If I could build a camera

Messages
55
Name
Paul
Edit My Images
Yes
#1
I'd trounce the competition by using the same available tech, but instead of cutting out rectangle sensors at a ration of 2:3 or 4:3 I'd use...

Square.

The lenses already cover the corners of a long sensor, so why not extend it vertically? You can then choose ratios in camera for framing, or shoot raw for full sensor output. Also, square images rock. If canikon did this, they'd have something of a unique selling point over competitors, especially with their massive mounts. As I said, lenses wouldn't even need to grow!

Who's in? :D
 
Messages
21,104
Name
Alan
Edit My Images
No
#4
Square can be nice and I do often think that 4:3 is a better fit for portrait orientation than 3:2 but other than that how about 16:9?

Panasonic used to have multi aspect sensors from which ratios were cropped.

Or something like that.
 
Messages
384
Edit My Images
No
#6
Panasonic used to have multi aspect sensors from which ratios were cropped.

Or something like that.
You can set Olympus cameras to a variety of crop ratios but they all come out of the 4:3 sensor - so the 1:1 crop is narrower to fit the reduced vertical height.
They save the full 4:3 format ORF file and the viewfinder view and JPG is cropped to the ratio. I sometimes use that when I'm shooting with my plastic holga lens - there's not much on the edges worth worrying about :)

I'd trounce the competition by using the same available tech, but instead of cutting out rectangle sensors at a ration of 2:3 or 4:3 I'd use...

Square.
It is an interesting question why the image circle of the lens isn't fully exploited by a square sensor - legacy of film strip formats?
 
Messages
1,221
Edit My Images
No
#7
Be careful what you wish for... I think a dislike button might have been quite heavily used at your statement that square images suck! ;)
Speech is free but alas politeness seems to be too expensive for some. Personally I might buy a square sensor camera provided the sensor was larger rather than smaller than its predecessors.
 
Messages
4,337
Edit My Images
Yes
#8
I'd trounce the competition by using the same available tech, but instead of cutting out rectangle sensors at a ration of 2:3 or 4:3 I'd use...

Square.

The lenses already cover the corners of a long sensor, so why not extend it vertically? You can then choose ratios in camera for framing, or shoot raw for full sensor output. Also, square images rock. If canikon did this, they'd have something of a unique selling point over competitors, especially with their massive mounts. As I said, lenses wouldn't even need to grow!

Who's in? :D
At the risk of sounding like a Viz top tip... square format is already available to all users of 2:3 or 4:3 format cameras... simply by cropping the sides off the image. And for that reason, I won't be investing. ;)
 
Messages
2,094
Name
Richard
Edit My Images
No
#9
Sometimes wish there was a dislike button on here.

Square images suck.
:mad:Dislike!:mad:
Actually though a square sensor would give everyone (including you:mad:) choice of format. I dare say it would make the camera larger, other things being equal.
 
Messages
2,094
Name
Richard
Edit My Images
No
#11
I am really surprised that no one has made a Rollei style camera (doesn’t need to be square) with a decent screen and hood on top. Nobody has even attempted a ‘frankencamera’ version, which in my ignorance, I think would be easy — I google it from time.
 
OP
OP
T
Messages
55
Name
Paul
Edit My Images
Yes
#12
At the risk of sounding like a Viz top tip... square format is already available to all users of 2:3 or 4:3 format cameras... simply by cropping the sides off the image. And for that reason, I won't be investing. ;)
Thus wasting image circle.

This isn't about image ratio - it's about a technological choice to better exploit the equipment we already use.

You're effectively cropping some of your lenses, in camera, with no choice in the matter. Your lens doesn't project a rectangle :)
 
Messages
4,337
Edit My Images
Yes
#13
I am really surprised that no one has made a Rollei style camera (doesn’t need to be square) with a decent screen and hood on top. Nobody has even attempted a ‘frankencamera’ version, which in my ignorance, I think would be easy — I google it from time.
We know someone in the Film & Conventional section that's made a film back to enable a Yashica TLR to take instant film.
 
Messages
2,094
Name
Richard
Edit My Images
No
#14
We know someone in the Film & Conventional section that's made a film back to enable a Yashica TLR to take instant film.
Yes, though it rather proves my point since I think that must be a lot harder than cobbling together bits of a digital camera.
 
Messages
4,337
Edit My Images
Yes
#15
Thus wasting image circle.

This isn't about image ratio - it's about a technological choice to better exploit the equipment we already use.

