Square format... whould you like to have one?

[kent andersen]

Canon rumors (wich must be the most reliable source in the universe... [ironic smiley] ) posted a rumor about a comming square format digital camera. My brother has an analog Hasselblad, and I must say that a digital Eos-Square format would definently be an intersting body.

This is not a rumour post, I just wanted to hear others opinion. Would you like one?

Actually, my favourite would be to have a sensor, where I could choose between different format.

[Depth]

I love shooting 6x6, so yes.

[TTk]

I love shooting 6x6, so yes.


Same here.;)

[NaKiD EyE]

not having to switch the camera orientation for portrait/landscape would be nice but i hardly ever crop my 3:2 into a square so i think i will be doing a lot of cropping on the square picture to get the desired aspect ratio.

[DetlevCM]

I got used to the 3:2 ratio - so no, not really.
And square pictures while they are sometimes the best crop just don't feel right :D

I wouldn't want to have to crop every image.

[DocFrankenstein]

Actually, my favourite would be to have a sensor, where I could choose between different format.
You probably have one already.

I'm not sure where I stand on this.

A square format would make the body thicker and lower the sync speed by about 20-30%

On the other hand if canon makes a "full frame" square camera, the lenses would be used optimally.

I don't think canon will do it. They'll have to change the assembly line and waste silicon wafer space.

[flowrider]

Yes but then again I used to shoot a Mamiya RZ67 but more often than not I framed using a square focussing screen.

[Joe Ravenstein]

I used my 120mm twin lens camera but not as much as my 35mm cameras. I reserved the 120mm for portrait usage.

[HankScorpio]

They'd be more likely to go with a medium format 6x4.5 like the Phase and Hassy backs rather than a square format. I love my 6x6 and 6x7 cameras but I prefer a more rectangular frame.

[Lowner]

Yes, I like the idea, make the most of the circular image. Do away with the extra shutter release and assorted extras (that I never use anyway) on the grips.

[Brett]

There's a group on flickr that only accepts square images, and they've got some fantastic work there.

I don't know if I'd like it. I don't often crop square, but I've tried it a few times. I guess if it were FF, it would make maximum use of the image circle, and the photographer could crop however he sees fit, so it might be useful.

[echo]

I've been going on about a square sensor for ages. I'd love one :)

[tiger roach]

I have my doubts. It could mess with my visualization. :)

[MMX]

When I want a square photo, I crop it in Photoshop, no big deal. However, it would be useful when shooting with flash.

[Lowner]

Having a square sensor need not force a square format on anyone, its a win/win as I see it, we would have a larger image from which to crop at will and keep the quality.

But square does work well for some compositions.

[Mark_48]

Hmm, Interesting rumor.....;)

http://photography-on-the.net/forum/showpost.php?p=10115281&postcount=9

[NaKiD EyE]

Hmm, Interesting rumor.....;)

http://photography-on-the.net/forum/showpost.php?p=10115281&postcount=9

thanks for sharing... very interesting. If they found a way to implement this technology into the 1Ds MKIV i would be all over it.

[MMX]

Hmm, Interesting rumor.....;)

http://photography-on-the.net/forum/showpost.php?p=10115281&postcount=9

BS, if somebody believes it, he should probably visit high school one more time.
If the dimensions of current Canon sensor are 36×24 mm, the diameter of the lens is 43,27 mm. And if we want this lens to cover a square sensor, it´s side can be no longer than 30,6 mm, so there´s no way how we could use this lens with 36×36 mm sensor.

A guy named Pythagoras knew it 2500 years ago; unlike you, he probably wasn´t from America - the land of unlimited possibilities ;)

[kent andersen]

A very well done photoshop creation it is!!! But also, a very ugly body. I am so glad that the creator of canon bodies understand the value of estethique...

But a Square format would have been nice. What would be the problem? Is a 36x36 really difficult to produce? I am no ingenieur, but wouldn't it be just to make a bigger sensor and a equally larger body?

[MMX]

Is a 36x36 really difficult to produce? I am no ingenieur, but wouldn't it be just to make a bigger sensor and a equally larger body?

