I really wasn't going to inject this but Will's poetry pushed me over the edge.
If you think about it, you'll see that all lenses provide a circular image, therefore any image less than a full circle wastes part of the lenses field of view. I have a true fisheye lens that does produce a circular image which uses 100% of the field of view. Square format comes in second place to that. Len --- > -----Original Message----- > From: Frantisek Vlcek [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]] > Sent: Saturday, December 28, 2002 5:45 PM > To: P�l Jensen > Subject: Re: 6x6 - Waste of Space? (WAS: Re: Medium > Format-Which one is best?) > > > PJ> I'm not dismissing square images, but square film. The > camera makers > PJ> seem to be doing the same. In the future there won't be "square > PJ> cameras" I suspect because it is such a waste. Photographers will > PJ> crop their images into squares instead of cropping their squares > PJ> into rectangles. > > Pal, > from purely technical standpoint (I won't diverge into aesthetics > and all), square is the format that wastes _the least_ of a lens > field of view. All rectangular formats are more or less a waste of > space. > > Best regards, > Frantisek Vlcek > >
