Every time I go through my archives I wish for a medium format camera with a square, 6x6 cm sensor. And if that camera was very, very good I would pay what most people would consider an outrageous premium for it. At least as much as a new car would cost. There is something about NOT having to pre-visualize how a crop will actually look once you change it, slice it up and crop from some lesser format in post production. There is so much value to me in being able to SEE the final composition in the camera as you line up the shot. Sure. You can crop a square out of anything but it's not the same as experiencing it visually, with the purity of instant satori. There just isn't.
And here's my big problem with RAW files. You have to accept the full frame (uncropped) from the camera into your post processing program when you set a different format in a 3:2 camera. Even when shooting the review shows you the edges you didn't want to see in the first place. With Jpegs you get to define the format and work in it. But then you miss out on the flexibility of the RAW file.
The medium format film cameras I owned spanned a lot of manufacturers product lines. There were many Hasselblads, the Bronica SQ line, the Mamiya 6 camera, and a slew of Rolleis; both twin lens and SLRs. Certainly there is enough of a market in a world with 8 billion people to be able to profitably sell a few thousand premium, big sensor, square format cameras every year. I'm tired of working within the false constraints of semiconductor driven size limitations. Yes, I know smaller sensors are less expensive to make but Rolls Royce is still making two or three hundred custom cars at $2 million and up every year. Aren't really, really wonderful cameras a lot more desirable?
Ah well. Back to the scans.
Currently reading a book called: "The Creative Act: A Way of Being" by Rick Rubin.
It's an interesting way of looking at the life long creative process in all manner of avenues I've yet to explore.
19 comments:
I can see you rocking a 6x6 medium-format camera alongside your Leica M kit. I’ll bet KEH Camera could set you up nicely with something close. BTW, I always loved that portrait of Lou.
Sorry Biro, It's gotta be digital...
It could be made to utilise the image circle of an existing system. So if we picked an L mount then they could be higher than and a little less wider than the existing 4x6. I can’t stand 4:6 ratio yet is the most dominant one. Why? Marketing and sameness… even if it was micro four thirds mount.
Look how many monochrome cameras Leica sells at a premium. I always thought hasselblad should do this.
Great point as always. Love your writing. Thanks
I'm with Biro. A 6x6 MF film camera would seem to fulfill much of your desire for friction-filled and thoughtful shooting, and the current exorbitant cost of film and development would not be a concern. What do you have to lose?
I'd personally love a GW690, but I don't shoot enough film and I'm somewhat more sensitive to the cost and inconvenience.
Screw film! This is coming from someone who shot, developed and printed for close to 60 years. Much of it professionally. A 6x6 cutting edge digital camera would kill the market. I am surprised the always cautious Asian masters of camera design/marketing haven't drank enough Sake to say, screw it, let's take a leap into the stratosphere and take a chance. While the new Blad digital is impressive, it's still not a native square format! Come on, be a leader! Take a chance!
Yes I'm a square guy. I love the square. It's the perfect format for portraits and so many other artistic expressions. The square fits, it feels natural, it's perfect.
Eric
Not medium format, but Nikons crop the raw files (which I find annoying).
Just a thought, but could a square crop preset be made to apply to raw files on import to Lightroom or whatever you use?
"Instant satori", we could all use more of that.
I know exactly what you're talking about. I've shot square in m4/3 and it is a pain having to square-crop the RAW again in post. Makes me feel like I'm working twice. It's psychological of course, but what isn't? I haven't tried that using Olympus's own OMWorkspace though, and I wonder if it uses some bit of data captured by the body to only show me the cropped RAW. The camera body knows what you did, seems like like a mistake to not use that bit of info.
I’m with you. I used Rollei SL66s for my whole career, along with a Rolleiflex F 2.8. Wonderful cameras and SQUARE! I have all of my digital cameras set to square. Let me know when you have convinced a company to make one. Maybe we can get a volume discount.
