sensor size, this may be really dumb

[tdigi]

I was thinking how sensors on point and clicks are very small like 4.3 or whatever then we have Crop bodies that are 1.6 now we are in full

frame so the question is would it ever go beyond full frame? For example a 50mm being 35mm? would that be any kind of advantage?

[mike dixon]

Sensors bigger than 24mm x 36mm already exist. They're used in medium format backs.

 

Lenses designed for 35mm film don't have sufficient coverage for larger sensors.

[ed_v.]

I've read about "Leaf" cameras latest release on Rob Galbraith's site:

 

http://www.robgalbraith.com/bins/content_page.asp?cid=7-9316-9596. Pretty interesting.

[matroskin]

here is medium format digital camera http://www.hasselbladusa.com/products/h-system.aspx . it explains the

advantages, sort of...<br>KN

[jason_hall5]

As Mike pointed out they have been around for some time. Hasselblad is currently up to 50MP. A larger sensor would not work in our current 35mm based systems as also stated, the image circle would not cover the sensor. And to answer the question before it is asked, if you move the lens further from the sensor, you will lose infinity focus.

 

So to what you are asking would mean a completely different format and system.....which already exist. Just not made by Canon.

 

Jason

[bobatkins]

Mike has the answer. You can't go larger than 36mm x 24mm with 35mm lenses. They are not designed to cover a larger area and would vignette.and/or show very poor image quality in the corners.

 

The biggest digital camera sensor I'm aware of is a 37x52mm sensor used by Fuji, though there may be larger sensors used for scientific/research purposes. Larger than that there are scanning backs which work like a flatbed scanner, where a linear sensor is moved across the film plane. You can go to VERY large sizes that way, but exposures can take several minutes. Only usuable for static subjects.

[tdigi]

Makes sense thanks

[chris.sager]

Anyone think we'll ever see round sensors? It would seem possible even with today's 35MM optics.

[will_daniel1]

Only when we see round photo paper and frames.

[Michael R Freeman]

>"Anyone think we'll ever see round sensors? It would seem possible ... "

 

Possible, but completely impractical and economically foolish IMHO. Considerably more waste from the silicon wafer (i.e. even more expensive than current rectangular 24mm x 36mm sensors). It would require larger shutters, larger reflex mirrors, larger viewfinders (assuming you stick with current SLR designs, which means larger bodies). And most 35mm optics exhibit optical vignetting at the edges at wider apertures ("cropping" to a rectangular format confines this flaw to the extreme corners).

[bobatkins]

"Anyone think we'll ever see round sensors"

 

Not me. Too much waste, no real need.

[john_macpherson]

I'd rather see round corners.......

[nolan_ross]

Who knows what is possible or what might occur in the future. There are medium format camera's that shoot 35mm film with an insert. I wonder why they do not call that a crop format and give it a name such as the 35mm crop format 1.74 (when compared to a 645 MF) At this time we have the DX camera that people call a crop body when in fact nothing is cropped. And then you have FX camera's such as the D700 that have a crop mode as a feature but nobody call's that camera a crop body or crop sensor. It's a crazy world. I guess it's like in golf they call the driver a wood when it's actually metal. I am for round corners just to make it all make sense.

[JDMvW]

As I tried to post earlier, but was denied access under a only-3-posts-a-day limit now turned off*, the original roll-film camera had circular pictures. In 1888, the Eastman Kodak produced 100 2.5" circular images on roll film in the camera, which was then sent back to Eastman for processing.

 

Probably most of you have seen the famous circular picture of Eastman with one of his cameras on board a ship.

 

*why is there such a policy and to what forums is it supposed to apply? Just curious, aren't you?

[nolan_ross]

I could see a 3 post limit for me since I am not a subscriber. I probably will stop posting soon anyway but for a subscriber who has a 3 post limit sounds like something is not correct.

[Michael R Freeman]

There is no 3 post limit. It was a simple programming glitch.

 

See the last post on this page: http://www.photo.net/site-feedback-forum/00QoDn

[alex_lofquist]

Only for those people that want to "get around".

[allardk]

But what about square. That's a well-known and accepted aspect ratio. Doesn't waste wafer space. Doesn't waste image formed by lens (? or does it). Square is nice. I'd consider one. Would you?

[nolan_ross]

I like square. Lot's of famous photographers liked square. Just last week I went to the Monterey Museum of Art and they are showing Michael Kenna images. They are square. I am assuming from a Hassleblad 6x6 but I don't know that for sure. Silver Gelatin prints.

[tomscott]

Why not square lenses? Then nothing would be wasted.

[matthew_newton]

A square lens will still project a circular image, just with more distortion.