It´s not difficult, even a 6×6 is not difficult, the main problem is that it would require new set of lenses.

[Mark_48]

It´s not difficult, even a 6×6 is not difficult, the main problem is that it would require new set of lenses.

And they could be called...... L² :grin:

[M_ark]

It´s not difficult, even a 6×6 is not difficult, the main problem is that it would require new set of lenses.

If the lenses are projecting a circle of light over the 36x24mm FF sensor already, then 36x36 should theoretically be possible, at least with some of canon's existing lenses.

[Mark_48]

If the lenses are projecting a circle of light over the 36x24mm FF sensor already, then 36x36 should theoretically be possible, at least with some of canon's existing lenses.

Nope....

When I created FrankenCanon I pretty much ignored the technical aspect of it. It was more the concept I was going for.

[M_ark]

Nope....

When I created FrankenCanon I pretty much ignored the technical aspect of it. It was more the concept I was going for.

Ah i see - obvious to me now! - a square sensor to fit existing lenses would have to be more like 33x33mm.

[MMX]

If the lenses are projecting a circle of light over the 36x24mm FF sensor already, then 36x36 should theoretically be possible, at least with some of canon's existing lenses.

OMFG it´s not possible, I explained it yesterday. Stop humiliating yourself and return to high school.

[M_ark]

OMFG it´s not possible, I explained it yesterday. Stop humiliating yourself and return to high school.

LOL, ok, ok, 43.2mm square sensor, and the photographer has to crop to remove vignetting :P

- although the exact configuration could be set in-camera like the nikons do for their non-full frame lens compatibility.

[MMX]

LOL, ok, ok, 43.2mm square sensor, and the photographer has to crop to remove vignetting :P

What the hell? :lol:

43.2 mm is the diameter of the circle and the square must be inside the circle, not vice versa. This means that a circle with 43.2mm diameter is able to cover a square with 30.5mm side.

Yes, theoretically they could make it this way and "cut whatever you don´t want" (21 % of the square would be black), however the sensor would be 2.16× larger than current FF sensors, thus it would be 2.16× more expensive and also the camera body would have to be significantly bigger.

[M_ark]

What the hell? :lol:

43.2 mm is the diameter of the circle and the square must be inside the circle, not vice versa. This means that a circle with 43.2mm diameter is able to cover a square with 30.5mm side.

Yes, theoretically they could make it this way and "cut whatever you don´t want" (21 % of the square would be black), however the sensor would be 2.16× larger than current FF sensors, thus it would be 2.16× more expensive and also the camera body would have to be significantly bigger.

granted, it's not at all a practical solution.

[CanonGarcon]

The square format is not a happening anytime soon. It won't be happening in a mainstream camera. Canonrumors.com guy is a complete dork.

[sapearl]

Ouch ......:eek:!

The square format is not a happening anytime soon. It won't be happening in a mainstream camera. Canonrumors.com guy is a complete dork.

[Mark_48]

The square format is not a happening anytime soon. It won't be happening in a mainstream camera. Canonrumors.com guy is a complete dork.

Probably isn't happening anytime soon, but that doesn't mean that a few folks wouldn't like to see it happen. I'm sure you have some camera feature on your dream list that will never get there. Mine happens to be a switch selectable format - landscape, portrait, and square at the push of a button. Eliminate the need to rotate the camera. Combine the features of the Mamiya RB/RZ67 rotating back and the Hasselblad square and 645 film back selectability and implement it digitally. Perfect camera for a wedding shooter.

[MMX]

Combine the features of the Mamiya RB/RZ67 rotating back and the Hasselblad square.

And you will get a rotating square! Wow, what a revolutionary idea! :D

[Mark_48]

Combine the features of the Mamiya RB/RZ67 rotating back and the Hasselblad square.

And you will get a rotating square! Wow, what a revolutionary idea! :D
Can't read and can't quote correctly....

- Mine happens to be a switch selectable format - landscape, portrait, and square at the push of a button.
- Combine the features of the Mamiya RB/RZ67 rotating back and the Hasselblad square and 645 film back selectability and implement it digitally.

