When are we finally going to get real 6x6 (54x54) medium format?

[Rob C]

I think that the opportunity could exist in 36mmx36mm. The sensor size is already exceeded in reality, so all it takes is a dedicated body and a set of optics that can cover that properly.

No, I do not accept that the square is dead. It offers all sorts of advantages too numerous to go through again. I used that format for decades and only moved to 6x7 to suit the request of a stock agency, right before digital popped up to make that purchase as redundant as every other film camera.

There are several very successful art photographers still using the square format... It's about a way of seeing, not just mechanics and electronics.

For me, mirrorless or prism, it would be the same just as long as the screen was usable at eye level and able to be viewed without a hundred flashing lights and bloody indicators of one kind or another; all we need is shutter speed, aperture and ISO. A histogram somewhere else on the body is quite enough for me. I don't want it in the viewfinder.

[eronald]

I think that the opportunity could exist in 36mmx36mm. The sensor size is already exceeded in reality, so all it takes is a dedicated body and a set of optics that can cover that properly.

No, I do not accept that the square is dead. It offers all sorts of advantages too numerous to go through again. I used that format for decades and only moved to 6x7 to suit the request of a stock agency, right before digital popped up to make that purchase as redundant as every other film camera.

There are several very successful art photographers still using the square format... It's about a way of seeing, not just mechanics and electronics.

For me, mirrorless or prism, it would be the same just as long as the screen was usable at eye level and able to be viewed without a hundred flashing lights and bloody indicators of one kind or another; all we need is shutter speed, aperture and ISO. A histogram somewhere else on the body is quite enough for me. I don't want it in the viewfinder.

Long live the square!
Maybe Hassy will provide a square mode for the X1D. Oh wait, that's only 33x33, less than you're proposing
It's annoying when reality collides with marketing, no?

Edmund

[BJL]

There are several very successful art photographers still using the square format... It's about a way of seeing, not just mechanics and electronics.

If it were just a matter of "seeing" then EVFs are good news; they can display just the selected shape, be it 1:1, 5:4, 4:3, 3:4 etc.  Sensor shape is just a matter of prioritizing which of those uses the largest proportion of the sensor (and of the display area of the EVF and the rear screen). I have no doubt that "several very successful art photographers" – and a rather larger number of less successful ones – would prioritize 1:1, but it takes a lot more than "several" customers to make the design and production of large square sensors and camera and lenses to use them economically viable.

[hubell]

I recall that Hasselblad showed a square format concept camera at the last Photokina, the V1D. I think it contemplated the use of the XCD lenses and the current "true" MF sensor with 100MP in a square format to yield 75 MP. Will it show up at Photokina 2018? I doubt Hasselblad has the bandwith to pull it off.

[Rob C]

I recall that Hasselblad showed a square format concept camera at the last Photokina, the V1D. I think it contemplated the use of the XCD lenses and the current "true" MF sensor with 100MP in a square format to yield 75 MP. Will it show up at Photokina 2018? I doubt Hasselblad has the bandwith to pull it off.

It looked the part, and it featured in one of the LuLa videos with a Hassy head honcho - unless I am getting confused again. However, it remained on the desk and nobody pretended it worked!

Using lenses optimised for larger formats on smaller formats is not an ideal situation at all, as I discovered years ago on film. I agree with those who would suggest that 1 x 1.5 does not make for a perfect format: it seems to work well for horizontals but less so on verticals, especially with people.

Using crops within a camera is not something I would want to do - I think my Nikons allow that but I have never wanted to use the feature. The only time it was done (by me) was with film, when I made masks for the viewfinder for specific jobs, and that was very rarely indeed.

I'm one of those people who makes the framing suit the format. Yes, of course one can take a straight FF shot and then make sub-framings within it, but why? Better get it right first time.

[Bo_Dez]

I read Ming Thein saying in his comments that Sony won't make them (Hasselblad) a bigger sensor.

VD came from cropping the existing 100MP 645 sensor to a square.

[Bo_Dez]

At the risk of repeating myself, I think 33x44 is just a way of selling 35mm quality at a high markup.

With sensor prices falling it's a certainty that real MF is around the corner, what is less obvious is whether it will be economically viable now, or only when flexible low lpi sensors can allow people to bring back the giant cameras of yesteryear.

Edmund

33x44 v 35mm is night and day. IQ250 for example destroys any 35mm, not just in outright IQ but in file malleability.

[pschefz]

33x44 v 35mm is night and day. IQ250 for example destroys any 35mm, not just in outright IQ but in file malleability.

the IQ250 has the same sensor as the X1D, GFX and pentax, right? i agree that there are certain areas where it might have an advantage but it does not destroy the A7RIII or D850

[BJL]

... 1 x 1.5 does not make for a perfect format: it seems to work well for horizontals but less so on verticals, especially with people.

Agreed—fortunately no "true medium format system" is in 3:2 shape (where my arbitrary definition of "true MF" excludes Leica's 30x45mm.)  The 4:3 shape of all recent MF sensors is instead extremely close to the classic 8"x10" print format; only 1/16th needs to be cut off the top.


Rather than persist in the pointless effort to persuade people that what they wish for is not going to happen, let me float some alternative wishes:

A) A pure-bred portrait/verticals camera, with sensor and EVF oriented vertically. It could display and deliver 4:5 (w:h) by default, but using a standard 3:4 shaped sensor like Sony's 40.1x53.4 ones — that slight 6% crop to 4:5 (40.1x50.125mm) would only be changeable with a setting buried deep in the menus where Rob C. would never find it, so he would not know that he was cropping.

B) Never mind resurrecting the square, bring back the rotating back!  Or actually, a mechanism to internally rotate both the sensor and EVF, so that both verticals and horizontals can be taken with the grip and controls in the same ergonomically optimal position.  Phase One could do this with retro styling and call it the Mamiya RB-D.

[ErikKaffehr]

Hi,

The VD was just a mock up. No sensor at all.

Best regards
Erik

I read Ming Thein saying in his comments that Sony won't make them (Hasselblad) a bigger sensor.

VD came from cropping the existing 100MP 645 sensor to a square.