1. This site uses cookies. By continuing to use this site, you are agreeing to our use of cookies. Learn More.

    Any content, information, or advice found on social media platforms and the wider Internet, including forums such as AP, should NOT be acted upon unless checked against a reliable, authoritative source, and re-checked, particularly where personal health is at stake. Seek professional advice/confirmation before acting on such at all times.

Smarter poll answers wanted

Discussion in 'AP Magazine Feedback & Suggestions' started by ChrisNewman, Jan 2, 2014.

  1. Nigel_Atherton

    Nigel_Atherton Group Editor

    I don't entirely agree. For example, in my pre-digital days I always loved the Hasseblad 500CM, as a camera. Its build, design and sharpness were as good as it got, but I could never grow to love shooting through a square window, and the waste involved in cropping every image afterwards annoyed me. For this reason, when I had the choice I always went for the Mamiya RB67, despite its inferiority as a piece of engineering, because I preferred the aspect ratio, and the fact I could rotate the back for portrait images rather having to turn the camera.
    Nowadays, perhaps because I've spent most of life seeing the world in a 3:2 ratio, I generally prefer that shape to the squarer 4:3 of micro four thirds, for example, though I prefer the latter for portraiture. Although some cameras allow you to select different aspect ratios in camera, I believe it's only certain Panasonic models that do so while maintaining the same resolution and effective focal length at each setting.

    Yes, you can leave such decisions till afterwards but I prefer to compose in camera. I dislike wasting pixels in the same way I hate wasting food.
  2. Benchista

    Benchista Which Tyler

    But composing in camera doesn't mean being restricted by the aspect ratio of that camera; you prefer not to crop, Nigel, but I've never minded. I'll frame a shot with an idea of how I want to display it, and if that means cropping, so be it. And incidentally, I love the square format, but agree it's hard to compose for.
  3. Atavar

    Atavar Well-Known Member

    Choosing an aspect ratio was quite important in a film camera too if you had the ability to chose. My 120 loading Agfa Golf folder allowed different aspect ratios with a baffle which would let you squeeze more images on a square frame compared to the few you could get onto the standard 6x9.
  4. AlexMonro

    AlexMonro Old Grand Part Deux

    Quite a few medium format folding cameras have masks, either as separate removable pieces (which have tended to get lost over the years) or built in hinged masks - I think all the larger Ensign Selfix and Autorange models have the latter, allowing 6x6 frames on the nominally 6x9 models, and 6x4.5 on the 6x6 models.

    Zeiss Ikon provided removable masks for some models of the 6x9 Super Ikonta, allowing 16 6x4.5 frame on a roll of 120 (carried over to the Russian copy Moscow 2 & 5 cameras), and Voigtlander had a similar option for some models of the Bessa 6x9, to name a few. Some of the Japanese MF folders also had multiple format masks.

    Most of these multi format cameras are recognisable by the fact that they have more than one red window in the back, so you can choose which set of frame numbers to wind on to (don't forget which format you're using half way through the roll!) but some, such as the Ensign Autorange 220, have a mechanical frame counter, with a reversible dial that can be set for 12 or 16 frames. The red window is only used for winding on to the first frame when loading.

    Of course, unlike some modern digital cameras, you were stuck with the format selection you'd chosen when you loaded the roll!
  5. Atavar

    Atavar Well-Known Member

    Happy days :)

    I've just noticed I'd put that I had an Agfa Golf, incorrect of me, it was an Adox.
  6. Terrywoodenpic

    Terrywoodenpic Well-Known Member

    I have used all formats and ratios but like thousands of professionals of my generation I use a Rolleiflex as a hand camera for years. The square format was Ideal as to some extent the crop could come later and the decision as to landscape or portrait could adjusted as the client wished.

    The cost of the film was never even thought about. The charge to the customers was the same, a shot on 5x4 was the same as a 120 shot.

    Customers were charged materials if it was a commission anyway.

    The most popular sized medium prints were 20x16, 15x12 and 10x8 all were simple multiples of the 5x4. which was only a small crop from a 6x6=6x5.3 so hardly a waste of film. Far more was wasted by taking out the film at the end of the session.
    Or perhaps winding through the second shot to avoid the rollie kink, if the camera had been standing..
  7. RonClark

    RonClark Well-Known Member

    Yes, I know that this is perhaps passed its sell by date but this weeks poll is the latest where I have had to take the 'None of the above' option. I currently use a Sony A77, and I'm well pleased with it over all. However, I have made a mistake in buying it. Why? Well, simply its down the the weight. It's really too heavy for a mobility impared user so the chance of moving up to the Sony A7 and the needed lenses would be great. We wouldn't take the chance to upgrade their system for nothing?

    Very few I would suggest!



Share This Page