Ditto on the square format being perfect for portraits. Plus it's hip to be square! ;-)
"At least as much as a new car would cost"
Nobody will either produce in-house or outsource a 60mm by 60mm sensor of the resolution you'd probably like, say 60Mb, or any other for that matter. But, someone, (Fuji or Ricoh/Pentax, because still photography is a hobby for them on the corporate balance sheet), might make/outsource a true square sensor, but smaller than 6 x 6cm.
Would I consider using one of my 6 x 6cm film cameras again? No way, the last film I developed was from my Rolleiflex, back in 2019. But it looks good on Teams.......
Kirk wrote, "And if that camera was very, very good I would pay what most people would consider an outrageous premium for it. At least as much as a new car would cost."
And what car would that be?
What's interesting about photographers' desire for higher resolution and latitude is what would be the purpose? A print? What ink jet printer can make a 12x12' print, and what museum, with the help of a patron of course, would acquire it?
Perhaps another look at Pete Turner’s 35mm Kodachrome work might place one’s foot(left or right) on the ground.
Hmmm. I'm either not explaining myself very well or some folks are being obdurate. I don't need more resolution and I'm currently happy with the dynamic range of sensors. I want the sheer size. The actual dimensions of a 6x6 cm sensor just as we had the same geometry and size of film in a Hasselblad. I'm one of those Luddites who truly believe that the longer needed focal length for the same angle of view makes for a different image altogether than just adjusting an image from a smaller sensor. If that weren't true then generations of film photographers would never have spent the extra money to buy medium format cameras and lenses when they could have used Panatomic-X film in a 35mm camera and then cropped square. It's a whole different thing and has nothing to do, in my mind, with detail or extra highlight roll off. It's how an 80mm lens looks different on a big sensor than a 40mm lens looks on a smaller sensor. Both feet planted right on the ground and.....having never, ever been a fan of Pete Turner's work. Talk about a generative A.I. wannabe...
Darn it Kirk..... Now I've got to dig around for a dictionary and look up "obdurate". No, I don't use the computer dictionaries. I like the old style books. If I could only find it. ;-)
Your are right. There are very good reasons for medium format.
Omer, take a gander at some of Chuck Close's prints. And Richard Avedon's in the American West series prints. Museums and gallery patrons actually do buy big, big prints. And, speaking with my advertising hat tightly on my head, any number of specialty printers can print inkjet prints to enormous sizes --- if you have the budget.
I don't chime in here very often, but:
- I'm pretty convinced myself (without being able to explain it) that a larger sensor produces a different image to a smaller one. It's a matter of geometry, that a wider lens / sensor will 'see' things a smaller sensor can't. Think 'pinhole' vs 6ft wide sensor.
- If anyone can show me how to set a crop ratio to be applied on import in Lightroom, I'd appreciate that. Not sure it's possible.
Obdurately yours, David
This isn’t exactly what you have in mind, but almost the only reason I’m interested in a Q3 (as opposed to a Q2) is the in-camera crop feature. You can now crop to 1:1, 4:3, and 16:9 in the EVF, and combine those crops with the focal-length ones—e.g., 50mm crop + 1:1 crop. I think the crops are respected upon import into Lightroom.
Yep, I've seen Avedon's large prints of images from his In The American West book. I've not seen the work of Chuck Close in person but am familiar with his work.
Well, I'm not a gearhead and am a bit of a cheapskate so larger than 35mm is an unknown. I'll defer to you and Dave.
Peace
Am I getting something wrong here? As far as I can tell, when I set a given image ratio on my Fuji xt-5 or my Fuji 50S or my Sigma fp-l, the cropped image is what I see in the viewfinder and it's what I see later when I am looking at the image in Bridge and Camera Raw. As far as I can remember, I didn't do anything special to have that be the case. (Yes, I can undo the image ratio setting in Camera Raw.) So?
That's not to say that I wouldn't be delighted to encounter a square-format 6x6 sensor.
As for large prints, at Pace in NYC last week they were displaying a half-dozen Koudelka panoramas at 10 feet wide. In so much daylight that the prints were effectively being fried from a conservation point of view...
Post a Comment