miss 6x6 a lot

[Rollei6008i]

Using digital back for more than one year . Unluckily, my favourite 6x6 format seems apart from me longer and longer .

Why no 6x6 sensor ? No market ? 6x6 composition not good ? But the square format camera producer said that it is a perfect format during film age.

BTW, 6x6 format , really miss you a lot.

 

[Godfrey]

Using digital back for more than one year . Unluckily, my favourite 6x6 format seems apart from me longer and longer .

Why no 6x6 sensor ? No market ? 6x6 composition not good ? But the square format camera producer said that it is a perfect format during film age.

BTW, 6x6 format , really miss you a lot.

I know what you mean. The backs are so expensive and they're still not 6x6 cm. It convinced me to just keep shooting film in the Hasselblads. Now to have the time to do it...

G

 

[Uaiomex]

Using digital back for more than one year . Unluckily, my favourite 6x6 format seems apart from me longer and longer .

Why no 6x6 sensor ? No market ? 6x6 composition not good ? But the square format camera producer said that it is a perfect format during film age.

BTW, 6x6 format , really miss you a lot.

Would this help in the meantime?
Eduardo

Vizelex RhinoCam Medium Format Shift Adapter, Hassy to EOS Adapter from Fotodiox Pro - Hasselblad V Lens to Canon EOS (EF & EF-s) DSLR Camera Mount Adapter - medium format digital camera

 

[mmbma]

I was thinking the same thing. Now the digital backs are cheap enough that they could probably produce one that sells for under 30k.

Hy6, hassey V and tech cams are ready for them I think.

 

[Shashin]

But the square format camera producer said that it is a perfect format during film age.

Well, he would. Actually, it was "perfect" for waist-level cameras as they were difficult to use in a "vertical" position. The idea is you would crop the square from to the horizontal or vertical aspect after taking the picture.

But I am with you, there is something special about the square. Alas, it would be really expensive and probably not that popular. The Mamiya 7 outlived the 6 because of the preference for the rectangle.

 

[GregMO]

Using digital back for more than one year . Unluckily, my favourite 6x6 format seems apart from me longer and longer .

Why no 6x6 sensor ? No market ? 6x6 composition not good ? But the square format camera producer said that it is a perfect format during film age.

BTW, 6x6 format , really miss you a lot.

Isnt it a bit more complicated then simply manufacturing a 6x6 sensor? I dont know all of the lens specs, but wouldnt a 6x6 sensor require new lenses to cover the larger format. The manufactures have committed to the 645 sensor size & image circles for their newer modern lenses.

 

[Jorgen Udvang]

The square format is great for many good reasons. As a graphic designer, I love it because I can crop it to any shape I need without losing too much resolution. As a photographer, I love it because it gives me freedom to choose a rather loose composition. I would love to have a square sensor for a medium format camera, but I doubt that we will see that anytime soon, and even if it does appear, the question is if I could afford it. Probably not.

I have been offered a Hasselblad (500C) and a Rolleiflex (2.8E), both in good shape, recently. I might buy either or both, simply because of the format, but also because I like to work with a WLF. Life is good. There are choices

 

[Jorgen Udvang]

Isnt it a bit more complicated then simply manufacturing a 6x6 sensor? I dont know all of the lens specs, but wouldnt a 6x6 sensor require new lenses to cover the larger format. The manufactures have committed to the 645 sensor size & image circles for their newer modern lenses.

With a Hy6, a 6008 or a Hasselblad 500/200 Series, this shouldn't pose a problem, since the lenses for those cameras are designed for 6x6 from the start.

 

[f8orbust]

Yes, a square sensor would indeed be a welcome addition. If it was large - say, 56mm x 56mm, even better. Another consequence of the complete and utter lack of competition and innovation between MFDB manufacturers I guess (though I suspect they would say 'lack of demand' - all very chicken-and-egg). There's just something special about the square format - really harks back to the classic (film) era of medium format, and conjures up images of Rolleiflexes, Hasselblads, Yashicas etc.

I guess we'll have to make do with cropping in post for the foreseeable future.

Jim

 

[Rollei6008i]

Yes, a square sensor would indeed be a welcome addition. If it was large - say, 56mm x 56mm, even better. Another consequence of the complete and utter lack of competition and innovation between MFDB manufacturers I guess (though I suspect they would say 'lack of demand' - all very chicken-and-egg). There's just something special about the square format - really harks back to the classic (film) era of medium format, and conjures up images of Rolleiflexes, Hasselblads, Yashicas etc.

I guess we'll have to make do with cropping in post for the foreseeable future.

Jim

Yes. 56x56 is quite good . Many photographic topics are ideal with square format and make fully use of the lenses .

 

[Mammy645]

They still make film you know, I shoot it all the time, despite having a digital back. Film has a whole look of it's own, and I find it requires less editing in post than digital.

 

[johnnygoesdigital]

They still make film you know, I shoot it all the time, despite having a digital back. Film has a whole look of it's own, and I find it requires less editing in post than digital.

Ditto that! With today's scanners, shooting film is more satisfying then ever, especially if you like 6x6. Hasselblads, which, imo, are far more reliable and stylish then any digital counterpart are very cheap these days. You can buy Ilford C41 B/W film and have it processed almost anywhere or easily develop traditional B/W yourself. Digital has made many photographers forget or never experience how satisfying it is to meter/compose/shoot. Get a 503CW and if you must get a CFV-16 for it too. The character of film is unmatched and imo, far more of an artistic expression, in part, to the time you took to achieve it.

