p.3 #1 · Best digital setup to shoot square format
If it is only for the result and not the process, I (as someone with 95% square images in my portfolio and making really large prints) prefer a poorer mans solution:
I almost always shoot panoramas with 2 or more images with 45-50 MP full frame cameras, when I either want higher resolution or extra small DOF. The most simple panorama consists of two images in landscape format, one over the other, with about 20-30% overlap. This simulates a 36x36mm square format sensor with about 75 MP resolution. Depending on the focal lenght I loose a tiny bit of resolution (more for wide angle lenses), but this method has the advantage, that the lens needs not to resolve the full 75 MP resolution as in large sensor cameras. With this technique I can keep camera and lenses smaller and have way more options with fast lenses. Strong Vignetting of lenses is something to better avoid although.
This works very well for me for almost all non- or slow-moving objects, like in architecture, landscape and even people photography. On a tripod I like to use TS-E lenses, but most often I do it handheld with classic lenses. In post-processing it's only one click in LR to get a combined raw file.
If you have fast moving objects in your projects or use flashes, this won't work of course...
p.3 #3 · Best digital setup to shoot square format
With GFX 100s/ii on a tripod with static subjects, no need to shift or stitch unless your lens doesn’t cover. You can simply do pixel-shift for a total of 300mp at 33x33 square if you want.
p.3 #4 · Best digital setup to shoot square format
johnvanr wrote:
... but does it then become overkill?
No. the 100mp images contain much more information, have a higher spatial resolution ( 132.76 lp/mm vs. 94.06 lp/mm ) and slightly better dynamic range at a lower native ISO ( 64 vs 100 ). Images printed at the same physical size will have more and sharper details and slightly better colors and dynamic range. The drawbacks are price and an increased level of difficulty for sharp critical focus and the need to have high performing lenses.
If you're happy with the 50R, then excellent, it's a great camera and can be cropped square and produce wonderful images. But don't let the "How big are you printing" or "What are you really going to do with your images?" naysayers fool you. There's a significant improvement in image quality jumping to the 33x44 100mp sensor.
p.3 #6 · Best digital setup to shoot square format
Just a thought, prompted by your post that some of your projects may be architectural (e.g. the bunkers):
If you use a 3:2 format camera and shoot vertically before cropping to square, you have the advantage that effectively you have a very large amount of shift available to you, just as if you were using a TS-E lens, but you lose no IQ from an actual lens shift or from a keystone correction in post. Your focal plane is parallel to the walls. Put something like one of the apo lenses from CV on it, and it will be perfectly sharp and aberration-free deep into the corners whether your effective shift is up or down (i.e. for whatever your vantage point is). Whatever guilt, sorrow, or shame you may feel at having "wasted" some pixels to crop to square is made up for by the knowledge that you have optimally used every pixel in that square You can use 4:3 MF the same way of course, but you get less effective shift.
p.3 #7 · Best digital setup to shoot square format
johnvanr wrote:
You lose a part of the frame when you crop, so you end up with less resolution to print with.
No, the resolution is the same, you just have a different field of view.
I think a 40MP image, cropped to 1:1, should have a 26 MP resolution? That's a lot. Definitely enough to print pretty large especially with upscaling.
Aug 12, 2024 at 02:01 PM
Steve Spencer Offline • • • • • • • Upload & Sell: On
p.3 #8 · Best digital setup to shoot square format
johnvanr wrote:
I’ve always liked the 6x6 format, which is why my film cameras are the Mamiya 6 and a Bronica 6x6 setup.
I’m not totally convinced of the film workflow, though. Sometimes I’m fine with it and sometimes the hassle holds me back. It also makes me only shoot B&W film, since the hassle and costs increase with color.
My Mamiya setup is worth about $3,000, which is enough to ditch it and get a digital setup that would deliver high resolution when shooting square. I have the feeling, however, that only the 100mp cameras would still result in high resolution after a square crop.
I have no issue getting a Fuji GFX100s, but wouldn’t like bulky lenses (the Mamiya lenses are tiny for the format). I assume, though, that with the crop I could use adapted FF lenses.
