Originally posted by LowVoltage This is an interesting idea, and it also makes me rethink a certain opinion I've had for a while regarding photographer behavior in the digital age.
While it's not necessarily something listed in this idea's original goals, I would point out the common square formats afforded by medium format cameras. Of course, Hasselblads could be equipped with 6x4.5 film magazines, and the 6x6 squares allowed for cropping however one liked. I recall (with mixed elation and fear) the rumors of bygone Pentax DSLR designs sporting a square sensor - lots of backbiting over the feasibility of such a design, image circles provided by K-mount lenses, mirror box size, etc.
I'm not advocating a square sensor/format for this K-02 idea, but I have to say, I positively love the square. One could easily crop down from an APS-C sensor image to a square, although the nature of the top-down, waist-level finder in the Hasselblad form factor prevents a default vertical or horizontal orientation for the sensor inside the camera. One orientation means awkward handling of the camera when the other is desired.
...unless we have an on-demand rotating sensor like the Mamiya RZ33 medium format camera! I can get behind that. Assuming the usual Pentax SR technology is being implemented, why not add a rotating function? A custom square format sensor would surely cost more than an apparatus for rotation. Any thoughts on this?
The nature of this kind of camera design lends itself particularly well, in my opinion, to the habits of old time street photographers. Now, I know plenty of famous street photogs and photo-journalists liked their Leicas and Nikons and plenty of other 35mm (and thus, rectangular format) cameras. However, when I see images like the ones coming from the TLR of the recently heralded Vivian Maier, I am reminded how Hasselblads and Mamiyas with top-down view finders can be rather disarming to the general public. People are going to know you're making a photograph, but somehow the nature of these cameras are less disturbing to subjects when compared to seeing an SLR pointed at them. I have a Samsung NX mirrorless camera which is small and discreet, but I still get mixed reactions from people when they see me holding it up to my eye and aim it anywhere near them.
The K-02 idea proposed here reminded me of how I used to think about my old photo lab customers holding up their point-and-shoots at arms-length, squinting at the LCD screen rather than looking through a view finder. That is, if they owned one of the random compact cameras which possessed such a novelty. It seemed I was regularly asking customers to consider what they were doing, how many important things were being missed in a scene (closed eyes, somebody not paying attention, photo-bombing) because they were looking at an image the size of a postage stamp (I exaggerated for effect). Relying solely on the LCD screen for composition seemed nuts, but now I'm forced to recognize looking through a waist-level finder isn't that much different. Sure, one can hold the camera closer to the eye, and more than a few MF cameras had top-down finders which included a magnifying lens meant for close viewing - I think the fact that those designs were an analog experience somehow made it ok. I never likened it to today's consumer photographer behavior. Perhaps I should.
Retro designs and, to a certain extent, sensibilities seem to be coming back to photography - see the Nikon Df and it's nostalgic teasers, for example - for reasons good or bad. I think the K-02 idea discussed here is an interesting one. Such a camera would be a bold move, one that suggests a slower pace for a particular kind of photographer.
Well thought out response. I hadn't thought about square format (I love square) being a requirement for this format. I'm sure a native square sensor made of whatever size would not be a good value proposition, but I really wish someone would do this. Skeptics say you can crop to get square, I'd say you can crop to get portrait or landscape from a square.
A couple of points your comment made me think on:
1.) I wonder if waist level finders are less intrusive because the photographer is not looking at the subject directly (naval gazing?) and so people don't notice a lens pointed at them (unless its a 300/2.8), but do notice any camera attached to a person staring at them.
2.) I've never thought about composing on an LCD screen in the way you mention. For compact/phone pics I look at the actual scene to find details and use the LCD for rough framing, not staring directly at the LCD image. However your point actually made me think that there may be some positives or at least artistic differences in a disconnected view screen for composition. Since you are looking at a screen with less detail, you can see the form of the photo more easily. I've always thought that most MF shots seem better arranged, and chalked it up to larger (often square) format film being higher end and more deliberate photographers making the photos, but I wonder if there is subconscious things at play as well that may be attributable to composing a "picture" in front of you on ground glass vs. capturing what you see via OVF.