Nikon Square

[mas55101]

Dear Nikon, Would you add a square format to the D3X?  Is it just a software upgrade?  Thanks.

[uaiomex]

http://www.luminous-landscape.com/forum/index.php?topic=39943.msg331342#msg331342
(It is reply No.20 in this thread)

Please Canon, I want a square format in an EOS mount body.
Eduardo

[Chairman Bill]

Given that 35mm / FF lenses can cover an image circle giving a linear length of 36mm, what's to stop Nikon or Canon producing a square format 36x36mm, FF rangefinder with interchangable lenses? Something like a Sony NEX5, but different sensor size & format? Something similar from Nicanon isn't out of the question, but with that larger square sensor, based on D3x-like chip, so what, 36MP ...

[IanB]

It's not quite like that. The image circle needed to cover 24x36mm is about 45mm. Within that minimum circle the largest square format would be about 31-32mm square.

[Chairman Bill]

OK. A 32x32mm sensor wouldn't be too bad

[RFPhotography]

Dear Nikon, Would you add a square format to the D3X?  Is it just a software upgrade?  Thanks.

Ummmmm........ Crop.

If you want to see the square format in the viewfinder for composing, my D700 has a grid in the viewfinder that split the screen up and there is a combination of lines that gives me a square composition.  The D3x doesn't have something similar?

[douglasf13]

I would imagine the cost of the sensor fab would be one limiting factor.

[JeffKohn]

I think all the original poster is asking for is a square shooting mode similar to the 5:4 and DX modes that the D3x already has (and I believe D3/D3s do as well). It masks the viewfinder so you can see exactly what you're going to get (and that's all you get because the NEF that gets saved to the is cropped to the specified format).

It might sound like a minor feature, but it's actually pretty useful. It makes composing for 5:4 easier without having to worry about whether your composition will be just too loose/tight after cropping. So I could see the usefulness of a 1:1 option but I don't know if this could be implemented via firmware or would take some hardware changes.

As for using viewfinder grid-lines, I don't believe the D3x has them unless you buy a replacement focusing screen, and even then I have no idea if portions of the grid could be used compose exactly to a square. Although the live-view shooting mode has an optional grid display, the grid sections can't be used for this (they're rectangular).

[langier]

Maybe the workaround is to get an "E" screen and mask it to square, then shoot 5:4 and set-up an auto-crop as an ACR preset? That way you can have your cake and eat it, too!

I just played with a friend's Panasonic ZX100, megazoom. Besides 4:3, 3:2, and 16:9, it had 1:1. Made the images look like it was shot with my old Rollie/H'Blad. Sort of fun to simply shoot a square!

[Tanegashima]

Some 35mm lense's aren't made for 1:1 ratio, and so does all the petal hoods 

[sposch]

A square format sounds like a no brainer because the lens coverage is there and I've thought about that in the past. If you think about the mechanics though it wouldn't be practical in an SLR because of the mirror swing. The Mirror would need to be taller, meaning the lens would have to be farther from the sensor to allow it to swing, necessitating different lens and body design. Also the increased mass of the mirror would cause the frame rate to drop. Not to mention the mechanics of larger shutter as well. It would be a complete system redesign.

Steve.

[BarbaraArmstrong]

The square option is very nice on the Panasonic GH-1.  And the larger-than-4/3rds sensor yields a square image with more pixels than you'd get with the standard 4/3rds sensor.

[douglasf13]

  Since the gridlines on my NEX-5 are rectangular, and there is no 1:1 ratio option in the camera, I simply took a couple of thin strips of semi-transparent, removable stickers and placed them directly on top of my LCD for framing.  Works like a charm, since there isn't a viewfinder to deal with.  With my A900, even though I had a grid focus screen with a square in it, I actually removed the focus screen and placed a couple of pieces of black tape to square of the VF, and I just used center weighted metering.  Worked surprisingly well, since the A900's focus screens are so easy to change.

[BJL]

OK. A 32x32mm sensor wouldn't be too bad

It would be at best 31x31mm, which would be an annoying loss of 5mm width for a great amount of photography, so it would at best be a low volume special-purpose body. But it is not clear that the image height could be increased that much in an SLR: the mirror would have to be higher, and so the mirror box deeper, and this would likely not fit into the available space.

Maybe a mirror-less system could work, and it could have a 36x31mm sensor, cropped to various shapes at sizes that fit within the image circle. But given that only a tiny fraction of images are displayed square, or anything squarer than 5:4, that would involve a substantial increase in cost for a very small market. And if anything, video is pushing image shapes in the opposite direction! So realistically, 24x24mm via a crop is probably the biggest square than Nikon or Canon are ever likely to offer ... even if I personally would like better support for image shapes like 5:4, 4:3 and 7:5.

[TimG]

Sadly, a square format sensor doesn't appeal to the general public at large.  How many people outside of the photography industry know what a Hasselblad is?  A Rolleiflex?  Not many.  Best Canikon could offer without fabricating a new sensor size is an in-camera 1:1 crop mode, aka the Olympus Digital Pens.

Besides, historically speaking, neither Canon nor Nikon have ever been at the forefront of niche markets or specialty designs.

[BJL]

Sadly, a square format sensor doesn't appeal to the general public at large.  How many people outside of the photography industry know what a Hasselblad is?  A Rolleiflex?

Most images taken with those classic 6x6 cameras were cropped to non-square shapes for final presentation, with the square format primarily a necessity in cameras that could not be rotated between vertical and horizontal because of their waist-level viewfinders. And those square format medium format systems went into decline as options like 6x7 with rotating back and 645 with eye-level viewfinders came along, a decline that Hasselblad has perhaps reversed by changing to 645, and which Rollei has not succeeded in reversing.

Square prints are a nice niche, but have always been a niche, at any level of photographic artistry.


The only photographic format that was ever routinely printed square was 126, Kodak Instamatic film, nominally 26x26mm.

[BJNY]

http://www.canonrumors.com/2011/01/1dsq-3d-cr1/

[wollom]

Most images taken with those classic 6x6 cameras were cropped to non-square shapes for final presentation, with the square format primarily a necessity in cameras that could not be rotated between vertical and horizontal because of their waist-level viewfinders. <snip>

Of course the V blads were designed to be held without rotation for horizontal and vertical-the square format was part of the ergonomics of the camera.  Personally, when shooting, I preferred using a square format and making minor reframing adjustments to using a rectangular format and having to move the camera away to rotate the camera or back.

I seems no matter what the original format, images are cropped for final use much of the time.

Mirrorless cameras and less expensive sensors might make it technically possible to produce a camera that could use a full "35mm" image circle for formats from 9:16 to 1:1 but I'm not holding my breath.