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

GENorkus Loc: Washington Twp, Michigan

...as does my Pentax K1.

Helge Loc: Sarnia, ON, Canada

I agree, I suppose the reason is that the rectangular format fit the shape of TV/monitors. Other benefits of a square format is you handle the camera the same way all the time no matter what the shape your object/subject is, a tall building, an expansive landscape, a portrait of a person or two, or a group of several people. Now you have the choice in post processing to crop your image as you please. There is another huge advantage, when using flash, the square format camera keeps the flash in the same position no matter how you decide to format the final image.

Streets Loc: Euless, TX.

When was the last time that you saw a square photo that appealed to you? If, perchance, you want to have a square photo, use a post process program like FOTOR and select the the 1:1 crop. I use a 24MP camera, so a square crop would still allow me to have a 16MP hard copy photo of very high resolution. To be honest, I never liked the results from the square format cameras that I have owned.

Helge Loc: Sarnia, ON, Canada

I've seen many great square format photos. But I think you're missing the point a square can be manipulated to whatever form you desire, square, rectangle (landscape or portrait) even round. The most important when using the camera no matter what shape you want the image to be you are always holding the camera the same way. The flash part is one of the greatest benefits. I haven't got time right now but I will post some examples, demonstrating this.

mwsilvers Loc: Central New Jersey

The two issues with a square sensor is:

1. Unless you want a square frame for your finished image you have to always crop it in post, losing pixels.
2. You are now forced to compose your image in a different shaped frame than you will end up with. I compose for the frame I see in my viewfinder, allowing for a bit extra space for potential straightening. Since I rarely have a need for a square image I see no real advantage. Additionally I have no problems shooting portrait or landscape as the need arises. If there was a real need, and big enough market, such a camera would already be available.

Chris T Loc: from England across the pond to New England

IT IS, Mark - as long as you choose 1:1, instead of 3:2, 4:5, or 16:9 … in your menus ….

GENorkus Loc: Washington Twp, Michigan

Concerning your post, the photographer first has to buy into the thought of their camera having the "ultimate" size format in the first place. Helge has it right otherwise.

As for your first statement, you're correct if you need to crop the image in the first place. Then you need to consider that most full frame cameras have the ability to change to a crop size sensor. Doesn't that cuts down on the pixels too.

Going from something around 30 to 50 MP and then down to around 16 to 20 MP seems to be a big cut but I doubt a large majority of people can tell the difference in the finished product. The manufactures don't seem to think that is a big issue either. So I say your blanket statement is a wash.

As for your number 2, No one is forced to re compose anything. In addition, if an image needed to be straightened, wouldn't that be the same as what you mentioned as a negative. (eg: loosing pixels.)

When it comes right down to it, everyone should just go out an be creative enough to do as they want. That can be you, Helge, me, or the man on the moon. (or is that now considered a "person" on the moon. To each their own.)

mwsilvers Loc: Central New Jersey

"Since you say your images are rarely needed as a square I would take a guess that is because the other size format doesn't have enough space to let you. "

I'm not sure I understand the implication of this statement. I don't take square photographs because I'm not interested in square photographs, not because of some limitation of my camera's sensor. I am quite capable of cropping any of my images into squares in post if I wanted that format. Square format images just don't appeal to me very much, and I've cropped at most one out of every 1,000 keepers as a square. I review and cull older images quite often, and perhaps have 20 to 30 square images at most.

hassighedgehog Loc: Corona, CA

The reason for the rectangular format is esthetic. Square or round is a static format. Better would be one in the golden rectangle aspect. I rarely format (even in PP) to square, and then only if the subject forces it. My two cameras native aspects are different. The Pentax is 2:3, the Lumix 3:4 (the most pixels available). Both can be set to 1:1.

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

Static? Gotta- respectfully disagree. Take a look at this:

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=5V2VqUMqH-8

Not every image will work in a square composition but many will. I am not one to apply mathematical formulas, grid lines and diagrams to every kind of compositional analysis but for those who have studied the Fibonacci elements as to the division of space, will find the rules of thirds, points of visual impact and othere such theories can easily apply to square formats.

Not every image will work well in a square or a circular format, however, by the same token, not everything is aesthetically perfect in a rectangular one either.

Personally, I don't think that anyone shoud be confined to one compositional aproach all the time and we needn't be restricted by the aspect ratio of most cameras- allowances and space can be made for a wide variety of compositions. I suppose, most of what I produce, commercially, is in rectangular form but I like to experiment with panoramic approaches, both horizontal and vertical, square and even oval, elliptical and circular forced to work backward from a given layout, album page size or picture frame size and ratio. If there are no such requirements, why no try something different?

hassighedgehog Loc: Corona, CA

Exactly my point. The OP was looking for a camera that's native aspect ratio was 1:1 which I find limiting and usually not used.

lamiaceae Loc: San Luis Obispo County, CA

Same here.

lamiaceae Loc: San Luis Obispo County, CA

Interesting Video. Fritz Henle seems to have been a very great photographer in any image ratios. He was utilizing all the rules of composition. Staying with the historical theme and give many master photographers shot cameras in more than one format -- Note Ansel Adams shot from huge large Format to 2 1/4" Hasselblad. Others strictly 11x14" or 4x5" or 35mm. That said, but notice a fact: Kodak never made boxed or packed square cut sheet film or square printing paper sheets. At least not commonly / At least nothing that I've ever seen. I did once have a (partial) 500 sheet box of Kodak 8.5 x 11 Silver Printing paper. There must have been a small market for notebook sized prints for some (business or educational) applications. Machine and consumer prints were often printed to small ~ 4" squares during the 50's and 60's.

GrahamO

I don’t think a square format digital will ever be made but that doesn’t prevent me getting out my TLR Rolleis and shooting film from time to time and scanning with an Epson V700. Just guessing but that might be equivalent to a 100mp sensor. I expect someone will correct me on that last point with a scientific dissertation.