Am I missing something (other than the nice tactile experience of shooting film cameras)?...Show more →
I would recommend considering at least some Mamiya 645 manual focus lenses. Some are pretty small and excellent and they are pretty inexpensive. For example the 55 f/2.8 is excellent and I am a fan of the 120 f/4 Macro which is great as well. There are definitely some 35mm format lenses that will cover the 46.6mm needed for the square crop but not all of them and as Makten pointed out unfortunately not many of the Leica M lenses work optimally even with a square crop.
I am not sure how wide you want to go as wide lenses will be the hardest, and I am not sure how small you want the lenses to be either, but here are some I would consider if I were in your shoes.
24-25mm -- this is about like a 17 or 18mm in FF terms
Canon EF 24 f/2.8 IS
Zeiss ZE 25 f/2
28mm -- this is about like a 20mm in FF terms
Leica R 28 f/2.8 newest version with the 55mm filter
Zeiss ZE or ZF 28 f/2
Canon EF 28 f/2 IS
Nikon F 28 f/2.8 CRC (the one with .2mm close focus)
35mm -- this is about 25mm in FF terms
Canon EF 35 f/1.4 II
Zeiss ZE or ZF 35 f/2
Contax C/Y 35 f/1.4
Leica R 35 f/2.8 (latest version)
50mm - this is about 35mm in FF terms (many choices)
Zeiss ZE or ZF 50 f/2 Macro
Sigma DG 50 f/1.4 (kind of big though)
Leica R 50 f/2
70mm - this is about 50mm in FF terms
Sigma DG 70 f/2.8 macro
80 to 85mm - this is about 58 to 62mm in FF terms
Leica R 80 f/1.4 (this definitely works and was one of my favorite lens on Fuji)
Contax C/Y 85 f/2.8
100 to 105mm - this is about 75mm in FF terms
Zeiss ZE or ZF 100 f/2 macro
Contax C/Y 100 f/2
Olympus OM 100 f/2
Contax C/Y 100 f/3.5
Nikon F 105 f/2.5
135mm - this is about 100mm in FF terms
Zeiss ZE or ZF 135 f/2 APO - (this lens works wonderfully on the GFX and more than covers a square image circle, also one of my favorites)
Canon EF 135 f/2
180 to 200mm -- this is about 130 t0 145mm in FF terms
Voigtlander 180 f/4 APO
Canon EF 200 f/2.8L
Nikon F 180 f/2.8 ED
If you want longer than that, I think almost every FF lens will cover the 46.6mm you need for square format.
p.3 #9 · Best digital setup to shoot square format
Steve Spencer wrote:
I would recommend considering at least some Mamiya 645 manual focus lenses. Some are pretty small and excellent and they are pretty inexpensive. For example the 55 f/2.8 is excellent and I am a fan of the 120 f/4 Macro which is great as well. There are definitely some 35mm format lenses that will cover the 46.6mm needed for the square crop but not all of them and as Makten pointed out unfortunately not many of the Leica M lenses work optimally even with a square crop.
I am not sure how wide you want to go as wide lenses will be the hardest, and I am not sure how small you want the lenses to be either, but here are some I would consider if I were in your shoes.
24-25mm -- this is about like a 17 or 18mm in FF terms
Canon EF 24 f/2.8 IS
Zeiss ZE 25 f/2
28mm -- this is about like a 20mm in FF terms
Leica R 28 f/2.8 newest version with the 55mm filter
Zeiss ZE or ZF 28 f/2
Canon EF 28 f/2 IS
Nikon F 28 f/2.8 CRC (the one with .2mm close focus)
35mm -- this is about 25mm in FF terms
Canon EF 35 f/1.4 II
Zeiss ZE or ZF 35 f/2
Contax C/Y 35 f/1.4
Leica R 35 f/2.8 (latest version)
50mm - this is about 35mm in FF terms (many choices)
Zeiss ZE or ZF 50 f/2 Macro
Sigma DG 50 f/1.4 (kind of big though)
Leica R 50 f/2
70mm - this is about 50mm in FF terms
Sigma DG 70 f/2.8 macro
80 to 85mm - this is about 58 to 62mm in FF terms
Leica R 80 f/1.4 (this definitely works and was one of my favorite lens on Fuji)
Contax C/Y 85 f/2.8
100 to 105mm - this is about 75mm in FF terms
Zeiss ZE or ZF 100 f/2 macro
Contax C/Y 100 f/2
Olympus OM 100 f/2
Contax C/Y 100 f/3.5
Nikon F 105 f/2.5
135mm - this is about 100mm in FF terms
Zeiss ZE or ZF 135 f/2 APO - (this lens works wonderfully on the GFX and more than covers a square image circle, also one of my favorites)
Canon EF 135 f/2
180 to 200mm -- this is about 130 t0 145mm in FF terms
Voigtlander 180 f/4 APO
Canon EF 200 f/2.8L
Nikon F 180 f/2.8 ED
If you want longer than that, I think almost every FF lens will cover the 46.6mm you need for square format.
