson on the subject.
Thanks for your post.
Jimbo
The original TV sets were square and they were ugly little suckers with tiny green cathode ray tubes.....not to forget the movie industry that set the standards with 35mm & 90mm films and don't forget Panavision that also shaped the use of rectangular (horizontal viewing) for a nicer angle of view and a larger landscaped-like display. That may have had a hand in the history of why the square format died.......who knows.
Maybe some here will pop-in with the real truth and we'll get a real history lesson on the subject.
Thanks for your post.
Jimbo
Feb 18, 2019 10:06:27 #
Wanderer2 wrote:
The Pentax K-1 FF camera has a 1:1 crop option. I believe that results in 24X24.
It is aways possible to crop a full frame image to that size, in camera or in PP, but you have to start with a full frame image and gear. The OP's question was on a 36x36 format, and whether it would provide an alternative (presumably at lower cost because fewer sensors) in between FF and MF.
Same goes for 24x24 as a midway between APS and FF.
I don't think there's enough of a market, but who really knows?
Andy
Feb 18, 2019 10:10:36 #
there are time when using the 800mm lens , i find myself too close to the subject , but in vertical way , i dont miss parts of the bird .
Feb 18, 2019 10:16:38 #
Gilkar wrote:
Before the digital revolution, I used square forma... (show quote)
One reason you don't see square format digital is the same reason square was popular with magazine editors, they could decide portrait or landscape after the shoot. But for fine art photography rectangles are the rule -- how often do you see a square oil painting? It is all those thirds and golden rule / golden ratio things of art aesthetics and composition. Large format cameras have been 4x5, 5x7, 8x10, 11x14, and a number of other strange sizes smaller, between, and larger than those, but never square.
Anyway, if you don't like 3:2 or 4:3 ratio images you can easily crop to 1:1 with Ps or Lr. You don't expect to get a 36x36mm or 24x24mm or 30x30mm sensor for free? Seems a square image has more waste anyway. For a flower or tall building you want vertical; for BIF, cars, plane and other similar action shots you want horizontal. Perhaps for group portraits of just a few people square would look good.
Feb 18, 2019 10:24:08 #
StanMac
Loc: Tennessee
User ID wrote:
. . . .FWIW, I had an "enthusiast level" Kodak
126 instant load, 27x27 [?] and I loved
it. You could get Tri-X 126/24 back then.
It fit on regular 35mm tank reels too :-)
Acoarst I hadda dremel out a neg carrier
for it.
This one, AE or full manual:
126 instant load, 27x27 [?] and I loved
it. You could get Tri-X 126/24 back then.
It fit on regular 35mm tank reels too :-)
Acoarst I hadda dremel out a neg carrier
for it.
This one, AE or full manual:
Also had an Instamatic 250 - nice little camera and great optics. I also still have an Instamatic 500 in near mint condition with working meter. The square format big slides were great in projection. Wish 126 B&W was still readily available - this one would be a great street camera.
Stan
Feb 18, 2019 10:52:06 #
AndyH wrote:
That would be cropping - I think the idea of a 36x36 format is splendid as a compromise with medium format, but I doubt there would be a market. Maybe 24x24 as a compromise between APS and FF would have a better chance of selling?
Andy
Andy
Andy, there are some "square-ish" medium format digital sensors such as the 53x40mm H6D-100c and the Fujifilm 43.8 x 32.9mm sensor in the GFX 50S. Both of them are roughly 4:3 aspect ratio. Cropping to 1:1 square loses 25% of the available area, but these are high res sensors with big sensels, so there isn't a terrible quality loss.
My 16MP Micro 4/3 camera will do 1:1 or 3:2 or 4:3 (native) or 16:9. At 1:1, I get 12MP, but that will still make an excellent 16" square print, big enough for anything I would do with it.
That said, I never crop in camera. I do it in post, using Lightroom preset aspect ratios.
Take a tip from the school portrait industry. Make a clear film mask using overhead transparency film printed in a laser printer. Make it to the size of the image on your OLED or LCD display on the camera back, so you can chimp and see the crop.
Feb 18, 2019 11:08:06 #
colt4x5
Loc: Central Connecticut
My first camera (age 8) was an Agfamat, which shot square images on standard film. (Was it 126? I was 8, and Idon't recall.) My current Nikon D850 and my iPhone both shoot squares when I want them to. I choose squares for Instagram and for most portraits. Love the square.
Feb 18, 2019 11:08:06 #
burkphoto wrote:
Andy, there are some "square-ish" medium... (show quote)
Bill, I also crop only in PP. And I completely agree that with decent glass, I can print to my satisfaction at up to 16x20.
I also make my own mats (with a fifty year old Dexter mat cutter), and often frame in either frameless or assembled metal frames, so I never feel restricted as to aspect ratio. When I shoot medium format, it's on a Rollei 6x6, with a 6x6 back on my 4x5 cameras, or my new Hassy, so I'm fairly used to having a choice.
The inherent advantage of a square format is that it uses the whole image circle, of course, and with the size of the glass being so expensive on digital zooms these days, I'm wondering why this doesn't have a little bit of resurgence (below the $40,000 price point)?
Andy
If you want to reply, then register here. Registration is free and your account is created instantly, so you can post right away.