Gilkar

Before the digital revolution, I used square format cameras, twin lens reflex and Hasselblads. Now I am using DSLR's and enjoying them. The only thing I find annoying is having to rotate the camera. I own several brackets that allow me to rotate from horizontal to vertical and I certainly can do it manually.
I got to thinking about the good ole days when I owned a "Robot" 35 mm camera. (Yes I am that old!) It was a 35mm square format camera. It was never popular and did not catch on. Later, Kodak brought out it's Instamatic line of square format cameras and films but again they were popular for awhile and then disappeared. Now everything is digital and we have sensors in many varied formats, 2x3, 3x4, full frame etc. I am curious why some enterprising manufacturer hasn't brought out a square format sensor in the 35mm size. (36mm X 36mm) It doesn't appear that it would take much retooling to create and the resulting camera would certainly be less expensive than the large square format digital cameras on the market today. I think the functionality of our present DSLRS and Mirrorless cameras could be retained and at the same time give us square format lovers a camera to enjoy. Any insights or comments, anyone?

AndyH Loc: Massachusetts and New Hampshire

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

RichardTaylor Loc: Sydney, Australia

Why not check to see if your camera has a square format option? My Olympus M4/3 bodies do.

AndyH Loc: Massachusetts and New Hampshire

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

Besperus Loc: Oregon

In 2011 Pentax introduced the minuscule
Q1 mirrorless (not 4/3) but smaller format. Interchangeable lenses but never had the mass appeal of the current formats. Shot jpeg and raw. And a host of special effects as well. Leaf shutter lenses allowed sync at one 2500th (or do I’ve been told). 12 meg sensor was tiny but produces high quality images especially if manipulated in photoshop. Point is, optional square format among others. There you go, tiny camera, mirrorless, and now very cheap. Later versions had a slightly larger sensor, plastic body.

Almostageezer Loc: USA

If you do not need the full frame equivalent sensor, some of the point and shoots offer 1 to 1 aspect ratio square format. It is on both my Sony RX100 and Canon G1 x cameras. It is interesting to use to break up the same old same old.

User ID

Would be about 32x32 if you avoid cost
of designing lenses. 36x36 will vignette
with most FF lenses. Current 2:3 shape
rear baffles can just be left off, or new
square baffles designed for 32x32.

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:

Longshadow Loc: Audubon, PA, United States

So would a 24x24 be cropping, 12 off the long side.

Longshadow Loc: Audubon, PA, United States

No matter what format you get, you still have to crop somewhere to get a square out of a rectangular shot or a rectangle out of a square shot.
One format would just be you base (most often used) format. Unless you wanted to get a square camera and a rectangular camera.
OR, just format the image you want and crop in post...

hassighedgehog Loc: Corona, CA

Both of my cameras will go to 1x1 aspect ratio. Cropped it not necessarily inferior. Just check the manual to find out how many MP that gives you.

wdross Loc: Castle Rock, Colorado

Owning a Hasselblad, I understand and love the fact that one does not have to rotate the camera for horizontal or vertical. But manufacturers don't like to waste pixels. That is why the 4/3rds format exist. It is basically the averaged out format for every standard print size from wallet size to 30 X 40. The manufactures think our muscle power is cheaper than their putting extra pixels and size in the sensor. Not much that we photographers can do about that.

User ID

`


Maybe, maybe not. A major reason small SLRs were not
square is precedent. For film, we were stuck with existing
stock, so square would have been 24x24mm which then
got cropped to 18x24mm for most purposes. If switching
to unperf'ed 35mm was feasable, the camera would be a
lot deeper to accommodate a flip mirror for 34x34 format.

Well, now we're NOT stuck with existing film slicers so the
35mm physical dimension means nothing. And we're just
about done with SLRs so we don't hafta make the camera
deeper for a 34x34 format. Deeper bodies would have put
more lenses into the retrofocus realm back in SLR times ...
and that increases cost and size.

While we're not stuck with 35mm film slitters, and the end
of the SLR era means less need for retrofocus lenses, the
cost of R&D would suggest keeping current optical designs
as used for 24x36 non-SLRs. 34x34 uses the same image
circle as 24x36 ... just reshape the rear baffle if needed.

Acoarst, you would no longer "look pro" without a "vertical
grip" ... soooo sorry but square format wouldn't need that !

135 and 126 [and 828] film are 35mm, so in that context
there really was a square format 35mm SLR [27x27mm],
and here it is:

(Download)

AndyH Loc: Massachusetts and New Hampshire

You have interesting ideas on this. I think there's potential for both a pro and prosumer line that bridges the gaps between APS and FF, as well as between FF and medium format, say 645. I'd be surprised if designers and engineers haven't thought about this, but I think the sales projections must be below the tool up costs, at least until the "Mirrorless Revolution" has laid the DSLR out before Madame Defarge.

As many have pointed out, it's sometimes easier to leave features in than to eliminate them, at least once production is ramped up. How many buyers of the "prosumer" level cameras actually use their scene and auto modes? But stripping them out would cost more than leaving them in from the entry level bodies, I think.

Andy

AndyH Loc: Massachusetts and New Hampshire

I remember that one! Narrow range of lenses, but based, IIRC, on the old Kodak Stuttgart Retina Reflex models. The problem with the 126 format was inherent in the design - poor film flatness. Once production had been tooled up, there was no way to go back to a full redesign of the cartridge, at least until sales had died off sufficiently that they trotted out the APS-C format.

Andy

User ID

You're leaving a whoooooole lot of the story out.
Not denying anything you wrote, fact-wise, but
you are missing the "performance value" that a
square format brings.

Skipping lengthy detail, the two most significant
things about square, as relates to cropping, are:

Lenses are round. A square is the max rectangle
inscribed in any circle.

If you're needing a non-square rectangular final
image, a square format has built-in rise-fall and
shift, with no moving parts, for EVERY lens, no
extra charge, no oversized lenses.

.