Thanks for that overview. I have a few EF lenses, but noticed that the adapters for those lenses get pretty expensive.
Aug 12, 2024 at 04:47 PM
Steve Spencer Offline • • • • • • • Upload & Sell: On
p.3 #10 · Best digital setup to shoot square format
johnvanr wrote:
Thanks for that overview. I have a few EF lenses, but noticed that the adapters for those lenses get pretty expensive.
Prices vary quite a bit. At B & H the Viltrox is $260, the Metabones is $440, and the Kipon and the Finger are both about $500. Given how cheap EF lenses are these days it still may be worth getting the adapter if you get a few lenses. You could of course use the Zeiss ZE and the Sigma lenses with the same adapter.
p.3 #11 · Best digital setup to shoot square format
gear-nut wrote:
With GFX 100s/ii on a tripod with static subjects, no need to shift or stitch unless your lens doesn’t cover. You can simply do pixel-shift for a total of 300mp at 33x33 square if you want.
With shift lens I can include more things on top/bottom or left/right to make a bigger frame, higher res pano. Pixel shift can't do that as far as I understand.
p.3 #12 · Best digital setup to shoot square format
bobby350z wrote:
With shift lens I can include more things on top/bottom or left/right to make a bigger frame, higher res pano. Pixel shift can't do that as far as I understand.
Not directly. But you can use a wider lens for the same total FoV and pixel shift gives you 4x the pixels instead of 1-½ or 2x. I realize lens acuity comes into play as well, but it’s an existing option.
p.3 #13 · Best digital setup to shoot square format
johnvanr wrote:
You lose a part of the frame when you crop, so you end up with less resolution to print with.
Yes but only on the long side.
Let's say you were happy to print a GFX image at 40x30 inches, if you crop to 1x1, you can still print 30x30 inch images, with the same resolution. So I would just work out how large you can print any image from any format and be happy with the resulting quality, and then look at the short dimension. That is the size you should be still happy to print at.
If using a 3x2 format and you were happy to print at 30x20 inches, then you should be able to print at 20x20 inches with no loss of quality.
p.3 #14 · Best digital setup to shoot square format
I will say, and with no ill meaning towards, John, that this thread is a great example of solutions looking for problems (and one he falls victim to frequently).
After a lot of pointed, specific questions trying to hone in on WHY, we're left with "photos of bunkers" and "large prints" devoid of any real world size requirements. It's all a haze with different gear as a long hanging fruit bearing a solution.
It's much more helpful to define the precise outcome you are shooting for and then optimize the process around obtaining that in the easiest way. These meandering threads are impossible to help in because there is no true definition of the problem.
p.3 #15 · Best digital setup to shoot square format
Geoff D F wrote:
Yes but only on the long side.
Let's say you were happy to print a GFX image at 40x30 inches, if you crop to 1x1, you can still print 30x30 inch images, with the same resolution. So I would just work out how large you can print any image from any format and be happy with the resulting quality, and then look at the short dimension. That is the size you should be still happy to print at.
If using a 3x2 format and you were happy to print at 30x20 inches, then you should be able to print at 20x20 inches with no loss of quality....Show more →
This ^ .
First question is what PPI requirements do you desire / require for resolving quality.
If you're a 300 PPI or a 200 PPI, then that sets the stage for your max print.
