The Ideal Format, Continued

Oh, ouch. Ain't that just the way it goes? There I was, gassing on about how I moderate comments, and...then I realized that the Featured Comments for the "Ideal Format" post never got posted.

Or rather, they did get posted, but then I probably saved the wrong version of the page and "disappeared" them again. [Inarticulate frustrated strangling gurgling noise.] I hate it when that happens. Yr. Hmbl. Ed. is plagued with a disorganized mind.

Since they would just be buried if I published them underneath the older post, here are the Featured Comments for the "Ideal Format" post, with my apologies to their authors for the delay. Here is a link to the original post.

+    =    +    =    +    =    +    =    +

darlene: "The square is ideal. You get three formats in one: square, portrait and landscape. I started my career as a comp artist working in advertising then later became a commercial photographer, so my creativity is accustomed to the perspective of the page or print. When I shot events with a Speedlight next to a Hasselblad on a bracket for handheld shooting, no need to turn the camera sideways and screw up the flash direction. In-camera cropping is easy as pre-visualizing (designing) as I shoot, so for me there is nothing not to like about the square format. Just wish we had a square sensor."

Mark Roberts: "I'm more than happy with my full-frame camera but it's not my ideal. I really dislike the 2:3 aspect ratio and I don't like 3:4 any better. My favorite ratio by far is 5:7, but no one makes a camera that shoots that way natively. It's odd because 2:3 prints out to 5 x 7.5 inches and you wouldn't think trimming a quarter of an inch off each end would make much of a difference. But, for me at least, it really does. So for now I'll just keep shooting with what I have and trimming most of my shots just a wee bit."

Mike replies: During my time with the view camera—my first 4x5, a Wista—I actually attached a bar to the inside of the back standard that cropped each image as I took it to 5x7 proportions. So as far as aspect ratio was concerned it was a mini-5x7. (I had really wanted a Deardorff 5x7 but couldn't afford one.)

Tom Burke: "For me, it's APS-C, and Canon APS-C at that. I've had a couple of full-frame DSLRs, and ultimately found the outfit that collected around them just too big and too heavy. I've briefly tried Micro 4/3—I bought a secondhand Olympus E-M10 from a local photo dealer—but perversely found it too small and light—the controls were too small and too close together. So for me the ideal size is a well-spec'd Canon APS-C DSLR. It might also be significant that my current such camera, a 90D, has a very similar size and weight to the first Canon film SLR that I ever owned, an EOS 650. I used that camera (and an almost identical successor, the EOS 600) for years, and perhaps that size and heft are burned into my brain as 'what a proper camera should feel like in my hand.' If I was just looking at lens choices, however, I'd be very tempted by a Fujifilm X camera."

Dan Khong: "Ideal format? It's a no-brainer: 35mm of course. I'm partly biased because I shoot film plus digital, soup and print the film in my darkroom, smelling fixer in the process. My B&W negatives are as archival as one can get nowadays. So when I bought an affordable FF Canon RP, I could not ask for anything more."

Gordon: "5x7. Back in the 1980s I met a guy taking photos with a 5x7 Deardorff. Before then I’d never heard of the format and thought it peculiar. It produced a negative too large for an affordable commercially available enlarger and a tad small for contact prints, though doable. But today I find it suits my 3:2 images, which otherwise seem too elongated. It comes pretty close to 4x3, but not quite as fat."

Stephen S.: "The E-1 was my first DSLR, and one of the main reasons was the 14–54mm (28–104mm-e) kit lens. Other camera companies were still just offering lenses from their film cameras, which meant a pair of 17–35mm (27–56mm-e) and 28–70mm (45–112mm-e) which did not appeal to me, especially considering the problems with dust getting on the sensor when changing lenses. That the E-1 was the first camera (that I know of) to offer a built-in sensor cleaner just helped seal the deal. The 'designed for digital from the ground up' strategy really was unique at the time, and had very real benefits."

Joseph: "There was a time when Micro 4/3 made sense to me. I used both a E-M5 and a E-M5 II extensively for a number of years and liked both cameras very much. But I look back at the files and wish I had lugged my D800 along with me instead. Now that something like the Nikon Z7 with the 24–70 ƒ/4 lens exists, I just don't see the advantage of Micro 4/3 for my needs. The Z7 isn't quite as small as the E-M5 but has much better image quality. A good compromise."

SteveW: "APS-C seems the optimal sensor size for me. I've used Nikon FF and APS-C cameras, and a year or so ago changed to a Fuji X-T4 primarily to use the small ƒ/2 primes. For the way I shoot, and I'm a hobbyist, APS-C is sufficient. That said, I prefer the 4:3 aspect ratio, and I frequently crop to 4:3. If the Fuji X-T4 had a 4:3 aspect ratio APS-C sensor, that might be the ideal for me. But cropping is no big deal."

Roger Bradbury: "I bought my first DSLR in 2009. It was an APS-C camera, because that's what was within my budget, both for the price of the camera and because its well established mount meant there were plenty of used lenses around. This format turned out to have the depth of field I need; enough when I want a lot, but not so much that I can't control it enough to throw a background enough out of focus. The 35mm format I was used to before I bought the DSLR sometimes didn't quite have enough depth of field for me."