Digital rotation (digitally "masking" the sensor) to achieve landscape and portrait orientation with the option of square format. Is that difficult to understand? I guess for some it is.

[CanonGarcon]

Probably isn't happening anytime soon, but that doesn't mean that a few folks wouldn't like to see it happen. I'm sure you have some camera feature on your dream list that will never get there. Mine happens to be a switch selectable format - landscape, portrait, and square at the push of a button. Eliminate the need to rotate the camera. Combine the features of the Mamiya RB/RZ67 rotating back and the Hasselblad square and 645 film back selectability and implement it digitally. Perfect camera for a wedding shooter.

I would like a camera that would walk a dog and dance a jig, doesn't mean I will ever see it.

[sapearl]

For decades I shot square Mamiya and then Hasselblad at weddings. It was great not having to switch between landscape/portrait mode.

And then in '06 I switched to the 5D. Pretty quickly I discovered the Newton Camera Rotator Bracket - a POTN recomendation - and made an easy and seamless transition. On the first job it was a minor mental adjustment. But then I really began appreciating the fact I was using the full frame of the "digital negative" for my 5x7 and 8x10 enlargements as well as books, and no longer lost that portion of the cropped 6x6 negative.

I suppose it wouldn't be a bad feature to have, but you'd either have to rotate the sensor inside the camera, or do some other form of internal smoke and mirrors. You would still be losing a portion of that nice larger, physical sensor though to s/w masking. IMHO that would be a complete waste of money.

I don't mind physically rotating the camera to get the entire use of the full sensor; it's fast, simple and does the job very well :D. I'd rather see the R&D go into something else. - Stu

Probably isn't happening anytime soon, but that doesn't mean that a few folks wouldn't like to see it happen. I'm sure you have some camera feature on your dream list that will never get there. Mine happens to be a switch selectable format - landscape, portrait, and square at the push of a button. Eliminate the need to rotate the camera. Combine the features of the Mamiya RB/RZ67 rotating back and the Hasselblad square and 645 film back selectability and implement it digitally. Perfect camera for a wedding shooter.

[jacobsen1]

I shoot vertical 75%+ of the time and NEVER use a square, so for me I'd prefer a camera with a 2:3 sensor (my preferred ratio) but have the sensor VERTICAL in the camera.... :lol:

[sapearl]

That would probably make more sense actually than a square sensor. A big draw would be for folks heavily into portrait, fashion, glamour and other "vertical" work. Of course for those like myself who also do heavy landscape work, we'd have to "rotate" the camera into that mode ;).

I shoot vertical 75%+ of the time and NEVER use a square, so for me I'd prefer a camera with a 2:3 sensor (my preferred ratio) but have the sensor VERTICAL in the camera.... :lol:

[Poe]

The square format is not a happening anytime soon. It won't be happening in a mainstream camera. Canonrumors.com guy is a complete dork.

He's just passing along tidbits he recieves. That doesn't mean he's a dork.

[pinoyplaya]

It appears as though we can still use our current lens lineup should they switch to square sensors. I think it would be great to give it a try and see how well it performs. The post in Canon Rumors seems convincing to me that it will benefit photographers in many ways in terms of the quality of the images. Of course this could be just a ploy to get people to support it and make the switch.

Who knows.

[jacobsen1]

Of course for those like myself who also do heavy landscape work, we'd have to "rotate" the camera into that mode ;).

I shoot landscapes and STILL shoot 75%+ vertically.... :lol:

[AxxisPhoto]

Canon rumors (wich must be the most reliable source in the universe... [ironic smiley] ) posted a rumor about a comming square format digital camera. My brother has an analog Hasselblad, and I must say that a digital Eos-Square format would definently be an intersting body.

This is not a rumour post, I just wanted to hear others opinion. Would you like one?

Actually, my favourite would be to have a sensor, where I could choose between different format.

Absolutely would love to have a square-format camera.

[tkbslc]

No matter what the sensor size, you are still going to end up cropping most photos down to fit the composition, or for the common frame sizes. Most customers still want 8x10, 5x7 and 11x14. So Square doesn't make any more sense than 2:3.