With the short side of the GFX 50R at 6192 ... call it 6000 for easy math ... then 300 PPI will yield a 20x20, whereas a 200 PPI will yield a 30x30.
Meanwhile, the 100S has a short side of 8736 ... call 9000 ...then 300 PPI will yield 30x30, and 200 PPI will yield 45x45.
The salient point is that for 1:1 ... short side is the limiting dimension (whether it starts at 3:2 or 4:3).
I reckon one could say that the short side is the limiting dimension, regardless of format.
p.3 #16 · Best digital setup to shoot square format
gear-nut wrote:
Not directly. But you can use a wider lens for the same total FoV and pixel shift gives you 4x the pixels instead of 1-½ or 2x. I realize lens acuity comes into play as well, but it’s an existing option.
p.3 #17 · Best digital setup to shoot square format
RustyBug wrote:
This ^ .
First question is what PPI requirements do you desire / require for resolving quality.
If you're a 300 PPI or a 200 PPI, then that sets the stage for your max print.
With the short side of the GFX 50R at 6192 ... call it 6000 for easy math ... then 300 PPI will yield a 20x20, whereas a 200 PPI will yield a 30x30.
Meanwhile, the 100S has a short side of 8736 ... call 9000 ...then 300 PPI will yield 30x30, and 200 PPI will yield 45x45.
The salient point is that for 1:1 ... short side is the limiting dimension (whether it starts at 3:2 or 4:3).
I reckon one could say that the short side is the limiting dimension, regardless of format.
Of course. It works, but the actual detail gains are questionable, while aliasing gains can be significant; and of course pixel count gain is significant. But this was also done as a best-case scenario with a monochrome sensor — most of us are shooting bayer, so the detail gains there could be more significant, 3 or even 4x more, and then color fidelity gains as well.
p.3 #19 · Best digital setup to shoot square format
RoamingScott wrote:
I will say, and with no ill meaning towards, John, that this thread is a great example of solutions looking for problems (and one he falls victim to frequently).
After a lot of pointed, specific questions trying to hone in on WHY, we're left with "photos of bunkers" and "large prints" devoid of any real world size requirements. It's all a haze with different gear as a long hanging fruit bearing a solution.
It's much more helpful to define the precise outcome you are shooting for and then optimize the process around obtaining that in the easiest way. These meandering threads are impossible to help in because there is no true definition of the problem....Show more →
I do agree with you that often these threads get overly complicated. I don't consider myself a 'victim' though. It's not as if this thread is the only resource I use to make decisions or that I follow suggestions blindly.
I was vague in my description of what I need and I still am. Generally I don't care much about overall resolution, because almost everything nowadays is good enough. That's why I shoot with systems from 20MP to 60MP, mostly based on what I want to carry than on what the resolution is. But there are examples from my past, when we were still dealing with 12MP cameras where I wish I had more resolution in the initial image so that I could have had it printed larger.
In this case, I'm not going to spend a few hundred dollars on an adapter when I can buy perfectly fine native lenses used for just a bit more than the cost of the adapter. I'm also not going to use pixel shift or stitch images unless I have no other way. That's just not my way of working.
And my 'bunker' project I can just play around with to see how things work, since I live in Vienna a few blocks from enormous flak towers that I can experiment with and in Holland a few kilometers from the bunkers in the fields around my hometown. I just have to wait a few days for the heat wave here to abate.
Other than that it's just a curiosity about shooting square and retaining as much resolution as possible, which is obviously best with the 100MP cameras. That, and the fact that the Mamiya 6 system is worth $3,000 and is barely used. I like using it once in a while, but I can get my 'film/analog kick' also with other stuff that I own that doesn't cost a fortune.
Since I live in Europe but still intend to buy in the US when I'm there, all my buying takes a bit more planning over the long term than it used to when I lived in the US. OTOH, selling yields a profit or at least a break-even.
p.3 #20 · Best digital setup to shoot square format
As a photographer who supplied clients with prints and files up to 84" long side and was well aware of the hassle, complexities and costs involved, I now far prefer the intimacy of smaller prints.
You can use 4:3 MF the same way of course, but you get less effective shift.