[torge]

I am quite familiar with counter steering as I raced motocross for about 15 years and owned a Suzuki/Kawasaki shop during that time. Slow moving bicycles are quite a different thing though.

so you just have to go really fast on such a bike and you should be fine

[BROO]

I don't believe so, for Raw at least. Using the 1:1 setting on the K1 returns the full Raw file, which I think is actually recoverable with the appropriate software. However, I think using the APS-C crop on the K1 does actually result in a smaller file.

It would be good if it was mft crop and worked as aps-c on K-1. Much better buffer for little birdies etc.

[Kunzite]

I don't believe so, for Raw at least. Using the 1:1 setting on the K1 returns the full Raw file, which I think is actually recoverable with the appropriate software. However, I think using the APS-C crop on the K1 does actually result in a smaller file.

You're right. The APS-C crop actually saves the cropped RAW - resulting in a smaller file and a faster burst speed, while the square crop saves the full size with a crop marker (you can recover the entire image if you want).

[BROO]

You're right. The APS-C crop actually saves the cropped RAW - resulting in a smaller file and a faster burst speed, while the square crop saves the full size with a crop marker (you can recover the entire image if you want).

I see the square crop as a way of capturing maximum data from a aps-c lens on a FF camera but I can't see the use for it on a aps-c camera whereas a mft crop would be useful in increasing the buffering capacity.

[Kunzite]

I see the square crop as a way of capturing maximum data from a aps-c lens on a FF camera but I can't see the use for it on a aps-c camera whereas a mft crop would be useful in increasing the buffering capacity.

For square compositions. Some people like those.

[reh321]

For square compositions. Some people like those.

I 'like' whatever the scene naturally fits into.
As I scanned my first photographs - typically taken with a Kodak box camera that naturally created square photographs on "620" film, then with a Kodak Instamatic 100 that naturally create square photographs on "126" film, I found that even these naturally make 5 x 3 photographs - that even when I had a square viewfinder to work with, most of my scenes crop best as rectangular images.

[Paul the Sunman]

I see the square crop as a way of capturing maximum data from a aps-c lens on a FF camera but I can't see the use for it on a aps-c camera whereas a mft crop would be useful in increasing the buffering capacity.

Yes, I mostly use the 1:1 crop with the HD DA 55-300 (non-PLM) on the K1, making it a very useful compact telephoto for FF. However, I also agree with Kunzite that, if you know you actually want a square image, it helps with composition.

Nevertheless, I find it an odd experience. A large fraction of my shots are normally taken in portrait orientation (it's how my brain works), and when shooting 1:1 on the K1 I have to consciously restrain myself from flipping the camera by 90°.

[BROO]

Yes, I mostly use the 1:1 crop with the HD DA 55-300 (non-PLM) on the K1, making it a very useful compact telephoto for FF. However, I also agree with Kunzite that, if you know you actually want a square image, it helps with composition.

Yeah well I can see how it could be useful for square composition.
But it could always be cropped in post.

[Yaki]

True, the diopter adjustment will do absolutely nothing to help astigmatism. Fortunately mine is helped with glasses and they do not hinder my use of the viewfinder.

I never tried to look thru the viewfinder with glasses and didn't think it can be done but if it works for you than I'll try it too. Thanks for the advice

[Kunzite]

I never tried to look thru the viewfinder with glasses and didn't think it can be done but if it works for you than I'll try it too. Thanks for the advice

Yes, it can be done - some viewfinders are more comfortable than others though - one might have trouble seeing all the frame and the information display info below.
And I often find the rubber eyepiece puts smudges on the lens.

[house]

I never tried to look thru the viewfinder with glasses and didn't think it can be done but if it works for you than I'll try it too. Thanks for the advice

I use the viewfinder while wearing glasses all the time. I prefer to wear contact lenses when photographing but it works fine with glasses.

[Yaki]

I use the viewfinder while wearing glasses all the time. I prefer to wear contact lenses when photographing but it works fine with glasses.

I am afraid of contact lenses and don't need them yet. My diopter is +1,75 but with time it will grow and buying a new camera body is a long term investment. So using glasses is acceptable option for me

---------- Post added 12-22-20 at 03:20 AM ----------

Yes, it can be done - some viewfinders are more comfortable than others though - one might have trouble seeing all the frame and the information display info below.
And I often find the rubber eyepiece puts smudges on the lens.

Glasses are easy to clean with warm water and soft soap unlike the photo lenses so it is not a problem for me.

[Kunzite]

Glasses are easy to clean with warm water and soft soap unlike the photo lenses so it is not a problem for me.

It's nothing more than a mild annoyance. Made a bit worse for cameras where I have to press the glass on the eyecup in order to see all the frame.

[Photos-by-Chas]

I never thought of trying to shoot any other way except via the viewfinder. Having started with film there was no live view so it was the only option. As my eyesight slowly deteriorated and I needed glasses, I continued using the optical viewfinder.

[reh321]

I never thought of trying to shoot any other way except via the viewfinder. Having started with film there was no live view so it was the only option. As my eyesight slowly deteriorated and I needed glasses, I continued using the optical viewfinder.

The same with me - but as my vision “dis-improved” with age, I now use glasses only for driving.