square digital sensor

[steve santikarn]

does any digital camera have square sensor? I think the rectangular

shape is a relic from the film era and square shaped sensor makes

better use of the image from the lens (circular I presume), and save us

from having to tilt the cameras for the "portrait" shots. Some of the

medium format cameras have square size image already but I don't

know about the consumer ones.

[godfrey]

On average, a greater number of picture compositions are made with rectangular

proportions rather than square, even outside of photographic work. Most people using

6x6cm format cameras tend to crop to a rectangle too (although some do not). Generally

speaking, the 4:3 format nets a highest average number of pixels whether you're intent

upon cropping square, using the native proportions, or going even a little more oblong

(like 2:3).

 

Many lenses for DSLRs are masked for the 2:3 proportion format internally, so going to a

square sensor would be particularly inefficient for them.

 

Godfrey

[beauh44]

Hasselblad has been exposing film in a square format for almost 50 years. Speaking of which, some of the medium format digital backs might be square - although I've not checked this out personally. They're out of my price range! Good luck!

[GerrySiegel]

I am reminded that my old Zeiss Tessar has an image circle that can evenly cover 6 by 9, 6 by 7 or 6 by 6. And my camera has the capability to do all. Wouldn't that be nice in digital future.... Of course, the lens is limited in its FL and its f stop. I presume modern lenses are certainly designed with a very specific format in mind. EOS lenses were designed for 24 by 36mm. E-1 lenses are designed for a sensor that measures 4/3 according to the specs. Which is preferable?. I can enjoy them all. I kind of wish that they would go squarer for the reasons you say. A preference thing tho. Don't shout this this to Hasselblad X-pan users. (Few cinematographers really loved the big Scope format. Customers apparently did as a change from the TV screen. Or so I read in the press.)

[lachaine]

Rectangular a "relic from the film era". You must have just "gone digital" or are totally new to photography. I have two film cameras from the early 1930's that are square format 6x6, not to mention more modern Holgas, Agfa's from the 1950's, Lubitels - not to mention the millions of more expensive medium format cameras out there wich are square format. Rectangular as a format has nothing to do with film. It's just a more pleasing proportion for most people and most subjects. How many square paintings have you seen?

[conrad]

This one does:

 

http://www.rollei.jp/e/pd/MiniD.html

 

And there are some digital backs for medium format cameras that do.

 

Outside of that, your best bet is probably one of those high-end 8MP compacts and crop the pictures to square. You're left with around 6MP or so when you do that.

[peter_foiles2]

So I suppose you think the television and movie screens should be square as well? Same reasoning applies. The rectangular shape is not relic from the old film days. The rectangle vs square debate in film goes back decades.

[todd frederick]

I mentioned this in a previous question as well.

 

This is NOT an issue of "what is better?"

 

A square format is easier to use in a fast moving photographic situation. There is no turning or twisting of the camera and flash involved. Post capture formatting would be necessary, of course.

 

It is a mechanical issue...not an artistic issue.

 

I would like to see a good digital square format camera available for that reason alone.

[ky2]

The funny thing is that silicon wafers are circular... imagine a circular digital sensor...

[kelly_flanigan1]

So which way would a printer crop to make 4x6"; 5x7"; 8x10" 11x14" prints?

[stwrtertbsratbs5]

Yes, Silicon wafers are circular, but computer chips are square. Many chips are laid down on a single wafer, which is then cut.

 

Robert

[peter_phan]

<i>I think the rectangular shape is a relic from the film era</i>

<p>

Actually, square is a relic of the film era. It was primarily used in medium format cameras with waist-level viewfinders where you really couldn't rotate the camera into vertical or horizontal orientations, so you had square frames so that you could crop into rectangular frames in the darkroom. And of course, some people print their images in square format with no cropping. But the vast majority of photography is done with rectangular images. And as such, having a rectangular sensor is the most efficient use of sensor area, not to mention saving you the tedium of having to crop pretty much all your images into rectangular images for printing. I'd much rather have a rectangular sensor and crop the occassional image to a square, rather than have a square sensor and have to crop most (if not all) of my images to a rectangular format. Square format sensors, like in the days of film, would be a niche market.

[dean_g]

I think the 4:3 format is a nice compromise between the square and the 3:2 35mm frame format.