Square Sensor?

<p>OK, it's only a rumor, and a bit far fetched at that, but there is a rumor of a square sensor in the next Canon 1D IVs. I've posed the question of a square sensor before, and would love to see it, but does anyone think this can really happen? Is there anyone else out there who would like this?</p>

<p>I think a square sensor has some advantages. No need to turn the camera 90 degrees for portraits, but maybe even more usefull, you can see whether an image works better in landcape or portrait during post-processing. <br>

And besides that: using rectangular sensors is wasting light ;-) </p>

<p>I think it's a great idea. But I can't see how you would do it with eos or any other current slr mounts, Unless you made the sensor smaller. You would not be able to fit a larger mirror in without moving the mount forward.<br>

But no reason you can't do it on the current mirror-less lot, not that I can think of.</p>

<p> It would be great never having to turn your camera to 90.</p>

<p>I'd like to see it.</p>

<p>A pellicle mirror wouldn't need any more clearance. The old ones came with a 2/3 stop penalty from the light they filtered out. I bet with some new improvements, they could make them even more transparent. With better and better noise at higher ISOs, a 1/3 stop penalty wouldn't be so bad. That could lead to a lot faster fps ratio, as well. Liveview would be a thing of the past. Imagine the current autofocus speed for stills being available in video mode.</p>

<p>Eric</p>

<p>What, you mean like a Hasselblad? They were quite popular at one time among professionals. :)<br>

The square sensor makes the best use of the lens image circle too compared to long, thin 35mm format.</p>

<p>A pellicle mirror EOS Digital would be great - I love my old 1NRS. the penelty of the Pellicle mirror is quite small and it would protect the sensor from dust. While the mirror costs about 2/3 of a stop the viewfinder is only about 1/3 of a stop duller as even in the standard set up the mirror is not completely reflective to allow light to pass to the sub mirror. A square sensor would be interesting.</p>

<blockquote>

<p>maybe even more usefull, you can see whether an image works better in landcape or portrait during post-processing</p>

</blockquote>

<p>Uh?<br>

Sure, and you have the added advantage of getting to throw away all those surplus pixels that make the file so large.<br>

Get a nice Taxona, it's got a 24x24mm 'sensor' called 'film'. :)<br>

If you want to go retro, go all the way!</p>

<p>Hmm, if I need square, I just crop. Although square is a PITA for paper, frames and mats. You need to go custom.</p>

<p>Won't happen.</p>

<p>Square is "the worst of both worlds". You loose no matter whatever crop.</p>

<p><strong>Round </strong>is the optimum geometry!</p>

<p>Well, I'd love to see it, but I didn't think about the mirror issue. But I like the fact that a square sensor will capture more of the image circle, and the crop loss would only be minimal, really. If the new 1 series had a 36mp square sensor, the pixels could be larger than a rectangular sensor. And cropping to a 3:2 format would lose a little resolution but how noticeable would it be? I can barely see the difference between 16 and 21MP images, so I don't think it would hurt image quality, even with cropping.<br>

Anyway, I'm hoping Bob is wrong this time. Just this once...</p>

<p>I totally agree with Geoff, a round sensor would be perfect. None of the image would be wasted, and you could crop to your heart's content, or have the camera settings / photo editor settings do it for you automatically.</p>

<p>I've always loved square format myself, but on larger medium format cameras. If you take the sensor from today's full-format DSLRs and their lenses, and you make it square, the image will be a little taller, but not as wide. So, in order to get say a 645 format composition, you would need to be satisfied with less resolution than if you had a rectangular format in the first place (since you would be cropping an image that is already not as wide), or else the cameras and lenses would have to be larger than they are today, for the same reason that medium format cameras have always been larger than 35mm cameras. Can anyone really envisage a camera larger than today's monstrous DSLR's?</p>

<blockquote>

<p>a round sensor would be perfect</p>

</blockquote>

<p>Interestingly, that's exactly how the first Kodak was set up (of many examples, <a href="http://brightbytes.com/collection/kodak1_photos.html">link</a>) Makes printing a little difficult though.</p>

<blockquote>

<p>"I like the fact that a square sensor will capture more of the image circle, and the crop loss would only be minimal."</p>

</blockquote>

<p>Standard "full-frame" sensor: 36mm x 24mm <br /> Largest square sensor that could fit into current lenses' image circles: 31 x 31mm</p>

<p>Dimensions of 36x24 image cropped to 4:3 proportions 32 x 24 (768 sq. mm)<br /> Dimensions of 31x31 image cropped to 4:3 proportions: 31 x 23 (713 sq. mm)</p>

<p>Except when you crop to a proportion that is <strong>squarer than 4:3</strong> (e.g., 1:1 or 4:5), a square sensor using current FF lenses requires throwing away more pixels than 24x36 sensors require.<br /> <br />The only way to change that math would be to introduce entirely new lenses (with larger image circles and thus would not fit the EOS mount), which seems rather unlikely.</p>

<p>Again, not that it matters, really, but...<br>

there is a whole class of "35mm"-sensor lenses that already cover more than the 36mm round.</p>

<p>They are called TS-E lenses and the extra coverage is necessary to handle the shift of up to 11mm that the lens does.</p>

<p>I don't care for square. More image ends up on the cutting room floor more often with a square format for me than with a rectangular format. I do use square format film from time to time, but only to save weight over a larger rectangular format kit when that really matters. Even Hasselblad has abandoned the square format with their latest mega-buck uber cameras.</p>

<p>It's true, square cameras stay at home far more often...<br>

<img src="http://farm4.static.flickr.com/3406/4614148953_8c3d6b6fe7.jpg" alt="" width="500" height="375" /></p>

<p> While rectangular format cameras go out to play all of the time....</p>

<p><img src="http://farm3.static.flickr.com/2791/4405231235_6594a5800a.jpg" alt="" width="500" height="375" /></p>

<p> <img src="http://farm4.static.flickr.com/3041/2960363965_2ea7953667.jpg" alt="" width="500" height="375" /></p>

<p>If Canon offers a square format DSLR, I'll pass.</p>

<p>Please, if you're going to start rumors, at least put some thought into it. How about a sub-$1000 4x5 back? :=)</p>

<p>Wasn't there a square film format smaller than 2-1/4 and 35mm? I've seen some square slides in older film. Lots of cardboard, looks funky. I still shoot some 6x6 and 6x12, good change of pace from the digital tommy gun.</p>

 

<blockquote>

<p>Again, not that it matters, really, but...<br />there is a whole class of "35mm"-sensor lenses that already cover more than the 36mm round.<br>

They are called TS-E lenses and the extra coverage is necessary to handle the shift of up to 11mm that the lens does.</p>

</blockquote>

<p>Yeah...a grand total of four current Canon lenses, strictly MF. Yer right - it don't matter!</p>

<p>The round image makes a sticker that has the least parameter. It work better on skin with a sticker cam. Maybe Britney could start another Izone craze. </p>

<p>For the record, I didn't start this rumor, I'm just propogating it.<br>

Huge difference, no?<br>

;-)</p>

<p>Looks like Sony beat Canon to the punch. Just a few months ago, we were talking about the possibility of a new pellicle mirror camera. And now the A55 is announced. :)</p>