(Posted belatedly by)
Mike

Products of the Week

Which one is best? Panasonic S1R (47.3 MP), Sony A7R IV (61 MP), Canon R5 (45 MP), Nikon Z7 II (45.7 MP), or Leica SL2 (47 MP)? You know the answer.

The above are links to Amazon from TOP. Once you're at Amazon, anything you search and buy will be credited to TOP. The following logo is also a link if you click on it:

Original contents copyright 2020 by Michael C. Johnston and/or the bylined author. All Rights Reserved. Links in this post may be to our affiliates; sales through affiliate links may benefit this site. As an Amazon Associate I earn from qualifying purchases.

(To see all the comments, click on the "Comments" link below.)
Featured Comments from:

Comments

[Geoffrey Wittig]

Many years ago I took a nature/landscape workshop taught by the wonderful naturalist and photographer Rod Planck. He extolled the virtues of the traditional 35 mm frame, arguing that it provided a nice 'almost panoramic' format. He felt (as I remember it, any errors are mine) that it allowed a greater sense of space than squarer formats.
I took that to heart, and I still favor the format for landscapes. But I do find that frequently my tendency to compose very tightly within the constraints of the current 'full format' digital SLR's leaves me struggling when I want to create a painting from my photos; something tends to get amputated due to my tight compositions.

[Bob Rosinsky]

My favorite format is 1:1. I wish a digital 24mm x 24mm or a 36mm x 36mm ILC (under $2.5K) existed.

[Rick in CO]

Your post and the comments are interesting. Aren't most comments concerned with aspect ratio? 4.5x6cm, 6x7cm, 4x5 inch and 8x10 inch are all 1.25 - 1.29 (length divided by height). APS-C, 35mm full frame, 2.25x3.25 inch, 6.5x9cm and 5x7 inch are all around 1.5. Micro 4/3'rds and the 3.7x4.9cm medium format is in between with a 1.32 ratio.

Another consideration is the relative depth-of-field at a given aperture using the different formats.

[s.wolters]

The 5x7 proportions are practically the same as the DIN 1:√2 height-width ratio that I called my favorite in my previous comment. DIN is 1:1.41 and 5:7 is 1:1.4.
The beauty of 1:√2 is that when you fold it you get two smaller formats with also a 1:√2 ratio. Full frame could for example become 24:34mm, half frame 17:24mm, quarter frame 12:17mm and so on. That's very close to what we have now and in most cases we don't need new lenses for it. Suitable paper sizes and printers do already exist.

[Dave Van de Mark]

Dozens of years of Hasselblad 6x6cm film photography still has me liking the square and I'm amazed how many images I end up cropping to exactly square or very close to it, especially from my Full Frame Panasonic S1R, which has pixels to burn. To that I have added the Fuji FGX100S medium format camera with 4:3 and I love that ratio. Curiously, I often take wide angle shots and crop them to 16:9, which is my favorite panorama format. When using the Fuji XT-4, the smaller number of pixels has me more carefully composing to use all or most all of the 3:2 frame, but clearly over time I've come to prefer "squarer" rectangles!

[Dennis Ng]

It depends. My nikon 14-24 on Hasselblad 907x require crop if it is not 24. I found out I like x-pan crop very much. And you can quite wide on it.

[Doug Anderson]

When I shoot MF I tend to print 1:1 because that was the way I saw the subject in the viewfinder. When I shoot 35mm I print 3:2 for landscape orientation and 4x5 for portrait orientation.

[Patrick Perez]

I second Bob Rosinsky's wish for square sensors and would also add I want one that is native monochrome.

Patrick

[Larry]

My big 6x7 medium format output was nearly square so it was easy to crop slightly to a square if the scene called for it. Back in the 60s I shot with a 4x4 TLR and appreciated the option of tailoring output to a rectangle. As for the 67, more recently, if I lined up a shot and knew there was too much sky or foreground, or excess along a side, there was plenty of leeway to crop and still have far more image area than a regular 24x36 frame. I always like larger formats because I frequently print very large, and having either MF or stitching from a full frame digital lets me do that, even with cropping.

[c.d.embrey]

i have a 4x5 Toyo view camera. Bob Hankins bought it while he was a student at The Art Center (Third St campus). Then it was used by Glenn Swanson (also an Art Center student). Swanson gave the Toyo to me about 20 years ago. Vertical 4x5 looks good to me.

Kodak TXP is too expensive for a pensioner. https://www.freestylephoto.biz/1791367-Kodak-Tri-X-Pro-320-ISO-4x5-50-Sheets-TXP

[PaulB]

Someone commented in the previous post about the amount of M4/3 equipment I carry in my little backpack. The bodies and larger lenses have their own compartments. The smaller lenses are in pouches in one compartment. It all fits, but is is tight! Although I can work out of it in the field when I need to, I rarely do. I usually leave it in the car, carry my G9 on a black rapid or other strap and put a few lenses and the GX-8 in a small shoulder bag.

I am still amazed at how much can be carried with this format and at the quality it offers.