You're effectively cropping some of your lenses, in camera, with no choice in the matter. Your lens doesn't project a rectangle :)
I can see where you're coming from but it would most likely mean DSLRs had to be taller to accommodate the increased sensor height dimension, unless they used a standard height sensor and cut the width down, which would defeat the object as this can be done by cropping the image in post. I doubt it would be commercially successful, even in mirrorless format, as a reduction in the size and weight of the camera body seems to be one of the mirrorless selling points (which I don't quite understand as from what I've seen the latest FF mirrorless seem to have proportionally bigger [and presumably heavier] lenses on them)!
 
Last edited:
Messages
21,104
Name
Alan
Edit My Images
No
#16
You can set Olympus cameras to a variety of crop ratios but they all come out of the 4:3 sensor - so the 1:1 crop is narrower to fit the reduced vertical height.
They save the full 4:3 format ORF file and the viewfinder view and JPG is cropped to the ratio. I sometimes use that when I'm shooting with my plastic holga lens - there's not much on the edges worth worrying about :)



It is an interesting question why the image circle of the lens isn't fully exploited by a square sensor - legacy of film strip formats?
Maybe Panasonics multi aspect sensor was a slightly different thing to the more usual crop options many cameras have. I Googled and the first explanation that came up was this one...

https://www.cameralabs.com/panasonic-lumix-gh5s-review/

AFAIK they don't use these multi aspect jobbies now.
 
OP
OP
T
Messages
55
Name
Paul
Edit My Images
Yes
#18
I can see where you're coming from but it would most likely mean DSLRs had to be taller to accommodate the increased sensor height dimension, unless they used a standard height sensor and cut the width down, which would defeat the object as this can be done by cropping the image in post. I doubt it would be commercially successful, even in mirrorless format, as a reduction in the size and weight of the camera body seems to be one of the mirrorless selling points (which I don't quite understand as from what I've seen the latest FF mirrorless seem to have proportionally bigger [and presumably heavier] lenses on them)!
Mirrorless makes it possible - they're cheaper to build anyway. The only hardware change would be the viewfinder - something plenty of users don't use anyway...

It's interesting because the 2:3 ratio to me is ugly - too panoramic for most stuff, not panoramic enough for anything actually panoramic. It's also inefficient to the point of throwing away 1/3rd of the light our advanced, expensive optics project.

I want that third back! Even if some of it is thrown away, I don't think it's a huge hardware change. Especially looking at the Z mount and RF mount - they're huge. The bodies are already big enough, just lose the viewfinder or make it a bit bigger (let's lose it though, instead replace it with a flippy touch screen) and use the extra space either side of the image on screen for exposure information like histogram, rather than putting it over the image itself.

So many wins!
 
Messages
417
Name
Kyle
Edit My Images
Yes
#19
Some of the older phase 1 and kodak digital backs for medium format were square format. (a long time ago when 16-22mpix was in the realm of medium format and CCD's were significantly more common than CMOS)
 
Messages
5,545
Name
Trevor
Edit My Images
Yes
#20
36x36 sounds appealing. I love squares.

Fuji medium format is
43.8mmx32.9mm
 
Messages
4,337
Edit My Images
Yes
#21
Mirrorless makes it possible - they're cheaper to build anyway. The only hardware change would be the viewfinder - something plenty of users don't use anyway...

It's interesting because the 2:3 ratio to me is ugly - too panoramic for most stuff, not panoramic enough for anything actually panoramic. It's also inefficient to the point of throwing away 1/3rd of the light our advanced, expensive optics project.

I want that third back! Even if some of it is thrown away, I don't think it's a huge hardware change. Especially looking at the Z mount and RF mount - they're huge. The bodies are already big enough, just lose the viewfinder or make it a bit bigger (let's lose it though, instead replace it with a flippy touch screen) and use the extra space either side of the image on screen for exposure information like histogram, rather than putting it over the image itself.

So many wins!
Until you want to shoot in 'conventional mode' (eg most of the time for most of the people) and you find your redesigned square screen is too small to view the wider image on. Perhaps best just to keep things as they are and put up with losing some of the top and bottom of your lens image and perhaps take comfort in the knowledge you're only throwing some of the softer bits away?! :giggle:
 
Last edited:

Canon Bob

Loves the Enemy
Messages
10,409
Name
Bob
Edit My Images
Yes
#22
I suspect that you would need new lenses to go with your enlarged sensor. It's very likely that the current offerings have not been optically corrected for the portions of the image circle that is never used.
 
