The current Olympus DC has 4:3 format, not 3:2 like 35mm film. I once
own a Bronica SQ-A for ten years, the 6x6 film back was always stay at
home. I just used the 645 film back as the printing price of 4x4" and
6x4" is the same so I never bother with it. Why I chose SQ-A and not
ETRS? Just "in case" I need square pictures, but it never happen to
me.
If most people like square more, there will be no 36x24mm format,
square picture is just very few people's own preference. Okay,
sometimes square is nicer, it depends on the picture's content.
C.H.Ling
Tom@xxxxxxxxxxxxx wrote:
>
> You just crop. Hasn't bothered Hasselblad/Rollei/Mamiya/Kowa/Bronica...
> users. I've bought 10x10" paper in the past.
> Currently, to make an 8x10 from a 35mm film, you have to discard 2".
>
> Advantages:
> - Saves turning the camera with all those complications of access to
> controls while on the tripod or at the eye.
> - Uses more of image circle.
>
> Why does everything have to have corners?
>
> When we have pixels to burn, perhaps we'll have circular CCDs.
> I wonder if in future, it might be easier to have curved CCDs to match the
> lenses' curvature of field.
>
> Tom
>
> On Friday, December 21, 2001 at 9:19, C.H.Ling <olympus@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxx>
> wrote re "Re: [OM] New Olys (my opinion)" saying:
>
> > How many people will be interested on square format while all paper
> > are in rectangular?
> >
> > C.H.Ling
> >
< This message was delivered via the Olympus Mailing List >
< For questions, mailto:owner-olympus@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxx >
< Web Page: http://Zuiko.sls.bc.ca/swright/olympuslist.html >
|