Comments on: The CMOS Sensor Squared [CR2]

By: Noir

Noir — Fri, 28 May 2010 20:25:10 +0000

someone needs to read about aspect ratios before making stupid uneducated comments.

By: WANDY RODRIGUEZ

WANDY RODRIGUEZ — Mon, 24 May 2010 16:21:35 +0000

I still can’t believe someone is lame enough to post under the name 5D Mark II TEAM. wow.

By: Bernard

Bernard — Thu, 20 May 2010 02:30:19 +0000

I strongly doubt they’ll ever go to a square sensor — without significantly reworking their lens lineup.

Ever look at the back of these lenses? They all have rectangular cutouts. Petal hoods? Designed for rectangular sensors/film. Most of the major lenses would have to be redone to even allow a square sensor without significant mechanical vignetting at the top and bottom.

By: mig

mig — Wed, 19 May 2010 12:21:16 +0000

i want one shaped iike a shapely butt. that is proven to attract some attention to your pictures.

By: Foggy

Foggy — Wed, 19 May 2010 00:54:17 +0000

How about a circular sensor? 100% efficiency.

By: Foggy

Foggy — Wed, 19 May 2010 00:53:35 +0000

How about a circular sensor? 100% efficiency!

By: mig

mig — Tue, 18 May 2010 12:39:30 +0000

additionally, if you need a bigger mirror, you will need to increase the distance between the mount and the film plane, so none of the current lenses could possibly work.

this would not be a concern if the camera is a mirrorless (a-la 4:3) camera. that’s an interesting thought actually.

By: mig

mig — Tue, 18 May 2010 12:37:08 +0000

frankly i think the level of nonesense is what triggers heated responses.

By: Chris

Chris — Tue, 18 May 2010 12:31:34 +0000

If they made a square sensor, wouldn’t they have to renew some lenses. For example, look at the mount of a 24-105 you will see a rectangular shaped window, therefore the sensor would probably have to be smaller because of top and bottom obstruction. Also, if you think about it, all computer monitors have the 16:9 aspect ratio, no more square monitors. Even televisions are 16:9. So why would the electronic and computer industry change aspect ratio and camera industry go back to square one? I know and understand the advantages, but I don’t want to change my lenses and look at pictures on my monitor squared off.

By: Ghost

Ghost — Mon, 17 May 2010 19:41:50 +0000

Interesting responses, seems like a hot button issue to some.

By: Muteteh

Muteteh — Mon, 17 May 2010 12:57:15 +0000

And the fact that a 16:9 screen of the same diagonal length as a 4:3 is cheaper to produce has absolutely nothing to do with it …

By: carloose

carloose — Mon, 17 May 2010 11:29:37 +0000

multi-dimensional triangle sensor > two dimension square sensor.

Think about it.

Did the Egyptians build a square pyramid? Could you even build a square pyramid?
Of course not! It’s logically impossible.

Of course Canon will implement this ancient and futuristic innovation. They could have three shutters getting taking shots of three different angles at once. The square sensor is dead and buried with Beta and walkmans.

By: Praftman

Praftman — Mon, 17 May 2010 03:43:29 +0000

…by* a great many.

By: Praftman

Praftman — Mon, 17 May 2010 03:41:43 +0000

Wow. At what point does one decide their experience allows them to replace reasoning with sheer ego?

I’m sure you’ve experienced plenty, but your logic is abysmal.

“Just use a…” Seriously? That easy, huh? Do we all have limitless resources to purchase multiple systems?

Assuming we do: Do we really want the burden of coping with multiple systems?

Assuming we do: Are we just going to always stay in our studio-shell were we have access to our myriad equipment, or do we take several systems everyone we go?

Assuming we do: Do we feel it’s okay to have the burden of switching between systems so as not to dirty ourselves with cropping the system in use, regardless of breaking flow, missing shots, and just the inconvenience itself?

I could go on… In only the most contrived scenarios are your words even coherent, and they even then remain much less than cogent.

“If you’re truly creative at all…” …you can visualize framing without even the camera. Sight, hands, Ansel’s cardboard with a cutout…To suggest it has to be just the right format camera or framing becomes compromised is… for sloppy/ lazy people.

Lastly (and I’m holding back plenty) “post…is an insult to the true craftsman”… ? I suppose film-era darkrooms are legit but the digital darkroom is somehow amateurish? Perhaps you yourself are amateurish at the helm of a digital work-flow, but that doesn’t discount the great work being done but a great many, or forgive your snobbish ignorance in not seeing it.

I’m embarrassed for you.