"1Dsq" & 3D [CR1]

[kubelik]

Anyone who has issues with using a "square format" sensor should buy a Hasselblad 500 series camera with an 80, 120 or 150mm lens, 10 rolls of Provia 100f or Velvia 100, and shoot at least 2 photos a day for 2 months. By the time those two months are up, you'll be wondering why every camera doesn't have a square sensor (with a landscape/ portrait crop option, for those few occasions where that works better). Guaranteed...

I think it's very much an individual taste thing, still.  I have an old 503 CM that I've shot several rolls on (I'll be honest, I don't use it that often), and it's just different.  I definitely prefer hauling my 5DII around to hauling that block around.  it makes you compose differently and think about your photography differently, but I wouldn't say its better or worse.

the most important thing I don't like is the cost of lenses that are large enough to cover a square image sensor.  and the need to buy a totally new set of them.  for that reason, I think all the square sensor rumors are very unrealistic, unless canon is looking to seriously alienate a large portion of its professional and serious amateur customer base.

[Osiris30]

Anyone who has issues with using a "square format" sensor should buy a Hasselblad 500 series camera with an 80, 120 or 150mm lens, 10 rolls of Provia 100f or Velvia 100, and shoot at least 2 photos a day for 2 months. By the time those two months are up, you'll be wondering why every camera doesn't have a square sensor (with a landscape/ portrait crop option, for those few occasions where that works better). Guaranteed...

I don't have any issue with the format.. I actually love it.. but seeing it from Canon is another matter entirely.

[dilbert]

So?
Why would you crop it to a "normal" AR?
And what is a "normal" AR?
3:2 because that's what 35mm film used?
16:9 because that's what wide screen TV uses?
4:3 because that's what a lot of computer monitors are?

If a 3:2 is always cropped in order to fill a 16:9, then what's the point of a 3:2 sensor?
If a 3:2 photo never fills a 4:3 or 16:9 screen, what's the point of a larger screen?

The point here being that aside from historical bias towards 3:2 there is no reason for digital photographs to be that way.

Aside from the legacy of 35mm film, there is the proximity to the golden ratio that favours the
3:2 aspect ratio.  (Actually 16:10 would be closer.)
I get the point though of asking "what is a standard aspect ratio?"
Take a look at a wedding album - you will see all sorts of aspect ratios that can readily be printed.

Someone that I know that teaches a photography course at college posted a series of pictures to facebook that were all rather cool and all square. Why were they square? Because that's what the correct cropping of the photograph to present the subject required.

What will be a technical consideration in working with a square sensor is that the sensor will be
higher (even if only 30.6mm) - quite a bit higher than 24mm.  That means that the reflect mirror
and pentaprism need to be totally redesigned (assuming a SLR design).

Correct. Which might be why it is such a long time since the 1Ds3. However, that's Canon's problem, not ours.

It has even bigger implications for the shutter.  Building a focal plane shutter than has to travel
30.6mm will probably be quite a technical challenge - especially when you want to maintain
a reasonable flash sync speed..

It also means that the shutter can travel either horizontally or vertically. Or even both ways if they're clever enough.

[Joe J]

I don't have any issue with the format.. I actually love it.. but seeing it from Canon is another matter entirely.
[/quote]

I agree; I don't really see Canon going that route either, but from a personal/ outsider's/ photographer's perspective, it would be better for Canon, and photographers if they explored that avenue.  It would be nice...

[Joe J]

Anyone who has issues with using a "square format" sensor should buy a Hasselblad 500 series camera with an 80, 120 or 150mm lens, 10 rolls of Provia 100f or Velvia 100, and shoot at least 2 photos a day for 2 months. By the time those two months are up, you'll be wondering why every camera doesn't have a square sensor (with a landscape/ portrait crop option, for those few occasions where that works better). Guaranteed...

I think it's very much an individual taste thing, still.  I have an old 503 CM that I've shot several rolls on (I'll be honest, I don't use it that often), and it's just different.  I definitely prefer hauling my 5DII around to hauling that block around.  it makes you compose differently and think about your photography differently, but I wouldn't say its better or worse.

the most important thing I don't like is the cost of lenses that are large enough to cover a square image sensor.  and the need to buy a totally new set of them.  for that reason, I think all the square sensor rumors are very unrealistic, unless canon is looking to seriously alienate a large portion of its professional and serious amateur customer base.

