Square format SLR? (Page 2): 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...

SS319

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.

The natural format of a camera is a circle, and we cut it to a shape that allows a simple cutting tool to work with it and frame it. The 1:1.6 Rectangle was chosen because it is the golden ratio. If you start with a circle, and you trim it to a square in the camera, then, as an artist you "should" trim it again to a rectangle to achieve a pleasing image. By beginning with the 1:1.6 rectangle, you assist the photographer in seeing their final image in the viewfinder and achieving their best photo with the most information.

If you want to have a square image, you can do that in any current camera, but you must remember to cut off a full third of your image when shooting.

User ID

Longshadow wrote:

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

Your question is incomplete, so no distinct answer
could be given. OTOH, it doesn't matter. "Cropping"
is not a well defined term anyway. Conversationally
it's meaning is context dependent. Technically, it's
meaning is zero ... unless you're a veterinarian ;-)

Keep calm and carry on !

.

GoofyNewfie Loc: Kansas City

Fuji’s medium format mirrorless GFX 50s has a 1:1 option.
https://www.dpreview.com/reviews/fujifilm-gfx-50s/2
33mm square is my guess.

imagemeister Loc: mid east Florida

Gilkar wrote:

Before the digital revolution, I used square forma... (show quote)

I imagine the manufacturers think no one is willing to pony up the money for a high MP SQUARE format sensor - like 36mm square ....at this time ! and furnish special lenses to cover the area. Tho it could be done NOW with present lenses @30mm square.

Longshadow Loc: Audubon, PA, United States

User ID wrote:

You're leaving a whoooooole lot of the story out.
....
....
.

Basically, in a nutshell, at the ground floor, without going into a large dissertation...

Longshadow Loc: Audubon, PA, United States

User ID wrote:

Your question is incomplete, so no distinct answer
could be given. OTOH, it doesn't matter. "Cropping"
is not a well defined term anyway. Conversationally
it's meaning is context dependent. Technically, it's
meaning is zero ... unless you're a veterinarian ;-)

Keep calm and carry on !

.

Sorry, here's the rest of it away from the context of the post I replied to:
So would a 24x24 image be cropping, 12 off the long side of a 24x36 image?

E.L.. Shapiro Loc: Ottawa, Ontario Canada

Especially in my wedding photography and much of my portrait work, after many years of large format FILM work, I went to the Hasselblad system. During that era, many professional photographers preferred the so-called "ideal format" cameras, that is, 2 1/4 x 2 3/4 AKA 6x7 cm. Thereby, one could fill the negative and compose for the "ideal " 8x10 format. The only problem for me was that I did not feel that 8x10, 16x20 etc., was always "ideal" for every image. For years, I was creating many multi-format (square and rectangular albums) including panoramic centerfolds.

The square format systems were perfect in that I could still compose for 8x10, horizontal or vertical, 10x10, 11x14, panoramic or whatever. Grid lines on the focusing screen helped and cropping was never an issue because the Zeiss lenses are razor sharp, the film magazines are dead flat and the production of sharp 30x40 and 40X40 prints, let alone wedding album sizes was not problematic.

After years of "flipping" a 4x5 press camera for horizontal and vertical orientation, I had no problems with that- after a while flipping a 4x5 Technika with an onboard flash unit and Grafmatic film holders, I developed forearmslike Popeye the Sailor and -not the lazy guy me! Not having to do that with my
2 1/4 rigs, however, certainly made shooting faster and easier. I could grab a shot in record time and decide on the exact composition at the enlarger. The onboard flash unit sat on a bracket atop the camera- easy riding!

If the Hasselblad folks would have actually made a real square digital camera, I probably would have risked bankruptcy, but alas, they went to what we used to call 6 x 4.5 cm. I was disappointed but my lovely wife and my accountant were relieved. So I went to the Canon system fro weddings and many other tasks and, I'm flippin' cameras again.

So...If Y'all wanna shoot square format, just keep the camera horizontal orientation and leave a bit of space. Unless you are producing photomurals, your images will still be sharp enough despite the cropping.

Here's a trick I taught folks who had those 6x7 medium format cameras and were selling 10x10 wedding albums, You compose you shot vertically and shoot horizontally or compose you shot horizontally and shoot vertical and you will have automatically allowed enough space for square cropping.

Aside from the mechanics of square format cameras, square compositions can be as aesthetically pleasing and powerful as rectangular compositions. As a young student, I was greatly influenced by the work of photographer Fritz Henle (Google him). At school, I was using a Rolleiflex and later purchased a Mamiyaflex for tits interchangeable lenses. Before getting into Hasselblads, I used 4 Rolleiflexes (TLRs) for weddings. Two had an f/2.8 Schneider Xenotar normal lens, the Rollei-Wide had a 50mm fixed lens and the Tele-Rollei had a 135mm fixed lens. I went to Hasselblad because of the interchangeable lenses and film magazines.

For Y'all gear historians the stereo (3-D) cameras of the 1950s and 60s popularity were the square format. you got 24 stereo 24x24cm. pairs out of a 36 exposure roll of Kodachrome. I had 2 Stereo-Realists and 2 Revered models. Many folks ordered theses slides in addition to their black and white wedding albums. Square format was ideal because the binocular viewers were, of course, horizontally oriented, unless you had one eye atop the other, and the rare stereo projector and silver screens were kinda square- if you get my gist.

There's no use in lamenting about what they don't make anymore or what they ain't ever gonna make ever again or anytime soon. Frankly, I was never a big fan of the 35mm format in terms of its aspect ratio and nowadays in digital, unless you want to go to medium format, we are kinda stuck with it. The saving grace is with the intrinsic sharpness of most decent modern camera bodies, good glass, and decent technique, a little cropping is not gonna hurt so if you want to go for a different aspect ratio- why not?