 

[Rollei6008i]

Ditto that! With today's scanners, shooting film is more satisfying then ever, especially if you like 6x6. Hasselblads, which, imo, are far more reliable and stylish then any digital counterpart are very cheap these days. You can buy Ilford C41 B/W film and have it processed almost anywhere or easily develop traditional B/W yourself. Digital has made many photographers forget or never experience how satisfying it is to meter/compose/shoot. Get a 503CW and if you must get a CFV-16 for it too. The character of film is unmatched and imo, far more of an artistic expression, in part, to the time you took to achieve it.

I started playing DB last year since my 9000ED failed & a better scanner's cost nearly or greater than a DB , I think that I have no return back to film .
Lesser quality Lab also a main factor . Film type are lesser , too.

My film life is more than 20 years & my DB life is just one year.

 

[dchew]

I miss it too. I'm getting a ground glass for the Alpa because of the square format. I will cut one of the masks to 54x54 and shift the back. Not 6x6, but at least I will see and frame in square.

Dave

 

[Godfrey]

I miss it too. I'm getting a ground glass for the Alpa because of the square format. I will cut one of the masks to 54x54 and shift the back. Not 6x6, but at least I will see and frame in square.

Um, most 6x6cm film cameras actually produce something closer to 56x56mm on film. What DB are you using that has 54mm on the short edge? Or am I missing something ... ?

G

 

[Godfrey]

I started playing DB last year since my 9000ED failed & a better scanner's cost nearly or greater than a DB , I think that I have no return back to film .
Lesser quality Lab also a main factor . Film type are lesser , too.

My film life is more than 20 years & my DB life is just one year.

A 1949 Rolleiflex TLR is one of the first cameras I learned photography with, on loan from my grandfather in 1968 or so. Yikes, that's 46 years ago!!! (Before that were a run of Kodak roll-film, Instamatics, a Minolta 16-Ps, and an Argus C3...)

Yes, there are fewer film types available, but still more than enough for my needs. I almost always shoot either Ilford XP2 Super or Fuji ACROS 100 these days, only occasionally color.

I think Nikon is still servicing the Coolscan 9000ED. Have you contacted them?

G

 

[GrahamWelland]

I'm also one of those folks with square vision. For some reason I find it more satisfying composing within a square frame and just prefer the format over 3:2 and to a lesser degree 4:3 / 5:4.

I ended up picking up a CFV-16 for my 503CXi. It's a crop sensor so that means some lens restrictions at the wide end and overall vs full 6x6 film frame but it still provides the 'look', albeit at 4k by 4k resolution.

 

[dchew]

Um, most 6x6cm film cameras actually produce something closer to 56x56mm on film. What DB are you using that has 54mm on the short edge? Or am I missing something ... ?

G

You're not missing anything, I just didn't explain myself well. I need to take two images. I mount the sensor vertically, shifted left, then shift right, blend the two images and crop to 54x54 (or whatever ratio). But it is hard for me to visualize the square through the standard viewfinder. Creating a square 54x54 mask on the ground glass will help me with composition and rough focus. Then mount the back, fine tune focus and shoot the two images.

Not like a real 6x6 experience. It is of course upside down and backward, unlike waist level that is just reversed. But at least I get to visualize the final composition without buying a whole new system.

Dave

 

[johnnygoesdigital]

I use an Epson V750 Pro scanner at B/H they cost $800

Epson Perfection V750-M Pro Scanner B11B178061 B&H Photo Video

Here's an portrait shot with a Mamiya Rz, but scanned on the Epson. The photo can easily go to 3x4 feet.
I know this isn't a 6x6 photograph, it's just to illustrate the Epson quality for film transfers.

 

[Godfrey]

You're not missing anything, I just didn't explain myself well. I need to take two images. I mount the sensor vertically, shifted left, then shift right, blend the two images and crop to 54x54 (or whatever ratio). But it is hard for me to visualize the square through the standard viewfinder. Creating a square 54x54 mask on the ground glass will help me with composition and rough focus. Then mount the back, fine tune focus and shoot the two images.

Not like a real 6x6 experience. It is of course upside down and backward, unlike waste level that is just reversed. But at least I get to visualize the final composition without buying a whole new system.

Dave

Ah, that's more understandable.

I love square format. I often set the Olympus E-M1 or E-PL1 to 1:1 format (it just sets the cropped dimension on the raw file, but it allows me to visualize the square in the viewfinder or LCD. With other cameras I just aim for the center of the frame and apply a square crop in LR on import ... can always move it later.

With the E-M1, I can even have my waist level viewing back due to the tilt LCD, and given the 3:4 native format, I'm 'wasting' less of the capture with the square crop than I am with 2:3 format cameras. (E-M1 square = 12 Mpixel, E-PL1 square = 9 Mpixels).

But cropping FF or FourThirds formats produces significantly different FoV-DoF compared to 6x6 format. And then there are the Hasselblad's Zeiss lenses, which render differently compared to Panasonic, Olympus, Leica and Voigtländer lenses ... Something about the Hassy SWC's Biogon 38mm f/4.5 T* is not reproducible with any other lens I've tried.

G
Polaroid SX-70 shoots squares too!