If you really want to take advantage of the full lens, why not a round sensor? You can crop it any way you want and take advantage of the full lens projection. You may run into problems where Canon has not exactly made their lenses friendly for square or circle sensors, however. For example, the 24-105L has a rectangle shaped trim/shade around the rear mount.

[Lowner]

tkbslc,

I'll vote for that. And silicon wafers are already round, so no need to cut them into miniscule rectangles, thus saving money!

[sapearl]

My old Hasselblad was a lot of fun...even as it sits on the shelf today :cry:.

The feel is still very solid and ergonomic and always gave a very satisfying clumping sound with that double shutter. Now and then I think about getting a digital back for that 503CW, but when I check prices I quickly conclude that you can get a lot of new Canon body or lens for $9K+ ;)

Most wedding, event, fashion, portrait and glamour work falls into the 4x6, 5x7, 8x10 format, so there is some waste on that "cropped" 6x6cm square. For the most part you'd see the full square neg printed in fine art applications - did it a number of times myself.

Absolutely would love to have a square-format camera.

[kent andersen]

If you really want to take advantage of the full lens, why not a round sensor? You can crop it any way you want and take advantage of the full lens projection. You may run into problems where Canon has not exactly made their lenses friendly for square or circle sensors, however. For example, the 24-105L has a rectangle shaped trim/shade around the rear mount.

bw!:lol:

[CanonGarcon]

No matter what the sensor size, you are still going to end up cropping most photos down to fit the composition, or for the common frame sizes. Most customers still want 8x10, 5x7 and 11x14. So Square doesn't make any more sense than 2:3.

If you really want to take advantage of the full lens, why not a round sensor? You can crop it any way you want and take advantage of the full lens projection. You may run into problems where Canon has not exactly made their lenses friendly for square or circle sensors, however. For example, the 24-105L has a rectangle shaped trim/shade around the rear mount.

There is not enough demand for a mass production square format camera. Canon is not going to make one. Want a sqaure format, crop it.

[jacobsen1]

tkbslc,

I'll vote for that. And silicon wafers are already round, so no need to cut them into miniscule rectangles, thus saving money!

so one wafer per sensor then? That'd get VERY expensive. Once you cut the wafer up to make more than one sensor, circles no longer work efficiently....

[airfrogusmc]

There is not enough demand for a mass production square format camera. Canon is not going to make one. Want a sqaure format, crop it.

Don't tell that to Hasselblad.

[tkbslc]

Don't tell that to Hasselblad.

Would you call Hasselblads or any other MF camera "mass produced"?

[airfrogusmc]

Would you call Hasselblads or any other MF camera "mass produced"?

Actually the 500 C and 500 C/M was. Not in the same #s as Nikon or Canon but still in very large #s.

[alt4852]

Actually the 500 C and 500 C/M was. Not in the same #s as Nikon or Canon but still in very large #s.

i think it would be fair to say that the square format is getting more and more rare. the hasselblads you're referencing are film based. all of hasselblad's digital backs and newer systems are no longer square.

[airfrogusmc]

i think it would be fair to say that the square format is getting more and more rare. the hasselblads you're referencing are film based. all of hasselblad's digital backs and newer systems are no longer square.

Not true. Hasselblad recently added the CFV39 2009 back for use on all the V bodies 500 C, 500 C/M, 501, 503 included and is square.

I for one really prefer square portraits. I think its the perfect portrait format.

[alt4852]

Not true. Hasselblad recently added the CFV39 2009 back for use on all the V bodies 500 C, 500 C/M, 501, 503 included and is square.

I for one really prefer square portraits. I think its the perfect portrait format.

i agree that square frames work wonders at times, but i don't think there's any denying that the market for cameras that use this ratio is minuscule in this day and age. i think the most popular use of it now are by lomographers who use holgas to create their work. most of the medium format photographers that i know no longer use square sensors, but rather crop accordingly when the frame calls for it.

[airfrogusmc]

i agree that square frames work wonders at times, but i don't think there's any denying that the market for cameras that use this ratio is minuscule in this day and age. i think the most popular use of it now are by lomographers who use holgas to create their work. most of the medium format photographers that i know no longer use square sensors, but rather crop accordingly when the frame calls for it.

