RichC
Well-known
Sadly, no. My (now sold) Nikon D800E had several formats but not 645, and its replacement, a Sony A7R II, only has 3:2 (35mm) and 16:9 despite zillions more options and settings than the Nikon.
Bizarrely, point and shoot cameras seem to have more format choices than pro and semi-pro cameras!
I know I can crop afterwards but I’ve always had difficulty visualising crops - using a Hasselblad once when I needed rectangular images drove me bananas!
Dogman
Veteran
While my main equipment is all Fuji these days, I do sometimes use other cameras. One is an Olympus OMD EM1 micro 4/3. I set the Olympus for 3:2 aspect ratio so it crops Raw in camera and Lightroom imports the cropped image. Maybe not the wisest use of micro 4/3 limited real estate but I'm hopelessly fixed on the 3:2.
oftheherd
Veteran
I was never a big fan of square. Even with my TLR or a 6x6 folder, it isn't uncommon for me to crop back to rectangular. My son-in-law can do either and get great photos. So what am I doing wrong? 
Maybe I should go to a set style?
Maybe I should go to a set style?
I love 2:3, but if were to change my aspect ratio (as opposed to style), I would go square 1:1.
back alley
IMAGES
by 'style' i was meaning more than just the aspect ratio...i was thinking of it as a package...same camera, same film sim etc. keep all the variables in lock and concentrate only on the composition.
daveleo
what?
^ I'd let that happen or not happen on its own, rather than be a conscious decision.
David Hughes
David Hughes
I do that with all my Leicas but most of them are film...
It would be nice to have one just like a film camera with just aperture, speed, focus and "film" speed adjustable. And C/W of course. Leave any digital camera alone for a couple of days and the thing will come up with a change to baffle you and an icon to annoy you. ;-)
The fish in the tank icon on the X100 really got to me last time.
Regards, David
oculus
Member
I see. The best thing to do in the beginning is to chose a normal lens, 50mm or 35mm, and maybe a 28mm.
Edit: I thought you said film. No need to stay with same film simulation. Shoot raw but try not to do too much in the Post Processing. Make the image in the camera as often as you can.
Out to Lunch
Ventor
Printing is the problem if you don't buy paper by the roll you waste a lot. So you either crop or waste paper on a grand scale from A4.
EDIT; After a couple of hours the brain started working and you can get a couple of squares out of an "A" size printing paper. One large and one tiny plus a bit left over that's 1:√2 aspect ratio. Here's a rough photo of a rough sketch on a rough piece of scrap paper.
It's been 45 years since I last saw a slide ruler ;-)
Dogman
Veteran
Ah, okay. I see what you mean.
Yes to all. I can't imagine switching procedures all the time--I'm a creature of habit.
Everything is digital for me these days. I have all my cameras set up the same and I shoot them all alike, even different brands of cameras. Today my use is probably 85% Fuji, 10% Ricoh GR and 5% Olympus.
I shoot only Raw with film type set to B&W. I concentrate more on the shapes, relationships and tones of a subject than the colors. I process the images in B&W most of the time. But shooting in Raw, I also have the option of color when it presents as a better alternative.
Otherwise, I use aperture priority and AF 99% of the time, 1% shutter priority and hardly ever do I use manual focus (due to eyesight). Focal lengths are generally wide to normal with some rare long telephoto use. I mainly use primes, seldom zooms. The only filters I use are UV filters for protection.
Coming from split image microprisms in SLRs and rangefinders, I only use the center AF sensor for focus/recompose. All those multiple AF sensors touted by camera manufacturers are totally lost on me and I would be completely lost trying to move the AF sensors around in the finder while shooting.
David Hughes
David Hughes
Hi,
The old guessing stick is still usefull at times; I often see them in charity shops for either a few pennies (especially circular ones) or a lot of pounds and often wonder if anyone else knows what they are or how useful they can be at times.
Regards, David
Brian Atherton
Well-known
Professionally it was 2¼ square (Rollie, Hasselblad) and 5x4 (MPP) and occasionally 3x2 (Nikon). For my personal work pretty much always has been 3x2 (35mm - Leica), and now occasionally 2¼ square (Rollie 6008).
RichC
Well-known
No, I don't do that. The subject should dictate the style and equipment, not the other way round.
Though I guess some people photograph the same subject the same way day in day out. I personally can't think of anything more boring.
oculus
Member
With all respect, I couldn't disagree more. The photographer should use equipment which (s)he has mastered, whatever the subject. It is this idea of the "right lens" or "right camera" for the "right moment" or "right subject matter" which, in my opinion, has resulted in a homogenization of photographic material. Look at street photography. Almost everyone after Winowgrand has used wide angle lenses for street photography. But Winogrand didn't employ the 28mm or (occasionally) 21mm lens "because it was the right gear for that subject". He did so because he had mastered that equipment and could effect a particular kind of seeing. The only people who really think you should have all the right gear for all the right photos are people who sell cameras.
back alley
IMAGES
boring or challenging...depends on how you look at it.
daveleo
what?
RichC
Well-known
I partially agree with you...
I agree wholeheartedly that arbitrary choices following conventions or "the norm" without thought often lead to safe, homogenised photographs. However, I had in mind factors such as technical considerations, the photographer's aims and aspects dictated solely by the subject.
Examples:
These are from my project on London's lost River Fleet. Despite being essentially "street", albeit without people, I used 35mm, 50mm and 80mm shift lenses and also carried a pair of kitchen steps and a tall tripod - this allowed me to avoid converging verticals in narrow streets, while the steps gave me elevated views when needed.
These are from a still life project on insect collecting. Here, I used a macro lens, a tilt lens (to maximise depth of field) and studio strobes (to provide consistent lighting).
jwc57
Well-known
I crop according to what I see in the image: sometimes, I get it right without cropping; sometimes I have to study the image to realize its potential.. I look at it this way----I know something is there when I see it, and sometimes I can see it right away. Sometimes I may not see it until the film is developed (or the image viewed) and then I realize what it is in the scene that drew my attention, what it is I saw that showed me its potential as a photograph.
I understood... I'm just not sure my style would change if I changed from 2:3 to 1:1. A personal style is one of the hardest things to accomplish in photography.
oculus
Member
Beautiful work.
Yes, I think we are more in agreement than not. I used to use a Canon TSL 24 II for, well, almost everything but mostly architectural photography. If I were doing what you are doing, an arsenal of TS lenses is exactly what I would have. The OP, I glean (though I do not know), is looking for a way to simplify in order to find a particular vision.