square format M9

[HaraldL]

Advertisement (gone after registration)

Full sensor, 16 bit, no external ir filters, I'm sure Leica will do everything to improve quality furthermore, as well as any other manufacturer, and so fulfil the wishes of their nice-market rangefinder photographers. The only thing we have to do is keep buying it.

With the availability of digital sensors not limited to the classic 35 mm dimensions, square format sensors are open for discussion again. It's advantage: never turn your camera in some kind of sub-optimal position for that low-light portrait and optimal use of the image circle produced by the lens.

Now we're not necessarily sticked to Barnack's choice anymore is the future open for 'better' or other formats in M-rangefinder photography?

Any Mamiya 6 user who wants to respond? (I know, after 6 came 7)

 

Harald

[grober]

Yes, I have used and appreciated the square Mamiya 6. (And before that, I owned several versions of their TLR boxes too.)

 

However, Leica would be denying their considerable birthright and not insignificant historic heritage should the company ever release any M-camera with a format other than the existing "golden mean" rectangle. (Although having said that, I confess that, if possible, a 4/3, non-SLR, M-camera might be interesting indeed.)

 

Give it up: look to the appropriate Hassy or Mamiya square DSLR. Leica? May it never be!

 

-g

[Advertisement]

The Leica Q3 is available for pre-order at B&H Photo Video and Adorama

[Guest licht]

Leica is the inventor of 35mm (24x36mm) format.

 

So they should work on a digitalcamera with sensor in this dimensions.

 

If you like the square I would recommend Hasselblad.

[wattsy]

Leica would be denying their considerable birthright and not insignificant historic heritage should the company ever release any M-camera with a format other than the existing "golden mean" rectangle.

 

I agree. A square format is just not in the Leica tradition. Not to mention that all the lenses are internally baffled with hoods designed around the current 35mm proportions. Ain't likely to happen.

[jrc]

However, Leica would be denying their considerable birthright and not insignificant historic heritage should the company ever release any M-camera with a format other than the existing "golden mean" rectangle.

-g

 

I would be very much in favor of the "golden ratio" rectangle. The M mount's 2:3 is not a golden ratio.

 

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Golden_ratio

 

JC

[rceres]

Leica is the inventor of 35mm (24x36mm) format.

 

So they should work on a digitalcamera with sensor in this dimensions.

 

If you like the square I would recommend Hasselblad.

 

So if Leica is the inventor of the 35mm format, why wouldn't Leica inventing a new 36mm square format be part of that tradition of inventing new formats?

[carstenw]

Advertisement (gone after registration)

Maybe it is a tradition of inventing one format?

 

Seriously though, for a single lens reflex, the mirror would be large, and for any 35mm camera, it would make the box very tall. I don't think I would want such a camera myself, although I do enjoy the square format. I would be interested in a 4:3 format though.

[jaapv]

because it would be 21x21 mm.....Think of the famous drawing of Leanardo da Vinci. That is the size that would fit the circle of coverage of a 24x36 lens.

 

So if Leica is the inventor of the 35mm format, why wouldn't Leica inventing a new 36mm square format be part of that tradition of inventing new formats?

[luigi bertolotti]

....well, they would take a BIG risk developing, say, a 27x27 mm 16MP CCD camera...but could not be so an absurd idea...after all, the typical motivation against square is "prints are almost never square, so you always throw away film area: that is simply stupid" but who cares of throwing away strings of bytes? a 27x27 could maybe retain the styling/dimensioning of Leica Ms... viewfinder to be completely redesigned...but lenses can fit...

But...this is really a funny/academic question.... frankly, they will not do it.

[jaapv]

....well, they would take a BIG risk developing, say, a 27x27 mm 16MP CCD camera...but could not be so an absurd idea...after all, the typical motivation against square is "prints are almost never square, so you always throw away film area: that is simply stupid" but who cares of throwing away strings of bytes? a 27x27 could maybe retain the styling/dimensioning of Leica Ms... viewfinder to be completely redesigned...but lenses can fit...

But...this is really a funny/academic question.... frankly, they will not do it.

And new lenses - as I posted before, the max format is 21x21....

[HaraldL]

Leica is the inventor of 35mm (24x36mm) format.

 

So they should work on a digitalcamera with sensor in this dimensions.

 

If you like the square I would recommend Hasselblad.

 

Robin,

 

I sold my 503CW and don't regret it yet. I simply would not use it too often right now. Square format has a lot of advantages, crop whatever you want, you can throw the pixels away you even don't have now!

 

Harald

[hankg]

Leica will never produce an M that can't use M lenses and no M user would buy an M that was incompatible with the lens line. So the only way you would see square is if Leica decided to get into medium format digital. Not likely.

[HaraldL]

So if Leica is the inventor of the 35mm format, why wouldn't Leica inventing a new 36mm square format be part of that tradition of inventing new formats?

 

hear hear mr chairman!

[HaraldL]

I agree. A square format is just not in the Leica tradition. Not to mention that all the lenses are internally baffled with hoods designed around the current 35mm proportions. Ain't likely to happen.

 

Lenshoods can be changed easily.

[HaraldL]

Leica will never produce an M that can't use M lenses and no M user would buy an M that was incompatible with the lens line. So the only way you would see square is if Leica decided to get into medium format digital. Not likely.

 

What's the problem with M-lenses for square format apart from lenshoods?

[luigi bertolotti]

And new lenses - as I posted before, the max format is 21x21....

 

...hum...just an academic question, but...are you sure ? The coverage of a lens for 24x36 is a circle diameter 43 ca.... a 27x27 means diameter 38 ca.... it fits, I think...unless you state that Leica lenses cover 24x36 on film but only 18x27 (M8) on CCDs...

[gdewitt]

...hum...just an academic question, but...are you sure ? The coverage of a lens for 24x36 is a circle diameter 43 ca.... a 27x27 means diameter 38 ca.... it fits, I think

 

A short thought experiment would disprove 21x21. 24x36 is covered, right? 24x24 is included in that coverage. Therefore at least 24x24 is covered.

 

But I'm not sure where you take a 43mm diagonal and turn that into a 38mm image circle?

[frc]

Luigi is right as I see it, Jaap can you explain where on earth you 21 square is related to.

If 24 fits with a stretch of 36, a lesser span will allow a larger side to the square.

 

Uh, I know nothing about such things...... I do pictures........

[larry]

Humans don't view the world in square format, our field of view is a horizontal rectangle --that's why most photographs are rectangular. The reason that several medium-format cameras took square photos was because their size and/or shape made them awkward to turn for vertical shots. Cameras such as the Mamiya RB-67 had rotating backs to solve the problem. Hasselblad always sold the square format by saying you didn't have to decide how to crop until you were in the darkroom. Later they sold square as being a balanced and symmetrical way to shoot. Personally, I don't think there's a valid reason or need for a Leica-size square-format camera.

 

Larry

[Advertisement]

Hallo,

Look here: Interesting Leica gear

[jaapv]

Luigi is right as I see it, Jaap can you explain where on earth you 21 square is related to.

If 24 fits with a stretch of 36, a lesser span will allow a larger side to the square.

 

Uh, I know nothing about such things...... I do pictures........

 

Ok, I admit, being busy with other things does not help a person's maths.. My bad...

 

However, the correct 27x27, with the same pixel density and size as the current sensor yields slightly less than 8 MP. I can imagine the howl of indignation.....