Yeah I do agree with that though I did hear something a while back that Hasselblad is working on some really high res /high dynamic square stuff but don't know if its a back for the old stuff or a new camera. I would love to pick up another 500 C/M and a square digital back. One thing that I truly regret is not hanging on the one of my 500 C/Ms.

[alt4852]

Yeah I do agree with that though I did hear something a while back that Hasselblad is working on some really high res /high dynamic square stuff but don't know if its a back for the old stuff or a new camera. I would love to pick up another 500 C/M and a square digital back. One thing that I truly regret is not hanging on the one of my 500 C/Ms.

i heard shooting weddings could help supplement your budget enough to buy a 500 C/M along with a full set of lenses for it too. ;)

[Mark_48]

Square is already implemented in a couple of digital cameras.......

Nikon Digital Camera COOLPIX P6000 Specifications
Effective pixels 13.5 million
Image sensor 1/1.7-in. CCD; total pixels: approx. 13.93 million
Lens 4x Zoom-NIKKOR; 6.0-24.0mm (35mm [135] format picture angle: 28-112mm); f/2.7-5.9; 9 elements in 7 groups; Digital zoom: up to 4x (35mm [135] format picture angle: 448mm)
Focus range (from lens) 50cm (1 ft. 7.7 in.) to infinity (∞); Macro close-up mode: 2cm (0.8 in.) to infinity (∞)
Storage media Internal memory (approx. 48 MB), SD memory cards*1
Image size (pixels) 4224 x 3168 (13M), 3264 x 2448 (8M), 2592 x 1944 (5M), 2048 x 1536 (3M), 1600 x 1200 (2M), 1280 x 960 (1M), 1024×768 (PC), 640 x 480 (TV), 4224 x 2816 (3：2), 4224 x 2376 (16:9), 3168 x 3168 (1:1)

Ricoh GR Digital III Digital Camera
Image Size (Pixels) 3648×2736 (RAW: 4, F: 22, N: 38) / 3648×2432 (RAW: 5, F: 25, N: 43) / 2736×2736 (RAW: 6, F: 29, N: 50) / 3264×2448 (N: 47) / 2592×1944 (N: 72) / 2048×1536 (N: 109) / 1280×960 (N:175) / 640×480 (N: 705) / Text: 3648×2736 (38), 2048×1536 (109)

Some or most of these images wouldn't look right in a rectangular format....
http://www.dpreview.com/challenges/Challenge.aspx?ID=2538&View=Results&Rows=4&Page=1

[alt4852]

Square is already implemented in a couple of digital cameras.......

Nikon Digital Camera COOLPIX P6000 Specifications
Effective pixels 13.5 million
Image sensor 1/1.7-in. CCD; total pixels: approx. 13.93 million
Lens 4x Zoom-NIKKOR; 6.0-24.0mm (35mm [135] format picture angle: 28-112mm); f/2.7-5.9; 9 elements in 7 groups; Digital zoom: up to 4x (35mm [135] format picture angle: 448mm)
Focus range (from lens) 50cm (1 ft. 7.7 in.) to infinity (∞); Macro close-up mode: 2cm (0.8 in.) to infinity (∞)
Storage media Internal memory (approx. 48 MB), SD memory cards*1
Image size (pixels) 4224 x 3168 (13M), 3264 x 2448 (8M), 2592 x 1944 (5M), 2048 x 1536 (3M), 1600 x 1200 (2M), 1280 x 960 (1M), 1024×768 (PC), 640 x 480 (TV), 4224 x 2816 (3：2), 4224 x 2376 (16:9), 3168 x 3168 (1:1)

Ricoh GR Digital III Digital Camera
Image Size (Pixels) 3648×2736 (RAW: 4, F: 22, N: 38) / 3648×2432 (RAW: 5, F: 25, N: 43) / 2736×2736 (RAW: 6, F: 29, N: 50) / 3264×2448 (N: 47) / 2592×1944 (N: 72) / 2048×1536 (N: 109) / 1280×960 (N:175) / 640×480 (N: 705) / Text: 3648×2736 (38), 2048×1536 (109)

Some or most of these images wouldn't look right in a rectangular format....
http://www.dpreview.com/challenges/Challenge.aspx?ID=2538&View=Results&Rows=4&Page=1

what's the difference with the aforementioned and simply taking a photo with either of those two cameras and cropping in post?

