CFV-50c !!

[torger]

I think square or not may be a generation factor. Many younger photographers today have not shot a film camera at all, they don't know what they miss. If you're used to a rectangular format, like all digital cameras today are, I guess it's harder to see the advantages of square.

However, I might be wrong. On the web square presentation of portfolios has gained huge popularity, so younger photographers are surely familiar with the format although their camera's sensor is not square. It's a very practical format for showing a collection of images.

Personally I prefer the 4:3 format. I do sometimes crop to square, but more often keep it at 4:3, vertical compositions often get cropped to 5:4 though. But then I shoot landscapes with a tech cam from a tripod, not hand-held portrait photography. Not having to rotate the camera does seem like an advantage, I find the 3:2 format on my DSLR to be a bit awkward, sure there's a grip for shooting in portrait position but then I don't like the placement of the viewfinder.

 

[jotloob]

Square seemed pretty good for many, many decades . . .
As to lenses, yes some may not hold up to excruciating 200% corner examination, but some do … and many others have a character that is still highly desirable. The 40IF is quite good, as is the 100/3.5 and the 180/4 … not to mention some of the APOs. I used some V lenses on 39 and 50 meg H cameras, and they brought a lot to the party on their own. There is a look and feel that is less antiseptic than many modern lenses deliver.

My 2¢

- Marc

These three lenses are just great with the CFV-50 .
Now the CFV-50c has a smaller sensor (33x44) and a higher crop factor .
This is a disadvantage .
A CFV-50c with a 37x49 sensor combined with life view would be my dream .
I have given up the hope for a square sensor many years ago and am convinced , we will never ever see such a sensor .

 

[Jorgen Udvang]

As a graphic designer and photographer, I find the square format the easiest to live with. It means that I can crop a photo either way depending on my needs and that I can make the decision during the design process rather than when I take the photo. As an alternative, I actually prefer 16:9 or wider.

 

[torger]

As a graphic designer and photographer, I find the square format the easiest to live with. It means that I can crop a photo either way depending on my needs and that I can make the decision during the design process rather than when I take the photo. As an alternative, I actually prefer 16:9 or wider.

Leaf did make a back with a 56x36mm sensor (3.1:2, ~16:10), the Aptus-II 10, but it doesn't seem like it got very popular :-\.

When I shoot landscapes I find great pleasure in creating the finished composition in camera. I often crop anyway (4:3 is not always the right format for a composition), but it's a special kind of satisfaction to pull a well-composed image out of the camera not having to crop. That's also one reason why I carry as much as 7 lenses with me, so I can select the desired framing with focal length rather than having to crop to get inbetweeners.

In typical pro work I guess one often does not really know the final format when the image is shot (an image may be used in multiple ways too), so there's a stronger need to crop and recompose in post-processing.