Messages
4,721
Name
Dave
Edit My Images
No
#23
It's interesting because the 2:3 ratio to me is ugly...
I think it's beautiful. :p It's the same as using any aspect ratio, you have to tune in to it to see pictures which fit. The reason square format is unpopular is that it is difficult to make good compositions in a square. I'm not saying it can't be done, but it's far harder to do than with rectangular formats.

As for throwing away bits of the image circle. Go the whole hog. Have circular sensors. Oh, wait. That would need circular screens to view the pictures without throwing screen area away. :LOL:
 
Messages
4,413
Name
matt
Edit My Images
Yes
#24
Fuji x-t10 offers different formats, presumably crops from the APS-c sensor.
Instead of square why not vertical oblong format rather than horizontal?
 
Messages
384
Edit My Images
No
#27
Not sure I'm buying the camera would have to be taller idea. Surely the lens and the mount are circular and that's what determines the minimum body dimensions? The sensor is a lot smaller than the mount. Even if you had to increase the height, we're talking quite a small amount a few mm in the overall scheme of things.
Again I'd be amazed if lenses were manufactured with worse performance in the extreme top and bottom of the lens - surely that would be harder to manufacture than just the same tolerance across the whole circle.

All screens are downscaled from the sensor size anyway - my Olympus E-PL5 has a wider aspect ratio than the sensor and uses the black bars at the side to display shooting information.

My guess is it's a legacy issue from film and while it could potentially give a photographer a few more pixels to play with it wouldn't make a strong enough marketing case unless you could push the 1:1 ratio as the unique selling point of itself or more megapixels from the same lens mount system.
 
Last edited:

sirch

Official Forum Numpty 2015
Messages
8,480
Name
Chris
Edit My Images
Yes
#28
Bigger sensors cost more because the a larger sensor chip is harder to produce, given that most people are happy with some sort of rectangle (because we have two eyes that give us a non-square perception of the world) then it's better from a cost POV to go with a rectangular sensor and crop if square is needed. If you are so concerned about "throwing away" some of the image circle, move the lens foward from the sensor until the image circle is the size of the smallest sensor dimention, simples :)
 
OP
OP
T
Messages
55
Name
Paul
Edit My Images
Yes
#29
I suspect that you would need new lenses to go with your enlarged sensor. It's very likely that the current offerings have not been optically corrected for the portions of the image circle that is never used.
They're corrected to reach the corners of the current sensor, so not really. It's just not throwing away light already gathered.

Appreciate it's a weird one, but it's an odd choice - yes, a taller sensor will add to cost, but not by much. The shutter mechs already seem to cover the full area. Flash sync speed will be slower due to the larger verticle plane, which is a pity, but maybe we can have a smaller m43 sized square for those who need to sync up at 1/250th.

Circle sensors are a non starter because you'd be throwing away loads of areas of each sheet of silicon. Square would actually be very efficient - you'd get fewer sensors, but camera market is shrinking. A "full frame" camera that squares upwards would compete with medium format, given the vastly increased area, without the price (just a small increase to account for the increased cost of sensor - presumably not a huge cost) or the size disadvantage as the lenses already cover this area.

Plus they can boast about more pixels which would be fun.

No, I'm not being entirely serious - but isn't it weird how we've settled on such an inefficient ratio?

Actually, 4x3 being squarer would allow for smaller lenses on a larger sensor. 2x3 is genuinely inefficient in terms of lens design in comparison as you need to make a lens that covers a much larger area than the sensor is so it canrl reach those corners.
 
OP
OP
T
Messages
55
Name
Paul
Edit My Images
Yes
#30
This theoretical weird camera would be targeted at professional still photographers. It would not be a jack of all trades at all - it's purpose would be to give total freedom in composition while maximising the detail available.

Example - a 36 megapixel Canon with a full frame sensor would now be a 48 megapixel Canon with a square sensor. Same mount, lenses and no loss of image quality - just more freedom to work with a square image in post.

An a7riv would have a whopping 80+mp with identical tech. As a studio camera, no more rotating the camera, just shoot and crop to preferred ratio.

For landscapes, stitching becomes easier as fewer shots will be required to fill in vertical space. No need to rotate the camera, shoot portrait and go panoramic - just go pano!

Chances of it happening: literally zero :) but a fun thought experiment.
 
Messages
2,094
Name
Richard
Edit My Images
No
#31
Somewhat off topic, but I use square a lot particularly on the iphone partly because the phones are such awkward slabs used in landscape but have much better handling in portrait mode — hence all those vertical videos I think:mad:. It would be handy if there were an app that displayed the square picture in the upper part of the screen (using the centre of the sensor of course) and the controls on the lower half. Does not exist I think though there are/were several square format iOS apps.
 
Top