[M_ark]

what's the difference with the aforementioned and simply taking a photo with either of those two cameras and cropping in post?

My guess is not quite so much imagination is required when the camera is displaying the final 'cropped' aspect ratio , as opposed to when you're looking at 2x3 ratio with no guides (standard viewfinder).

[Mark_48]

what's the difference with the aforementioned and simply taking a photo with either of those two cameras and cropping in post?
None at all. I crop to square with my 5D on a few images every so often.

Then why did Nikon and Ricoh put this capability in there?

[Octowl]

I got used to the 3:2 ratio - so no, not really.
And square pictures while they are sometimes the best crop just don't feel right :D

I wouldn't want to have to crop every image.

i totally 100% agree, id stick with my 3:2

[Azi]

What about a circle format?
You can crop it to a rectangle and rotate it without losing data.

[Poe]

What about a circle format?
You can crop it to a rectangle and rotate it without losing data.

Not when that circular sensor is made up of square photosites.

[M_ark]

Not when that circular sensor is made up of square photosites.

"Square" photosites. are still just points of colour or brightness, millions of which go into making the final image. sure, if you have 50 makiing up the full image it would make a big difference, but what about 5000? what about 5 000 000?

At some point you have to accept that the beauty of a photo is in the sum of it's core data, and how that data is interpolated/extracted first and then interpreted by the viewer second.

[Poe]

"Square" photosites. are still just points of colour or brightness, millions of which go into making the final image. sure, if you have 50 makiing up the full image it would make a big difference, but what about 5000? what about 5 000 000?

At some point you have to accept that the beauty of a photo is in the sum of it's core data, and how that data is interpolated/extracted first and then interpreted by the viewer second.

But why accept a compromise to image quality from the start with a silly sensor design?

[alt4852]

Then why did Nikon and Ricoh put this capability in there?

why do they put functions like digital zoom and sepia mode into these same cameras? convenience for people who don't want to, or don't know how to post process.

[CanonGarcon]

Actually the 500 C and 500 C/M was. Not in the same #s as Nikon or Canon but still in very large #s.

Hasselblad is not a mass production camera. It's camera sales don't even approach that of Pentax, let alone Canon and Nikon. It's cameras are for a very niche market. Most consumers can't afford a camera like that,

[sapearl]

The old (analog film) 500 series was mass hand produced through the early 2000's. Just the body of the 503CW was around $2K... then you'd add a film back, lens, other accessories. By today's standards of higher end dSLR's that really wasn't so much, comparatively, for the pro shooter making a wedding living.

Hasselblad is not a mass production camera. It's camera sales don't even approach that of Pentax, let alone Canon and Nikon. It's cameras are for a very niche market. Most consumers can't afford a camera like that,

[DocFrankenstein]

Hasselblad is not a mass production camera. It's camera sales don't even approach that of Pentax, let alone Canon and Nikon. It's cameras are for a very niche market. Most consumers can't afford a camera like that,
And if you compare nikon and canon to disposable cameras, there was more of those made.

Popularity is an indicator of popularity. Nothing else.

[MMX]

Can't read and can't quote correctly....

- Mine happens to be a switch selectable format - landscape, portrait, and square at the push of a button.
- Combine the features of the Mamiya RB/RZ67 rotating back and the Hasselblad square and 645 film back selectability and implement it digitally.

Digital rotation (digitally "masking" the sensor) to achieve landscape and portrait orientation with the option of square format. Is that difficult to understand? I guess for some it is.

In other words, you have to choose the format before you take the photo, so there´s almost no difference between this and current cameras. Because the main advantage of square sensor would be the possibility to decide later, at home, when you try more options and choose one.
The only "advantage" of your system is that you just press a button instead of rotating the whole camera.

