Square Format

<p>No pun intended... :) This phrase is something like a classic funny tag that has been always said by wedding photographers... <em>"everybody knows the Hasselblads are the best 6x4,5 cameras"</em>.</p>

<p>Maybe because many (if not most!) used to crop their wedding portraits to a classic portrait aspect ratio. Or because their work is finished into vertical magazine sized photo-albums, or maybe because they save on film using the 645 chassis... it could be that the compact size in comparison to 6x7 cameras, they really feel&handle closer to a 645. And 6x6 is the same as 645... with a little crop.<br /> I understand it is a compliment too, because they prefer to use this 6x6 camera instead of dedicated 645 cameras. There was a time where the Hasselblads were considered the best cameras out there (and they still are for many).</p>

<p>Anyway, it`s just a trited comment that I have heard -many- times, from wedding photographers that have made a living working with Hasselblad.</p>

<blockquote>

<p>When looking for the digital back, I noticed everything available for the "V" Hassy had a rectangular sensor rather than square - WHY??</p>

</blockquote>

<p>Until the past few years, digital back makers rode on the tails of the military/aerospace/medical sensor market. Fairchild, Kodak and Philips/Dalsa made large CCD sensors according to the requirements of those customers, and the medium format companies made do with them. Evidently, not many of those sensor-specifiers wanted large square sensors. The 37x37 mm Kodak KAF-16802 is the largest that made it into a digital back (your Imacon, my Kodak DCS645M, and many others).</p>

<p>Nowadays, we are told that Dalsa works closely with Phase One to make sensors to their requirements, so a square sensor could in theory be requested. But Phase One have thrown their weight mainly behind 645 platforms (Mamiya which is now part of their group, Hasselblad H1/H2/H4X, and Contax), so that is not at all likely to happen, even though they do still support the Hasselblad V platform too.</p>

<p>Digital tech-cam users appear to be an increasing portion of the MFD market too, and if they came from the 4x5/5x7/8x10 sheet film area, they too have a preference for a squat rectangular image.</p>

<blockquote>

<p>By the time MF digital sensors were built, 645 cameras were more common than square. Hence, that's where the development dollars went.</p>

</blockquote>

<p>I'm not sure if 645 cameras (with interchangeable backs) really were more common than 6x6 cameras (with interchangeable backs) at that time. But in terms of dealing with the heavy cropping of digital back sensors wrt the film gate, they were more suited, due to the availability of shorter lens focal lengths, and less viewfinder area cropping. And with AE, AF, focus confirmation, winders, and electronic communication contacts to their film backs, they were certainly more suited to the quick-fire automation that digital backs enabled.</p>

<p>Here's something I've sometimes pondered. I don't know whether it was good planning or good luck, but moving the film winding motor into the film backs, while retaining the shutter cocking motor in the body, was an ideal preparation for digital backs. The Mamiya 645AF, Contax 645 and Hasselblad H1 all did this. Meanwhile, the Rollei 6008 Integral II and AF, and the Hasselblad ELD, were stuck with a film-winding motor integral to the body even when used with a digital back.</p>

<p>Again, whether good planning or good luck, adding electronic contacts for passing metadata from the body to the film backs of the modern 645s, so that it could be burnt onto the film rebate or the gap between frames, turned out to be the ideal preparation for relaying EXIF information and control data between the body and a digital back. One can of course still use mechanical cameras with digital backs, but it makes for a less integrated experience. Who'd have thought that a film "databack" facility would be a great digital enabler?</p>

<p>For many people displaying square photos, the square is somewhat of a schtick. In fact, I'd almost say that many (not all!) go to very great lengths to prove to the world that they shoot a Hasselblad by including the those two little notches. Maybe Bronica would still be alive if they had a their own little recognizable doodad on the frame....?<br>

Anyway, including extra area on an image that will ultimately be cropped by the vast majority does have cost in terms of processing speed (the files are that much bigger) and storage capacity.<br>

<br />What's ironic is that exactly the same argument goes for the modern 3:2 ratio of every DSLR: I'll be the vast majority end up cropping something off the end, so why are they so stubborn about retaining that ratio? The files are bigger, and more processing power and storage space is needed.</p>

It can't hurt to remember that maybe not very many have such a strong preoccupation with aspect ratios.<br>;-)

<blockquote>

<p>Here's something I've sometimes pondered. I don't know whether it was good planning or good luck, but moving the film winding motor into the film backs, while retaining the shutter cocking motor in the body, was an ideal preparation for digital backs. The Mamiya 645AF, Contax 645 and Hasselblad H1 all did this. Meanwhile, the Rollei 6008 Integral II and AF, and the Hasselblad ELD, were stuck with a film-winding motor integral to the body even when used with a digital back.</p>

</blockquote>

<p>I doubt most Rollei 6008s are used with digital backs. By the way the 6008 does have a rotating motorized 645 back. I own one. It ain't cheap. It is very clear to me why motors are not integrated in other 6008 backs.</p>

<p>Found a motorized 6x6 magazine for the "new" Rollei Hy6 camera... 1680 Euro including VAT. My initial Rollei 60008 setup didn't cost that much.</p>

<p>http://photoalps.at/shop/Hy6-Rolleiflex-Leica-Wide-Rollei-Tele-Rollei-28FX-28FX-40-FT-40-FW-Super-Angulon-Biogon-Zeiss-Rollei-Rolleiflex_19</p>

I don't know what the advantage would be of moving part of the 'drive' into the magazine.<br>It indeed makes backs more expensive. And what problem does it solve, what's wrong with the mechanical drive from body to back that would make it less suitable for digital backs?