AndyH Loc: Massachusetts and New Hampshire

E.L.. Shapiro wrote:

Especially in my wedding photography and much of my portrait work, after many years of large format FILM work, I went to the Hasselblad system. During that era, many professional photographers preferred the so-called "ideal format" cameras, that is, 2 1/4 x 2 3/4 AKA 6x7 cm. Thereby, one could fill the negative and compose for the "ideal " 8x10 format. The only problem for me was that I did not feel that 8x10, 16x20 etc., was always "ideal" for every image. For years, I was creating many multi-format (square and rectangular albums) including panoramic centerfolds.

The square format systems were perfect in that I could still compose for 8x10, horizontal or vertical, 10x10, 11x14, panoramic or whatever. Grid lines on the focusing screen helped and cropping was never an issue because the Zeiss lenses are razor sharp, the film magazines are dead flat and the production of sharp 30x40 and 40X40 prints, let alone wedding album sizes was not problematic.

After years of "flipping" a 4x5 press camera for horizontal and vertical orientation, I had no problems with that- after a while flipping a 4x5 Technika with an onboard flash unit and Grafmatic film holders, I developed forearmslike Popeye the Sailor and -not the lazy guy me! Not having to do that with my
2 1/4 rigs, however, certainly made shooting faster and easier. I could grab a shot in record time and decide on the exact composition at the enlarger. The onboard flash unit sat on a bracket atop the camera- easy riding!

If the Hasselblad folks would have actually made a real square digital camera, I probably would have risked bankruptcy, but alas, they went to what we used to call 6 x 4.5 cm. I was disappointed but my lovely wife and my accountant were relieved. So I went to the Canon system fro weddings and many other tasks and, I'm flippin' cameras again.

So...If Y'all wanna shoot square format, just keep the camera horizontal orientation and leave a bit of space. Unless you are producing photomurals, your images will still be sharp enough despite the cropping.

Here's a trick I taught folks who had those 6x7 medium format cameras and were selling 10x10 wedding albums, You compose you shot vertically and shoot horizontally or compose you shot horizontally and shoot vertical and you will have automatically allowed enough space for square cropping.

Aside from the mechanics of square format cameras, square compositions can be as aesthetically pleasing and powerful as rectangular compositions. As a young student, I was greatly influenced by the work of photographer Fritz Henle (Google him). At school, I was using a Rolleiflex and later purchased a Mamiyaflex for tits interchangeable lenses. Before getting into Hasselblads, I used 4 Rolleiflexes (TLRs) for weddings. Two had an f/2.8 Schneider Xenotar normal lens, the Rollei-Wide had a 50mm fixed lens and the Tele-Rollei had a 135mm fixed lens. I went to Hasselblad because of the interchangeable lenses and film magazines.

For Y'all gear historians the stereo (3-D) cameras of the 1950s and 60s popularity were the square format. you got 24 stereo 24x24cm. pairs out of a 36 exposure roll of Kodachrome. I had 2 Stereo-Realists and 2 Revered models. Many folks ordered theses slides in addition to their black and white wedding albums. Square format was ideal because the binocular viewers were, of course, horizontally oriented, unless you had one eye atop the other, and the rare stereo projector and silver screens were kinda square- if you get my gist.

There's no use in lamenting about what they don't make anymore or what they ain't ever gonna make ever again or anytime soon. Frankly, I was never a big fan of the 35mm format in terms of its aspect ratio and nowadays in digital, unless you want to go to medium format, we are kinda stuck with it. The saving grace is with the intrinsic sharpness of most decent modern camera bodies, good glass, and decent technique, a little cropping is not gonna hurt so if you want to go for a different aspect ratio- why not?

Especially in my wedding photography and much of m... (show quote)

When I shot semi-professionally to pay my college tuition, the Rollei was my instrument of choice for weddings. The lack of more than 12 exposures at a time was certainly a deterrent, but I got quite adept at rapid reloading.

Now that I've finally gotten a Hassy, I'm looking forward to the interchangeable magazines.

Finally!

Andy

speters Loc: Grangeville/Idaho

Gilkar wrote:

Before the digital revolution, I used square forma... (show quote)

There is one camera that does feature a 4x5 sensor, that is the closest it gets in digital I think!

Gilkar

Golly Guys & Gals,
I didn't think my post would bring such a response. I'm sorry I got the mm size wrong in my original post and I really don't care what the final size in mm would be. Most of us do our cropping in post so right now I shoot with my Nikon D3's horizontally. If I know in advance that I want my subject as a vertical image I allow extra room for the crop. That being said it would be so much easier if a had that 1:1 ratio (no matter what size) because I would then have the choice or cropping to any Horizontally, Vertically, or just leaving things alone. (No wonder I was called a square in my wild and mispent youth.

mwsilvers Loc: Central New Jersey

Gilkar wrote:

Before the digital revolution, I used square forma... (show quote)

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.

boberic Loc: Quiet Corner, Connecticut. Ex long Islander

Gilkar wrote:

Before the digital revolution, I used square forma... (show quote)

Get a grip, a battery grip, that will cure the awkward holding.

imagemeister Loc: mid east Florida

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.

Most people are not aware of the implications of shooting square - mainly because they have never done it ! Most pros and I would buy it !

..

imagemeister Loc: mid east Florida

boberic wrote:

Get a grip, a battery grip, that will cure the awkward holding.

The HOLDING is still awkward - but the control is better.

wdross Loc: Castle Rock, Colorado

imagemeister wrote:

I imagine the manufacturers think no one is willing to pony up the money for a high MP SQUARE format sensor - like 36mm square ....at this time ! and furnish special lenses to cover the area. Tho it could be done NOW with present lenses @30mm square.

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.