Understandable about having to haul around a second body and set of lenses on every shoot; I go through that all the time, and it's a pain in the ass, to be honest. But at the end of the day, the square format/ image quality/ better (larger) glass makes it worth it for me personally.
 Square format isn't necessarily "better or worse" (as landscape/ portrait can work better in some instances), but it's a by far better sensor size format as a base for giving maximum options for a photographer. And who wouldn't want all the possible in-camera composing options? Not to mention the multiple other benefits to a larger sensor.

    Square sensors are only unrealistic if you are afraid of change.  I think if someone came out with a digital square format system that's superior to everything else out there in multiple aspects, both now and the long term, most professional photographers (including myself) would have no problem making the investment to switch to a better system.  There is no alienation of anyone if the new system that much better than everything else, only common sense to evolve your photography with a better system...

[Rocky]

Anyone who has issues with using a "square format" sensor should buy a Hasselblad 500 series camera with an 80, 120 or 150mm lens, 10 rolls of Provia 100f or Velvia 100, and shoot at least 2 photos a day for 2 months. By the time those two months are up, you'll be wondering why every camera doesn't have a square sensor (with a landscape/ portrait crop option, for those few occasions where that works better). Guaranteed...

I do not have problem with the squre format. However, I do want to point out why Hasselblad (also Rollieflex and other copies) is using a square format. The penta prism for Hasslblad (Rollieflex also) is extremely heavy and expensive. so It it not an option for most of the users. Waist level view finder is the norm for the users.  So can you imagine people using it side way??? The squre format will eliminate the rotaion of the camera body.
Back to the arguement about "Standard  height to width ration".  There is no standard. However, human vision do have more width than height, it is about 3:2, individual milage may vary. That is why the movie industry set this standard at the beginning and Leica adopted it since day one and evey body follows. TV has been using 4:3 for a long time. Movies has been using wide screen for a long time also. DH TV has moved away from 4:3. So what is the right ratio???
The only thing that we will give up in square format is the angle of view in the horizotal direction. For any given lens, it will be narrower.
There are people agrue that with square format ( based on existing FF lens) will have less usable sensor area.  It nay not be the case. Let us use 8 X 10 print as a case for discussion. For a FF, an 8 X10 will use  24mm X 30mm area of the sensor. on a quare 30mm X 30mm sensor, it will stil use 30mm X 24mm. Exactly the same! For 12 X14 print,  24mm x 28mm will be used from FF. It is actually smaller than the 30mm X 25.7 mm from the 30mm square sensor.

[Etienne]

FF is 36 x  24 mm
A square sensor would have to be 36 x 36 mm, to reproduce the wide angle and DOF characteristics of FF.
This would probably make the body much more expensive.

[KitH]

wasn't something written before Chirstmas about the production cost of FF sensors?  specifically they're very difficult to manufacture and prone to wastage through random defects.  As I recall, APS-H was the largest size to fit onto the dies used to make silicon wafers without risking excessive wastage when a defect occurs.   My guess is a square format APS-H might be a lot easier to produce and could allow them to get to higher quality than FF at a reasonable fabrication cost.  Then carry on using the best parts of the EF lenses. 

I'm biased, I like square.  I was given a 6x6 Rollei for my 18th birthday, which led to many splendid pictures, but rather poor school exam results.   I still have that camera.  No idea where those exam certificates are.

[bvukich]

I guess, if you cant beat 'em, join 'em...