[airfrogusmc]

Hasselblad is not a mass production camera. It's camera sales don't even approach that of Pentax, let alone Canon and Nikon. It's cameras are for a very niche market. Most consumers can't afford a camera like that,

It was a really large niche market. Like Stu said they sold a lot of cameras from 1970-2000. Most of the pros I know have that have been around have if not owned them have used them. Its just on a Canon site we get such a narrow slice of what the real world is out there.

[airfrogusmc]

In other words, you have to choose the format before you take the photo, so there´s almost no difference between this and current cameras. Because the main advantage of square sensor would be the possibility to decide later, at home, when you try more options and choose one.
The only "advantage" of your system is that you just press a button instead of rotating the whole camera.

Square format also changes the way you see and approach your subject. ;)

[CanonGarcon]

It was a really large niche market. Like Stu said they sold a lot of cameras from 1970-2000. Most of the pros I know have that have been around have if not owned them have used them. Its just on a Canon site we get such a narrow slice of what the real world is out there.

1970-2000 was 10 to 40 years ago, when it was still the film age.

Who cares if this is a Canon, Nikon, Sony, or Pentax site. Even Pentax outsells Hasselblad by a wide margin. The medium format is a small niche market. I never saw anyone out in public taking pictures with a camera that costs more to buy than some cars.

[Mark_48]

Square format also changes the way you see and approach your subject. ;)
And that's one of the reasons I recently bought a Hasselblad 501C even though I already have a Mamiya 645 ProTL kit.

[sapearl]

Well, it sort of depends upon how you define niche market.

Until recently - past couple of years when we've had a lot of entry level Rebels flooding the wedding market - it was pretty much higher end Canons, Nikons, etc. that were being used by the pros for pro work. True, I never saw a lot of Hassy's or other medium format gear when I went hiking, on vacation..... but I did start seeing a lot of expensive, higher end dSLR's out there.

The point I'm making - I'd thought Hassy gear had gotten quite expensive from around 1985 - 2000. But when I transitioned to digital in 2006 I was quite shocked at some of the pricing for the higher end (somewhat) equivalent dSLR gear. Canon L series lenses were costing me as much if not more than some of my old Zeiss lenses.

I would never argue that Hassy had high volumes to rival sales of Canon or Nikon. But it's not quite and apples to apples discussion. Fact is, you look in the equipment sigs of some of the folks here, and the $$$ value of their stuff is equal to or greater than some of the those cars.

I feel that if you really want to make a valid sales/volume comparison of gear, you cannot compare the old Hassy (film) gear to ALL dSLR's. You need to compare them to their "equivalents." These would likely be the 1 series & 5D series cameras.

1970-2000 was 10 to 40 years ago, when it was still the film age.

Who cares if this is a Canon, Nikon, Sony, or Pentax site. Even Pentax outsells Hasselblad by a wide margin. The medium format is a small niche market. I never saw anyone out in public taking pictures with a camera that costs more to buy than some cars.

[airfrogusmc]

1970-2000 was 10 to 40 years ago, when it was still the film age.

Who cares if this is a Canon, Nikon, Sony, or Pentax site. Even Pentax outsells Hasselblad by a wide margin. The medium format is a small niche market. I never saw anyone out in public taking pictures with a camera that costs more to buy than some cars.

Hasselblad was never a niche market for professionals especially commercial photographers. Maybe niche to the GWC but not in the commercial world.

Stu, I to remember buying my 500 C/Ms and could have bought several of Canon F-1s or Nikon F-3s for the pice of of the 500 C/M 80mm 120 back and an eye level non-metered finder.

[c2thew]

as long as it's compatible with canon ef lenses count me on board.

[rwong2k]

i would,
my wedding photos were done using a 6x6 and they turned out pretty awesome

[RDKirk]

There is not enough demand for a mass production square format camera. Canon is not going to make one. Want a sqaure format, crop it.

True, that.

EVERY manufacturer has abandoned the square format, including Hasselblad. There isn't a single square digital sensor to be found for any modern cameras. For whatever reason, photographers are perfectly happen to twist their digital Hasselblads around.

