Waikiki in B&W and Color

[KevinBarrett]

Oh, no offense intended, and none taken, or whatever. I just thought it curious that you had so many photographs in a non-standard but consistent format. Consistency is the key, of course, as too many varied and non-standard formats in one's portfolio can become distracting, IMO. I like your galleries though, you do excellent work. I actually would like the ability to shoot in multiple formats from one camera, though it doesn't make much difference with an optical viewfinder and uncropped RAW files.

[bakubo]

Oh, no offense intended, and none taken, or whatever. I just thought it curious that you had so many photographs in a non-standard but consistent format. Consistency is the key, of course, as too many varied and non-standard formats in one's portfolio can become distracting, IMO. I like your galleries though, you do excellent work. I actually would like the ability to shoot in multiple formats from one camera, though it doesn't make much difference with an optical viewfinder and uncropped RAW files.

Actually, the photos in this post are just coincidentally similar in aspect ratio. No plan on my part.

Personally, I prefer having a square format camera. It doesn't waste as much of the lens's image circle and, more importantly, you don't have to worry about the ergonomics of holding the camera vertically or horizontally. Also, you don't have to constantly, and sometimes very quickly, change the camera position. I can crop in my head when I am shooting so I don't need the crutch of a pre-cropped viewfinder. Often when I am shooting I know upfront that I don't want all that the 3:2 format is giving me or I have to shoot a vertical when I don't actually want all of it just so I can get a bit more at the top or bottom than I could if I shot a horizontal.

I wonder why square formats are so unusual? 6x6 (aka 2 1/4 x 2 1/4) -- used 120 film -- used to be popular and the old Kodak 126 film was square. Those were the most popular, I think. I don't know why there isn't a square digital. I guess it is just convention since most film was also rectangular with one dimension longer than the other. Too bad.

[KevinBarrett]

I guess it was the constant width that contributed to the sense of uniformity.

I'd rather like to see a larger square sensor that covers all of a lens's image circle (which I suppose is like FF/DT). One might use any format at the point of capture without wasting the wide angle capability of a lens. Panasonic has the right idea with their LX3, but it could be carried a little further. After all, the lens is the more precious component, not the sensor.

This wouldn't make sense for an SLR, but for an EVIL camera it would be ideal.

[harvey]

I guess it was the constant width that contributed to the sense of uniformity.

I'd rather like to see a larger square sensor that covers all of a lens's image circle (which I suppose is like FF/DT). One might use any format at the point of capture without wasting the wide angle capability of a lens. Panasonic has the right idea with their LX3, but it could be carried a little further.

I thought the LX3 was a 16:9 sensor?
Maybe you mean a sqaure sensor but camera modes for aspect ratio.

A square sensor is tempting and maybe 50% more pixels than 3:2 is not too taxing.

Harvey

[KevinBarrett]

Actually, the LX2 had the 16:9 sensor. The LX3 uses three different aspect ratios crowded into the lens's image circle, but though one of those aspect ratios matches the sensor's, none of then uses the whole sensor.

[bakubo]

Today the annual Independence Day outrigger canoe races at Waikiki were held and, like last year, I was walking on the crowded beach and out in the water and waves shooting. It's fun and I will post some shots later after I have them downloaded and I can take a look at them.