<p>I follow the "logic" involved.<br /> Occasionally I will prefer to crop a 35mm image to a 1:1 ratio. On that basis, I suppose I'd better refer to them as square format cameras from now on.</p>

<blockquote>

<p>I don't know what the advantage would be of moving part of the 'drive' into the magazine. It indeed makes backs more expensive. And what problem does it solve, what's wrong with the mechanical drive from body to back that would make it less suitable for digital backs?</p>

</blockquote>

<p>All we know is that all manufacturers developing new interchangeable-back SLRs did it - Contax, Mamiya, Hasselblad, and even Rollei ultimately (with the Hy6).</p>

<p>The other, older designs are not 'less suitable' for digital backs; they'll work but they are carrying a little extraneous bulk and weight in the form of film transport mechanisms. Actually, the same applies when they have a Polaroid back mounted!</p>

<p>We can speculate on other reasons why the manufacturers wanted self-contained film backs. One other advantage, perhaps, is that you no longer have exposed gearing at the rear of the body, waiting to mesh with non-existent gearing on the digital back.</p>

<p>It doesn't seem to me that the inclusion of a motor in a film back jacks up its price by an enormous amount. Jeff gives the Hy6 example, but all new MF gear is shockingly expensive these days. OTOH, used backs with inclusive motors are quite cheap. On KEH, a motorized 120/220 Mamiya 645AFD back costs ~$150 while an older, non-motorized, non-data imprinting, 120-only 645 Pro back costs ~$60. There is a similar ratio between the costs of the corresponding cameras themselves.</p>

 

Hello Ray,<br>Makes sense.<br>Though i never thought of a wind mechanism (needed to cock the camera also, so it's just a cogwheel or two) as a bit of extra bulk and weight (and i'm still not sure whether i should ;-) ).

<blockquote>

<p>It doesn't seem to me that the inclusion of a motor in a film back jacks up its price by an enormous amount. Jeff gives the Hy6 example, but all new MF gear is shockingly expensive these days.</p>

</blockquote>

<p>I also gave the example of the older Rollei 456 magazine which I own. I own several magazines and none of them is anywhere near as expensive as the motorized 456 magazine. I got mine as part of a sweet package deal. Someone was asleep when that thing came up for sale. Usually the 456 magazine costs double the price of the non motorized magazine. Even you admit the motorized Mamiya backs cost over 100% more on the used market. You can extrapolate from that what the new price is. The used price is meaningless to manufactures. They have to sell things at the new price to collect the money and cover their costs. They are not interested in taking a loss to subsidies a burgeoning used parts market.</p>

<p>And it wouldn't surprise me at all if the Hy6 is primarily used for medium format digital and some film mostly. The target market is completely different. I'm sure there are plenty of Hy6s out there that will never see a roll of film. From what I recall the 6x6 back for the Hy6 wasn't even introduced until some time after the camera was on the market. So I guess that tells you what you need to know.</p>

<blockquote>

<p ><a href="/photodb/user?user_id=1947909">Scott Frindel Cole</a> , Jun 24, 2013; 09:55 a.m.</p>

 

<p>For many people displaying square photos, the square is somewhat of a schtick. In fact, I'd almost say that many (not all!) go to very great lengths to prove to the world that they shoot a Hasselblad by including the those two little notches. Maybe Bronica would still be alive if they had a their own little recognizable doodad on the frame....?<br />Anyway, including extra area on an image that will ultimately be cropped by the vast majority does have cost in terms of processing speed (the files are that much bigger) and storage capacity.<br /><br /><em><strong>What's ironic is that exactly the same argument goes for the modern 3:2 ratio of every DSLR: I'll be the vast majority end up cropping something off the end, so why are they so stubborn about retaining that ratio? The files are bigger, and more processing power and storage space is needed.</strong></em></p>

 

</blockquote>

 

<p>+ 1 ! !<br>

<em><strong> </strong></em></p>

 

<blockquote>

<p ><a href="/photodb/user?user_id=1947909">Scott Frindel Cole</a> , Jun 24, 2013; 09:55 a.m.</p>

 

<p>For many people displaying square photos, the square is somewhat of a schtick. In fact, I'd almost say that many (not all!) go to very great lengths to prove to the world that they shoot a Hasselblad by including the those two little notches. Maybe Bronica would still be alive if they had a their own little recognizable doodad on the frame....?<br />Anyway, including extra area on an image that will ultimately be cropped by the vast majority does have cost in terms of processing speed (the files are that much bigger) and storage capacity.<br /><br /><em><strong>What's ironic is that exactly the same argument goes for the modern 3:2 ratio of every DSLR: I'll be the vast majority end up cropping something off the end, so why are they so stubborn about retaining that ratio? The files are bigger, and more processing power and storage space is needed.</strong></em></p>

 

</blockquote>

 

<p>+ 1 ! !<br>

<em><strong> </strong></em></p>

 

another vote for square format, both in terms of what i see in the viewfinder and the image that is recorded

by the sensor.

<p>for a couple years i was bicycling around taking environmental and street shots with three cameras: a 35 mm rangefinder [3x2]; rollei and/or yashica 124G [6x6] and a pansonic lumix set on 16x9. for some reason [lack of experience, let's say] i was loathe to crop anything ever, and i was actually seeking out shots based on how the subjects would fit into one of the three aspect ratios.<br>

you guys probably won't want to talk about it -- but square format made a huge comeback in the last three years because of instagram. like the brownie, a photo sharing innovation of historic importance. and it must have people getting used to the potential of a non-rectangular frame.</p>

<p>Since we will probably not be seeing a square format back introduced anytime soon, I bought a Sony RX100 because I still like shooting square, and wanted to do it conveniently.<br /> No it is not medium format, but it is very good. I would call it Stellar, but Sony is close enough.</p>