I would not expect Canon to branch out into a format that even the king of that format has abandoned.

[RDKirk]

Stu, I to remember buying my 500 C/Ms and could have bought several of Canon F-1s or Nikon F-3s for the pice of of the 500 C/M 80mm 120 back and an eye level non-metered finder.

The Hasselblad "entry" bodies have always run about five times the price of the top Nikon and Canon bodies. They did forty years ago and still do.

[sapearl]

Was that really the case though? I honestly can't remember and don't have enough Canon historical sales data for an informed opinion.

I do know that in the summer of 1998 I bought a brand new Hasselblad 503CW film body for $1895. Now, this did not include film magazine, prism finder or a lens. I guess the comparable question might be, what were high end Canon dSLR bodies going for back then?

The Hasselblad "entry" bodies have always run about five times the price of the top Nikon and Canon bodies. They did forty years ago and still do.

[airfrogusmc]

Was that really the case though? I honestly can't remember and don't have enough Canon historical sales data for an informed opinion.

I do know that in the summer of 1998 I bought a brand new Hasselblad 503CW film body for $1895. Now, this did not include film magazine, prism finder or a lens. I guess the comparable question might be, what were high end Canon dSLR bodies going for back then?

The pro canon the F-1 was 500 or maybe a bit more at the time.

[sapearl]

Thanks Allen - I didn't realize the F-1 had enjoyed such a long life. So that would in fact put it at not quite 1/4 of that 1998 Hassy body.

The pro canon the F-1 was 500 or maybe a bit more at the time.

[airfrogusmc]

True, that.

EVERY manufacturer has abandoned the square format, including Hasselblad. There isn't a single square digital sensor to be found for any modern cameras. For whatever reason, photographers are perfectly happen to twist their digital Hasselblads around.

I would not expect Canon to branch out into a format that even the king of that format has abandoned.

Sorry RD but last year Hasselblad introduced a square digital back (CFV39) for their V series bodies which include the 500 series. I posted that a few posts ago. And there are rumors that they are working on a very high res high dynamic range square camera & back.

[Mark_48]

True, that.

EVERY manufacturer has abandoned the square format, including Hasselblad. There isn't a single square digital sensor to be found for any modern cameras. For whatever reason, photographers are perfectly happen to twist their digital Hasselblads around.

I would not expect Canon to branch out into a format that even the king of that format has abandoned.
Sure there's one in production :mrgreen:

Rolleiflex MiniDigi AF 5.0 Digital Camera
The Rolleiflex MiniDigi uses a 3-megapixel image sensor and the camera can produce images with three resolution options that are all in the traditional square format; 2304 x 2304 pixels (5 megapixel) for high resolution, 1536 x 1536 pixels (3 Megapixels)in standard resolution and a low resolution of 768 x 768 pixels (1 Megapixel).

[RDKirk]

Not true. Hasselblad recently added the CFV39 2009 back for use on all the V bodies 500 C, 500 C/M, 501, 503 included and is square.

I for one really prefer square portraits. I think its the perfect portrait format.

That sensor is rectangular. It can be masked to a square or shot in full rectangular format on those cameras.

[RDKirk]

Sure there's one in production :mrgreen:

Rolleiflex MiniDigi AF 5.0 Digital Camera
The Rolleiflex MiniDigi uses a 3-megapixel image sensor and the camera can produce images with three resolution options that are all in the traditional square format; 2304 x 2304 pixels (5 megapixel) for high resolution, 1536 x 1536 pixels (3 Megapixels)in standard resolution and a low resolution of 768 x 768 pixels (1 Megapixel).

Okay, you're right--there are probably some other square toy cameras out there, too. Unless that is also actually a rectangular sensor that has been masked down.

[airfrogusmc]

That sensor is rectangular. It can be masked to a square or shot in full rectangular format on those cameras.

Yes but you can still shoot square just by making that choice and I gotta $20 says there will be a square one from them within a year or so.

[Tareq]

I am a fan of the square format as well.

501CM, 60CF, V750
http://img39.imageshack.us/img39/2532/img020am.jpg

http://img245.imageshack.us/img245/641/img020b.jpg