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=oOuW9odA9hA
	Small | Large

[Catastrophile]

if the FF sensor is increased by a factor of just 5.8% diagonally (ie to ~ 37.7x26mm, diagonal=45.7mm instead of 36x24mm, digonal=43.26mm), then one can shoot 16:9 (using all the 37.7mm and cropping a little bit from the 26mm), or 3:2 (cropping from both to 36x24), or 4:3 (using all 26 while cropping a bit from the 37.7), such cropping would result in an imaging area that has exactly a diagonal of 43.26mm (ordinary diagonal of FF), so FF lenses would be able to cover up to these dimensions for all 3 mentioned aspect ratio's without corner issues. would be nice if the RAW image use the whole 37.7x26 and one can decide later how the image will be cropped. just to note here the whole area itself is very close to 3:2 in aspect ratio.

have a look at this diagram if you find the explanation above not clear enough:
http://farm4.static.flickr.com/3061/2932234860_0f0d5242ed_z.jpg?zz=1
it was originally about one of the Panasonic multi-aspect cameras, so forget about the number of pixels in the W & H dimensions, and think in terms of the given percentage numbers, 100 is the diagonal of the original sensor (43.26 for FF).

[bvukich]

When will you guys get it? With the EF registry distance of 44mm you can't have a mirror that will give you a short side much over 24mm. It has nothing to do with lens baffles or image circles. It is impossible to make a reflex camera with a 44mm lens registry distance anything over a 26mm square, even a non moving pellicle mirror can't do it. The only way you can realise a longer short side, and see through the lens, is to read off the sensor.

That part never even crossed my mind.

A mirror to cover a 30.6mm tall sensor would be an absolute minimum of 43.27mm tall.

[Rocky]

When will you guys get it? With the EF registry distance of 44mm you can't have a mirror that will give you a short side much over 24mm. It has nothing to do with lens baffles or image circles. It is impossible to make a reflex camera with a 44mm lens registry distance anything over a 26mm square, even a non moving pellicle mirror can't do it. The only way you can realise a longer short side, and see through the lens, is to read off the sensor.

From 24 X 36mm to 30X30mm, the "Shortside" onlyincreased by 6mm, ie. 3 mm on each end of the "short side". If you look inside the film slr or FF dslr. You can see that there are easily 3mm space between the edge of the view finder and the insde of the camera body. This space is "reserved for the morror movement. If we think outside of the box and put the mirror hinge at the bottom of the camera. It may be doable. 

[CR Backup Admin]

From 24 X 36mm to 30X30mm, the "Shortside" onlyincreased by 6mm, ie. 3 mm on each end of the "short side". If you look inside the film slr or FF dslr. You can see that there are easily 3mm space between the edge of the view finder and the insde of the camera body. This space is "reserved for the morror movement. If we think outside of the box and put the mirror hinge at the bottom of the camera. It may be doable.

How would auto focus work?  Where would the sub mirror be located?  The mirror would hit the sensor if it swung down, and block all light if it swung up. Remember, the mirror is diagonal at about 45 degrees, so it grows more than the increase in the sensor height.

[bvukich]

When will you guys get it? With the EF registry distance of 44mm you can't have a mirror that will give you a short side much over 24mm. It has nothing to do with lens baffles or image circles. It is impossible to make a reflex camera with a 44mm lens registry distance anything over a 26mm square, even a non moving pellicle mirror can't do it. The only way you can realise a longer short side, and see through the lens, is to read off the sensor.

From 24 X 36mm to 30X30mm, the "Shortside" onlyincreased by 6mm, ie. 3 mm on each end of the "short side". If you look inside the film slr or FF dslr. You can see that there are easily 3mm space between the edge of the view finder and the insde of the camera body. This space is "reserved for the morror movement. If we think outside of the box and put the mirror hinge at the bottom of the camera. It may be doable.

The mirror is on a 45 degree angle, so 6mm of sensor equates to 8.48mm of mirror ( 6*sqrt(2) ). There is only 44mm from the front face of the flange, to the film (sensor) plane.  Being able to flip up a 43.27mm mirror in that space will be tight, to say the least.  With careful body design, it may be possible.

To flip down, you would probably need even more room, because then you have to clear the shutter too.

[c.d.embrey]

 ... the most important thing I don't like is the cost of lenses that are large enough to cover a square image sensor.  and the need to buy a totally new set of them.  for that reason, I think all the square sensor rumors are very unrealistic, unless canon is looking to seriously alienate a large portion of its professional and serious amateur customer base.

Canon has done that before when they switched from the FD mount to the EF mount in 1987. The FD mount was introduced when Canon built their first Pro Camera, the F1. And lots of Pros were really unhappy when Canon made all their FD lenses obsolete. No reason that history can't be repeated.