Kirk Tuck has an interesting piece in the Online Photographer where he discusses his love of the square format and how the digital transition had effectively removed this as an option (except for the wealthy) until the onset of mirror-less cameras with EVF. Well, at least the EP-2, which offers a 1:1 aspect ratio as one of the choices.
Like Kirk, I love square format and I would rather compose with it than crop to it. Unfortunately, the NEX-7 EVF only does 3:2 and 16:9. So if any one here has a line in to Sony, perhaps they could have a word because I doubt such a facility would be a big design deal and I imagine there are plenty of us who would welcome it.
http://theonlinephotographer.typepad.co ... grapher%29
Aspect ratios
- Greg Beetham
- Tower of Babel
- Posts: 6117
- Joined: Sun May 27, 2007 3:25 pm
- Location: Townsville, Qld. Australia
- Contact:
Re: Aspect ratios
I never really understood why the square format was popular, from one point of view it does use the circular field from the lens to best advantage as it doesn’t waste any of that but I always thought the only thing it does well is passport photos. I guess it might be ok for some wildlife shots too, with bird shooting it probably doesn’t matter if you have a rectangular field or a square one a lot of the time but I think I’d be lost with many subjects that have a pronounced north/south or east/west aspect too them and didn’t have that rectangular composition choice to match.
One would think in this day and age it wouldn’t be too hard to have a choice though even if the base format was rectangular, Sony could put a series of format choices in the EVF viewfinder either with a prominent outline or a black mask easily enough one would think, the only problem with that might be the difficulty in matching lens choices, what might be good for rectangular format might not necessarily be wonderful for square format for the same task.
Greg
One would think in this day and age it wouldn’t be too hard to have a choice though even if the base format was rectangular, Sony could put a series of format choices in the EVF viewfinder either with a prominent outline or a black mask easily enough one would think, the only problem with that might be the difficulty in matching lens choices, what might be good for rectangular format might not necessarily be wonderful for square format for the same task.
Greg
-
- Viceroy
- Posts: 1196
- Joined: Mon Aug 18, 2008 11:20 pm
Re: Aspect ratios
My Panasonic Lumix LX5 has a switch on top of the lens providing a choice of 1:1, 4:3, 3:2 and 16:9. Quite handy but a nusiance when forgetting to change settings and only the 4:3 setting provides the full 10Mp usage. This is what you would expect from a "4:3 company".
- Dusty
- Emperor of a Minor Galaxy
- Posts: 2215
- Joined: Thu Dec 18, 2008 5:04 pm
- Location: Ironton, Missouri, USA
Re: Aspect ratios
Greg, you don't shoot weddings! The square format gives you the opportunity to print either square, vertical or horizontal, and there are odd people who want it one way that no one else does. Most couples want a vertical 'coming down the aisle' shot, but some want a horizontal because it shows that Uncle Fred made it there after all. The only thing you have to remember when shooting squares is don't fill the frame!. If you do, you lose that crop ability. Besides, MF had such large negatives you could afford it!Greg Beetham wrote:I never really understood why the square format was popular, from one point of view it does use the circular field from the lens to best advantage as it doesn’t waste any of that but I always thought the only thing it does well is passport photos. I guess it might be ok for some wildlife shots too, with bird shooting it probably doesn’t matter if you have a rectangular field or a square one a lot of the time but I think I’d be lost with many subjects that have a pronounced north/south or east/west aspect too them and didn’t have that rectangular composition choice to match.
Greg
Dusty
An a700, an a550 and couple of a580s, plus even more lenses (Zeiss included!).
- Greg Beetham
- Tower of Babel
- Posts: 6117
- Joined: Sun May 27, 2007 3:25 pm
- Location: Townsville, Qld. Australia
- Contact:
Re: Aspect ratios
I know where you’re coming from Dusty, MF is a grand medium and has acres of negative area too put to good use but I always thought that there wasn’t anything that a 6X6 could do that a 6X7 or 6X8 couldn’t do better, in other words when you use a 6X6 a fair amount of the time you could end up cropping back to something like 6X4.5 anyway.
If I were too develop masochistic tendencies and decided to shoot weddings with MF I think I’d head for a rectangular format, preferably one with a revolving back although I think I could manage quite ok without that. I realize the lenses for 6X7 are larger and heavier, (for example a 6X6 50mm lens weighs about 590grams compared to 790grams for the 50mm 6X7) but for a wedding you probably only need too carry two, a standard lens and a wide angle for groups.
I guess if you are going to lug a camera around that weighs about 3 or 4Kg anyway by the time you put an AE finder, grip, and a Metz hammerhead flash on it, why not use a rectangular format? It is reasonably easy to tip the camera over to portrait aspect, compose (using feet) and focus if you have a grip and AE finder fitted…that’s what I was thinking.
Greg
If I were too develop masochistic tendencies and decided to shoot weddings with MF I think I’d head for a rectangular format, preferably one with a revolving back although I think I could manage quite ok without that. I realize the lenses for 6X7 are larger and heavier, (for example a 6X6 50mm lens weighs about 590grams compared to 790grams for the 50mm 6X7) but for a wedding you probably only need too carry two, a standard lens and a wide angle for groups.
I guess if you are going to lug a camera around that weighs about 3 or 4Kg anyway by the time you put an AE finder, grip, and a Metz hammerhead flash on it, why not use a rectangular format? It is reasonably easy to tip the camera over to portrait aspect, compose (using feet) and focus if you have a grip and AE finder fitted…that’s what I was thinking.
Greg
Re: Aspect ratios
For me, the point in Kirk's argument, and one that chimes with me, is that the square aspect can on occasion be just right for the subject. In particular, I think it can work well for portraits and some interior shots. I'm not thinking about the square frame providing an option to crop to a different rectangle but as an option in itself. The beauty of digital aspect ratios is that they can be tailored at will in camera to the situation unlike MF. I guess what I'm saying is that I prefer to compose in the VF rather than crop afterwards so various aspect ratio options would be a big plus.
- Greg Beetham
- Tower of Babel
- Posts: 6117
- Joined: Sun May 27, 2007 3:25 pm
- Location: Townsville, Qld. Australia
- Contact:
Re: Aspect ratios
Yes there are some beautiful shots in my Bronica book (William Cheung) taken with 6X6 format that have that MF ‘look’ that only that format seems to have, it seems Bronica like 6X6 because it’s very handy for composing with the waist level VF, so it says in the book, I have too confess I never actually tried the WL VF in anger myself, it probably would be ok for B&W film, but I would need a good spot meter to go with it I think.
Greg
Greg
-
- Viceroy
- Posts: 1198
- Joined: Wed Oct 22, 2008 7:41 pm
Re: Aspect ratios
To me, the 1:1 geometry is definitely desirable as the only geometry for the raw data. And I would love to have aspect easily switchable in EVF/LV through a dedicated control. Never having to rotate the cam into portrait position alone is already a very good thing.
The obvious problems with 1:1 are - the sensor must be larger to cover all of the lens image circle, causing higher noise due to longer on-chip wiring (about the same diff as a700 vs a900 per-pixel noise); lens hoods must be changed and flare would be greater in some cases; existing lenses may have incompatible shades built-in, like those behind the rear element in all Sony e-mount lenses.
The obvious problems with 1:1 are - the sensor must be larger to cover all of the lens image circle, causing higher noise due to longer on-chip wiring (about the same diff as a700 vs a900 per-pixel noise); lens hoods must be changed and flare would be greater in some cases; existing lenses may have incompatible shades built-in, like those behind the rear element in all Sony e-mount lenses.
Who is online
Users browsing this forum: No registered users and 9 guests