Nikon M1 . . . . . . ? square format!?

[BelaMolnar]

<p>I always dreamed, to have a camera a 35mm camera, but a square format image window inside, the existing lenses caver the 35mm anyway. And now in the digital age, it would be beautiful if my D700, or D3( my dream only jet) has a square format sensor, a 36x36 or even a 35x35 well o.k. a 34x34 will do it. Then all the lenses, old and new, would be just perfect.<br>

Now! Nikon (rumors but so strong, must be thru!) going to come out with a MF body, but a big one, and a big sensor, needed new, probably very expensive lenses, and the body only for the pros, companies press, big ones, ( the rich) with money no problemo. That is painful. Maybe in the future!? Well. I don't have enough time for that.<br>

I wonder, how people reacting for that news.</p>

[Hector Javkin]

<p>To determine coverage, you have to look at the diagonal of the sensing surface (film/sensor/whatever). Lenses designed for the 36x24mm format cover a 43mm image circle. In square format, that would be less than 31x31mm. Would you be happy with that too?</p>

[BelaMolnar]

<p> Thank you Hector, now I realized that. You are right. It is my style of composition and cropping images most of the time to square or close to square. But! Even a 30x30 will do it. If we had the DX sensors so high quality like the D300 camera. The DX sensor is smaller then the 30x30 I believe. I didn't made the calculation. Just guessing. My answer is yes, I would be happy with it. Then all of the 24x36 format "FF" lenses would be o.k. Well. Just for the conversation.</p>

[sandysocks]

<p>I would like something between 3:2 and square. I guess what would make me happy would be a way to set my aspect ratios in the viewfinder before I compose the shot, for example I could produce a tightly composed magazine page at 9x11 without cropping anything off that isn't intended.</p>

[richard_anderson9]

<p>4:3 would make the most sense and is closer to what the average published image dimensions are than the old 3:2 format. For pixel counters, it also uses more of the lens image circle than 3:2. Olympus has the right idea here.</p>

[BelaMolnar]

<p>Richard is right! We westing an area of the lens image circle with the 3:2 format, rather to use more of it, like the 4:3, regardless of DX or FX ( or future MX) format in Nikon terms. The only time I benefit of the longer rectangular size, when I want to have a panorama cropped image. The other 60-80% of time I need a 4:3 or square format for my composition. We are to rigid to stuck to a standard, 35mm, invented for old movie film use. And Leica followed the existing film format on that time, then, everybody just copied an-till to day. In real life, producing a print an art work, the format is not logical at all. The new sensor size, keeping the film format was a mistake in the first place. It was not a "technical must be" that required to follow the 3:2 format. In the beginning of digital, there supposedly has to have a 4:3 format, not the old restricted film format. Why in medium format has more freedom of image format? Because, there was no movie film for them.<br>

Or! . . . We following a Sacred Geometry? The Golden Section Rectangle?</p>

[desmond_kidman]

<p>I love the idea of a square. I shot for years with Hasselblad square, and although 1/2 the images were cropped to rectangles (but never so squished as the 2:3 I shoot now!) the 1/2 that remained square are so elegant. I went Canon 1Ds series (no FF Nikon at the time) but I find myself missing the square more and more. I agree that it is just ridiculous convention that has us shooting 2:3 and wasting so much of the image circle of the lens. If someone came out with a 20 MB 31mm square sensor right now using standard 35mm lenses I would switch systems.</p>

<p>I was ready to entertain going to the Hasselblad 39MB system and installing a cropped screen and shoot square until I read the rumor of the Nikon MX. I can only hope it is true. </p>

[BelaMolnar]

<p>To demonstrate how beautiful is square format, look at this photographer images, all of his composition is square, using Canon 35mm . . http://www.photo.net/photos/S.A . . .Serdar AKIN. Would be he happy, if his camera sensor is square-format.? Yes, He would. An so is me.</p>

[BelaMolnar]

<p>Desmond, You are right; . . . . . I agree that . . . . " it is just ridiculous convention that has us shooting 2:3 and wasting so much of the image circle of the lens" <br /> To days cameras sensors, so good, by cropping to rectangular if you wish, it is not a hell of a loose in picsels. With a 12MP camera, you can have a wall sized print which you never going to do it. Most of us goes ... x17 (18) max! And shortly, this going to be 18MP or 24MP. Plus! Square or close to square, is more elegant then rectangular, as Desmond stated!<br /> To demonstrate how beautiful is square format, look at this photographer images, all of his composition is square, using Canon 35mm . . http://www.photo.net/photos/S.A . . .Serdar AKIN. Would be he happy, if his camera sensor is square-format.? Yes, He would. An so is me.</p>

<p>Go NIkon and create a 31x31mm sensor, 20MP body, for all 35mm lenses...!</p>