Square is certainly not seen by artists in general as a good format for a picture and I cannot see a camera manufacturer coming up with square on artistic grounds.
I cannot provide evidence of my assertion and do not have the time to research it. My understanding is that the square format was introduced for TLR cameras that cannot sensibly be used on their side. Whose intent? I suspect Franke & Heidecke came up with the idea. Were there 6x6 cameras before the Rolleiflex? Square is certainly not seen by artists in general as a good format for a picture and I cannot see a camera manufacturer coming up with square on artistic grounds.
Thanks for your help all. I haven't purchased yet but I've started looking for a Mamiya RZ67 Pro II kit. The rotating back is a nice option. They also make a 6x6 back, so I can play with that format. They make a tilt-shift adapter and there's a tilt-shift lens available, if I want to play with that. It seems like they're readily available and I've found someone that services them. The price point is mid range of the options I was looking at. Anyway, thanks again.
And the box cameras that used these film formats? Did they have the two viewfinders that a box camera requires to be used with an oblong format? I'm sorry, your quoting a number of square format films does not mean my understanding is mistaken. It just means the date was earlier than I thought. And it certainly does not mean my assertion was without basis - I provided the basis with my assertion.The square format predates Franke & Heidecke by decades. The 101 (1895), 106 (1898), and 117 (1900) roll film formats were all square. 101 and 106 were 3 1/4 x 3 1/4, 117 is 2 1/4 x 2 1/4. The cameras that used them were box cameras, not TLRs. Franke & Heidecke didn't produce a camera until 1929.
Your understanding is mistaken, and your assertion is without basis.
Rotating the camera with a waist-level finder is certainly not impossible but it's not practical either. So with those cameras somehow cropping is taken into account at the moment of composition. I think this can be said as we don't see Rolleiflex users or Hasselblad users producing a lot of square formats as a rule.
This leads to some "wasted film estate". That is more acceptable with 6x6 with a fairly large negative anyway, but was probably considered unfortunate on a small format like 126 where the starting negative is small.
Besides, cameras like Rolleiflex or Hasselblads were used, I guess, mostly by people who would print their images themselves (contact printing if nothing else). So it was always possible to crop the final image to landscape or portrait as initially devised.
With 120 people would normally bring the photographs to the shop and so would be "stuck" with the square format for each image, the alternative being using the scissors...
Medium format cameras with rectangular format (4,5 x 6, or 6 x 9) don't have a waist-level finder for the reason that it would make the use of the camera quite clumsy I do believe.
So I agree with the idea expressed by Peltigera in post #3 that - as a general rule - using a 6x6 waist-level finder somehow implies taking into account some cropping at composition time. I never had a MF camera which I used but if I had one I would "crop in my mind" most shots I do believe.
And the box cameras that used these film formats? Did they have the two viewfinders that a box camera requires to be used with an oblong format? I'm sorry, your quoting a number of square format films does not mean my understanding is mistaken. It just means the date was earlier than I thought. And it certainly does not mean my assertion was without basis - I provided the basis with my assertion.
The original idea of the 6x6 format was that you cropped the negative to 6x4.5. It was square so you could do both 6x4.5 landscape and 6x4.5 portrait without having to turn the camera on its side. It was never intended that you should keep the picture square and there is no reason why you should.
The classic focal-plane Hasselblads went to 1/1000 or faster, depending on the model.My Fotoman 69 maxes out at 1/500, my Hasselblad did too.
In fact, I've never had a medium format camera which went any faster.
Interesting statement. Is there some reason?I'd rather have 1/400 leaf shutter than 1/1000 focal plane shutter, any day, without a second of doubt.
Using a square format only implies cropping at composition time if that is what the photographer intends. Other photographers intend to compose in square format.
The creativity of your argments to support your narrow view of art is amusing to me.
I'd rather have 1/400 leaf shutter than 1/1000 focal plane shutter, any day, without a second of doubt.
What you're feeling is the mirror movement.... even my reasonably well designed and made Canon SLR produces a noticeable jar when you press the shutter release.
We use cookies and similar technologies for the following purposes:
Do you accept cookies and these technologies?
We use cookies and similar technologies for the following purposes:
Do you accept cookies and these technologies?