36x36 mm cmos sensor

[gferdinandsen]

Out of curiousity, why can't you crop to a 1:1 ratio in Photoshop?  I currently use a 5D2, on my PIXMA9500, it cannot print a full resolution (13x19) so cropping will not cause any noticable pixalization (much less printing an 8x8 or 8x10, or 8x12).  It's much cheaper to change in post-processing than make a sensor that is significantly larger.

There really seems to be a lot of "I want therefore Canon should make".  I learned to shoot with 35mm, when you learn on film/transparancies, you learn learn how to make do with what you have, not how to make the technology adapt to what you want

[dougkerr]

anybody sees any chance for a Canon EOS cmos-sensor that says goodbye to the 24x36mm "full-frame" limitation and actually provides the maximum format that the EOS optical system allows?

From my understanding, a 36x36 mm square format would be handled by any EF-lense without any issues. The EOS optical system is a circle, right - not an ellipse.

The largest square format that the current EF lens image circle (when an actual circle) could handle is 30.6 x 30.6 mm.

In some of the lenses, the image boundary is not quite a circle. Then a slightly smaller square format is all that could be handled.

Best regards,

Doug

[Rocky]

Dont know why people are saying that you cant have a 36x36 sensor. Now it is 36x24 , and a lens is round.. so i dont see the problem here.
I want a square one, and i want it bad

There will not be enough room for the movement of the reflex mirror. The existing EF lens will just clear the movement of the mirror for a 24mm high sensor. now you are asking another 12mm extra.

[Heidrun]

Dont know why people are saying that you cant have a 36x36 sensor. Now it is 36x24 , and a lens is round.. so i dont see the problem here.
I want a square one, and i want it bad

There will not be enough room for the movement of the reflex mirror. The existing EF lens will just clear the movement of the mirror for a 24mm high sensor. now you are asking another 12mm extra.

Skip the mirror and make an electronic one, That will also elimiinate problem wioth the mirrorshake

[Rocky]

Dont know why people are saying that you cant have a 36x36 sensor. Now it is 36x24 , and a lens is round.. so i dont see the problem here.
I want a square one, and i want it bad

There will not be enough room for the movement of the reflex mirror. The existing EF lens will just clear the movement of the mirror for a 24mm high sensor. now you are asking another 12mm extra.

Skip the mirror and make an electronic one, That will also elimiinate problem wioth the mirrorshake

There is only ONE TS-E lens will give you 36 X36 mm coverage. Do you think that Canon will make a camera that is based on ONE lens only and with the slow AF and view finder of a point and shoot. Will you buy this camera.? The standard coverage of FE lens is 30.4 MM square.

[jhpeterson]

It's no April Fool's joke that I'm dredging up this old post.
I've been away most all the last three month on shoots, but found some time to think more about this. The more I did, the more convinced I am this idea is worth pursuing.
Since the price of sensors keeps coming down, it's only a matter of time before a 36x36 one costs no more than a 24x36 does at present. And, with the mirrorless movement continuing to gain more followers, it likely won't be long before we see electronic viewfinders in pro-level DSLRs. Doing without the mirror will solve one of the problems that has limited what image size we can produce from our cameras, as the current configuration of 35-mm style cameras is pretty much maxxed-out at 24mm in the short dimension.
So, the only remaining significant obstacle appears to be lens coverage. I don't, at least at the moment, expect to see many lenses capable of delivering 36x36mm images without SOME vignetting. But, if we can accept a certain amount of fall-off, I think we've opened the door to many exciting aspect-ratio possibilities. After all, how many times is the final image we REALLY want a square?
Permit me a few moments here to make some calculations. The diagonal of 24x36mm image measures just a little over 43.2mm. I'd like to think every lens that produces an acceptable image for full-frame 3:2 cameras covers at least this, and some a bit more. This would also give us 30.6x30.6mm for a square, 26.9x33.7 for 5:4, almost 25.7x34.3 at 4:3 and, for those of us into panoramic vistas, 19.4x38.8 for 2:1 and 13.7x41.1 at 3:1.
Maybe, what we would really want to see is a sensor that allows us to take full advantage of the optics we've paid some seriously money for.  Say one, 45mm in diameter, more or less, since I suspect much of our glass covers somewhat more than it was designed for. And, if it doesn't quite measure up, we can always stretch things a bit with software.

[Spooky]

you're right, thinking outside the box! There are quite a few obstacles but non are impossible, maybe expensive though.

Regarding the mirror, how about a semi-transparent (pellicle) as was in the old EOS1 (RT?), that would remain fixed. I don't know what the mount - sensor distance is and this may limit this. An electronic finder would be ok but we wouldn't get the fast AF.
Looking through the old posts, most miss the fact that you crop for the final result, not end up with a vignetted square image. The lens baffles could be removed?
How about a new body, waist level finder and rotating back for our EF lenses?

[Daniel Flather]

Would the 36x36mm sensor/format have issues with lens hoods?  I'm looking at my 24mm lens right now, and I think with the hood on you'd have issues.  They are petal cut hoods for a reason, right?

[jhpeterson]

you're right, thinking outside the box!

Seems like I occasionally put my engineering school education to good use!
Indeed, the square sensor would be a boon to any photographer who needed to quickly shift from horizontal to vertical, or vice versa. And, since I'm left-eyed, especially true for me. It always presented interesting challenges to my picture taking, going back to film days when I'd have to take the camera from my eyes to advance to the next frame. Built-in motors made the problem irrelevant, but to this day I've found the vertical button on grips and pro bodies to be rather useless, as it's in a most awkward location. (On the plus side, I'll bet the way I have to hold the camera for verticals makes me inherently steadier than my right-eyed colleagues.)
I mentioned some time back that I think some presets for different formats could be included, at least for JPEG files, much like that for image size and levels of compression. Of course, most all your better image editing software now does this rather easily.
As for the lens hood issue, it seems a relatively minor problem. And, while the cost for some of them is no longer small change, at least in the case of the supertelephotos with hoods that run as much as what one can pay for a decent lens, the last I looked they were all circular in shape.