[kp0c]

Well, to you it's a big difference. Others just train their eye, or capture a scene and decide after if it should be sure or sure or rectangular. I guess what you're saying is you're incapable of doing what everyone else does. I usually capture what I see and crop after, whether square or not, it's not all that often I can have the camera crop for me. 3x4 and 4x5 crops are what I go for, not 2x3, so I don't have the benefit of seeing my final crop in the viewfinder either. But, part of being a photographer is dealing with that issue. It's skill you can learn.

Funny how defensive, and offensive you get. You act a little bit like a troll, but one that actually has valid points.

The K-1 has a lcd overlay in the optical viewfinder precisely to display some visual aid such as crop area. Adding a square crop would just be another nice feature of the camera and would differentiate the K-1 even more from the competitor. I suspect I would quite enjoy such a feature just to play around and force my vision to see square crops.
I can hardly believe this could be a deal breaker for someone though, as one can definitely train his eye to visualize the square crop within the viewfinder.

[biz-engineer]

Possible in live view , yes, with grid selection. Refer to Pentax K-1 manual page 117.

[monochrome]

Possible in live view , yes, with grid selection. Refer to Pentax K-1 manual page 117.

Nice catch!!

[normhead]

Possible in live view , yes, with grid selection. Refer to Pentax K-1 manual page 117.

There ya go.

[redrockcoulee]

Whatever.
Just trying to help out here. I don't what babying this guy accomplishes. Some times you just have to suck it up and go with reality.

Norm

I have been shooting multiple formats, including square, for four decades and I find it very useful to have cropping marks and the tighter you shoot the more important the cropping marks. There are reasons that 4X5 ground glass often has 66 67 and 69 cropping marks on them, the Hasselblad 645 back came with a cropping mask and I think the Fuji GX680 also had cropping lines in its viewfinder. None of those cameras were aimed at the rank amateur or to the dumb photographer.

Just about every one of your posts are thoughtful and educational but a few slip in that are both rude and unhelpful. This was one of those.

My K01 IR camera is set up to view monochrome 1:1 on the viewfinder as that is my intention for my shots, why wouldn't I want to see what I am going to get. I get enough of that with pinhole cameras.

[normhead]

Norm

I have been shooting multiple formats, including square, for four decades and I find it very useful to have cropping marks and the tighter you shoot the more important the cropping marks. There are reasons that 4X5 ground glass often has 66 67 and 69 cropping marks on them, the Hasselblad 645 back came with a cropping mask and I think the Fuji GX680 also had cropping lines in its viewfinder. None of those cameras were aimed at the rank amateur or to the dumb photographer.

Just about every one of your posts are thoughtful and educational but a few slip in that are both rude and unhelpful. This was one of those.

My K01 IR camera is set up to view monochrome 1:1 on the viewfinder as that is my intention for my shots, why wouldn't I want to see what I am going to get. I get enough of that with pinhole cameras.

So, you're saying you can't function on digital without defining the crop markings on the viewfinder?

I wonder how I've survived all these years. I have 3x4 images, 4x5 images, 9:16 images. Square images, and images that conform to no known crop format, for which I cut custom mats, all without ever looking at a the crop markings on a view finder.

Unbeknownst to myself, I must have been some kind of photographic genius.

Future generations will no doubt celebrate my genius with an unmarked viewfinder.

There are reasons that 4X5 ground glass often has 66 67 and 69 cropping marks on them, the Hasselblad 645 back came with a cropping mask

Because if you only had a 6x6 enlarger you might have to cut your 4x5 the negative to fit? We've eliminated that process.

Next you'll be complaining there are no masking blades on your computer screens.

I have no problem with anyone using whatever they want. I do have a problem with people claiming it's a game changer with camera selection.

It looks to me like the dude is just looking for an excuse to not like the camera. So, if you guys are supporting him in that, keep it up. If you're not, you're nit-picking.

[monochrome]

Clearly there is a technical or financial reason they didn't implement 1:1 crop marks on the VF overlay. We saw a prototype demonstration slide that included it; it is available in LV. At this price it is a certainty there will be compromises.

[Ptitboul]

If they add 1:1 square crop in a future firmware, that would be nice if they also add a way to memorize preferences for auto-crop mode.
I guess that many users will use each of their lenses mainly in one crop mode, but that it will depend on the user (e.g. some will use DA zooms in FF mode to have full resolution on the longer end, and some will use them in APS mode because they want the visual aid in the viewfinder).

[robthebloke]

So, you're saying you can't function on digital without defining the crop markings on the viewfinder?

I wonder how I've survived all these years. I have 3x4 images, 4x5 images, 9:16 images. Square images, and images that conform to no known crop format, for which I cut custom mats, all without ever looking at a the crop markings on a view finder.

Unbeknownst to myself, I must have been some kind of photographic genius.

Future generations will no doubt celebrate my genius with an unmarked viewfinder.



Because if you only had a 6x6 enlarger you might have to cut your 4x5 the negative to fit? We've eliminated that process.

Next you'll be complaining there are no masking blades on your computer screens.

I have no problem with anyone using whatever they want. I do have a problem with people claiming it's a game changer with camera selection.

It looks to me like the dude is just looking for an excuse to not like the camera. So, if you guys are supporting him in that, keep it up. If you're not, you're nit-picking.

No one is saying they can't function without a square crop. I could function without a flush on my toilet, it's not that much of a pain to fill a bucket of water in the bath, and be done with it. The fact I have a flush doesn't make me any crapper at crapping. It just makes life easier for the sort of toilet breaks I enjoy.

[normhead]

OMG.. I am so out of here.
What nonsense. Ignore me dude, I'm ignoring you.

[Not a Number]

Seems like it isn't that difficult to judge a 1:1 crop in the viewfinder without actual markings. I find no difficulty seeing "in my mind's eye" rule of thirds placement on any of my viewfinders.

[stevebrot]

There are reasons that 4X5 ground glass often has 66 67 and 69 cropping marks on them

...and all this time I thought it was to make it easier for me to use my 120 roll film holders...


Steve

(...FWIW, the scribed marks on my ground glass are too faint to be of any real use. I slide a mask in when I am using the roll film holders...)

[stevebrot]

Thanks. Big difference between being able to visualize and take the photo in camera at 1:1 and doing it later in LR. Oh well.

I tend to agree, though I have to confess that I see little utility* in constraining the viewfinder and/or actual capture to a square format or visualizing such prior to exposure. Historically, there has been only one group of photographers who have extolled that format; those who had invested in certain 6x6 roll-film cameras (e.g. Hasselblad, Rolleiflex) where changing to a portrait orientation is, well, a bit clumsy .

My personal approach with the 3:2 ratio has been to crop fairly tight in the dimension that is critical to the shot and let the other wait until PP for final crop(s). As you may have guessed, I seldom use a fixed crop and if a print is made, the mat/frame are almost always custom size. FWIW, I may print/publish several different crops from the same original capture, so the more pixels on the card, the better, IMHO.


Steve

* I can see a case where a person intends to publish to a square format for whatever reason. With any luck the 1:1 grids (square 1, square 2) for live view in conjunction with a custom Lightroom import profile (IIRC, you can impose a default crop on import) might be used to give the best of both worlds.

[redrockcoulee]

...and all this time I thought it was to make it easier for me to use my 120 roll film holders...


Steve

And I thought this was the friendly forum.

[stevebrot]

And I thought this was the friendly forum.

Most of the time.


Steve