Toment Loc: FL, IL

Thanks, Jerry 😜

Toment Loc: FL, IL

👍

bpulv Loc: Buena Park, CA

There is no evil in a square format. In fact, in the film days I use to shoot in 2 1/4 x 2 1/4" format all the time using a Rollie, Hasselblad or Yashica. For many subjects, the square format is great and for others, the format allows you to crop verticaly or horizontally in post production without having to worry if your negative has the extra head or side room needed. Other than medium format SLRs, I don't know of any DSLR cameras that are made specifically for square format, however the D850 has a "Image Choice" option available from the menus that allows it to produce a 24mm x 24mm image on the sensor.

rikhar Loc: Ct. shoreline

pendennis

When I used to shoot weddings, I used mainly 6x4.5, but I always had a Mamiya C330 as a back-up, just in case. "Just in case" happened, and I had to shoot the entire wedding with the C330. The photo lab provided all 5x5 proofs, and I debated whether to cut them to 6x4.5 for the album. I left them @ 6x6 format, and the bride and groom loved them. The 6x6 format brought some different perspective, especially at the church.

Down side? I was unsure for a while if I should go 100% 6x6.

I've since retired from all professional work, but I recently bought another Mamiya C330s, a Hasselblad 500 C/M, and a Bronica SQ-A. Square can really work; just another format in the tool box.

John_F Loc: Minneapolis, MN

It seems to me the best shooting aspect ratio is decided by the intended display aspect ratio. If square for some advertising piece, then shoot square if allowed. Of course, you can always chop off the offending sides or bottoms. My camera, Sony a6300, does not offer an array of aspect ratios, just two.

wrangler5 Loc: Missouri

I used to do this on my F and F3, too, using Chartpak 1/16" tape. On my later Nikons, including the current D7000 and D600, focusing screens weren't accessible, although I do have the Chartpak tape on the rear viewing screens for when I review things.

Virtually all of my output is square B&W prints, and has been for decades. And while you can learn to get close to guessing where a square crop is going to fall in a 2x3 frame, there are lots of times when I want to be absolutely SURE that ALL of the kids' heads on the left and right are going to be in the shot, not just the front half of one and the back half of the other.

That is one of the major joys of the micro 4/3 cameras I now use, which offer a square view option as you're composing a shot - if you select it, all you see in the viewfinder is a square field of view. I always shoot RAW, and the full frame is actually captured to the card, so I can move or resize the square, or change the entire output format, in post processing. But I am certain when I press the button that everything I want to be in a particular shot will actually fit. If I shoot RAW + JPEG then the jpeg file is only what showed in the viewfinder at capture, but the full frame is still there in the RAW file.

Having used both systems, I MUCH prefer seeing an accurate indication of a square field of view at the time of capture, rather than having to estimate where the sides will fall during post processing. That feature, plus the lighter weight and smaller size of the m43 system, will probably lead to the disposal of my Nikon gear (after 49 years of Nikon use, starting with the Ftn) later this summer, as the 20mp sensors of my Olympus cameras are proving to be more than good enough for my purposes.

drklrd Loc: Cincinnati Ohio

As far as I know Hasselblad is still a square format camera only digital now. Bronica dropped out of the race when digital came into view. a few other medium format cameras are still out there but they were not square back in film days. I found you can get a digital for Bronica but it will cost many dollars as it adapts the camera to Hasselblad digital back. You pay for the adapter and then pay again for the digital back. I found them both on B&H. I loved the square format and shot over 1500 weddings on my Bronica. Saves time by never having to turn the camera on its side forcing you into a vertical shot or horizontal shot. Actually think the guys who shot the medium format always shot horizontal. I never remember seeing them turn a Pentax on its side. That was the rectangular medium format which we still have and I think Pentax is still considered medium format as is the Hasselblad. As for the Nikon I have not found that setting on my D7200 or the D3200 nor on the D5200. It does seem to crop in like you said when in retouch. The square to me is best but who can afford the square 36 mpx medium format Hasselblad unless you are a pro and have a really thriving business?

roadchuck

D850

Bunko.T Loc: Western Australia.

iPhones produce a pretty good pic nowadays, & you have a Square choice, along with slow mo, time lapse, Pano.
Makes for some fun images or video.

Paul Moshay Loc: Los Angeles, CA

It is all in your mind. With that I mean that you will compose the image with the square format previewed in your mind and then crop it in post production to the image you wanted. Previsualization, a term Ansel Adams coined in relation to photography, is the tecnique to use. No worry about getting a special digital camera for that purpose. Just use your God given mind to do what you want.

Pilot 6 Loc: Eugene, OR

To all who responded, my sincere thanks. I learned much from some and encouragement from all. Next week, as I enter my 93rd year, our house should be ready for the market and I'll join my girl in the assisted-living facility where she's been since last October. -----then, I might even fire off a few more frames----cropped to square of course.

Bob

Cwilson341 Loc: Central Florida

Good luck selling your house quickly. I hope your new lifestyle will leave you with more free time for the things you love to do!