Anyone else wish Canon would ditch the 3x2 format?

[risc32]

Well, I don't know if i want it to be ditched, but what about a giving us something else? Sure with modern high mp cameras we can just crop whatever, but i still think i'd rather have a different shape. Or maybe a sensor with a 3x2 and maybe a 4x5 option, and i'm not referring to inbody cropping. i haven't done the math to see what the mp would work out to with the pixel density of say the 5dmk3, but wouldn't a 4x4 format offer the most sensor real estate anyway? If you were interested in such things... I don't know if it's even technically possible for this arrangement, but i think it could be advantageous. Or is it just me that finds 3x2 to not usually be the best arrangement?

 

[Loswr]

Re: Anyone else wish would would ditch the 3x2 format?

Well, the limitation for a Canon body is the EF lens image circle, with a radius of 21.6mm. Geometrically, the largest rectangle (based on area) that can inscribed in that image circle is a square with sides of 30.55mm - so, that would offer the 'most sensor real estate' possible. The problem is when you crop that for a standard print size, you're left with a relatively short long edge, and correspondingly fewer MP in the final image.

 

[moreorless]

Well, the limitation for a Canon body is the EF lens image circle, with a radius of 21.6mm. Geometrically, the largest rectangle (based on area) that can inscribed in that image circle is a square with sides of 30.55mm - so, that would offer the 'most sensor real estate' possible. The problem is when you crop that for a standard print size, you're left with a relatively short long edge, and correspondingly fewer MP in the final image.

Some lenses block out anything besides the 3:2 aspect don't they?I'm guessing that if you want a different aspect from Canon its either going to be mirrorless or less likely MF.

Having said that one advanatge of going the built in lens route with the G1X to me seems to be that they could potentially offer different aspect ratio's without the same fuss as a mirrorless system. Imagine say a panoramic G1X, same kind of sensor area but a 2:1 aspect, perhaps maxmimised for MP's rather than higher ISO's with a relatively wide lens without the long zoom.

 

[ejenner]

Personally I like 3x2, just from a shape perspective. Not generally a fan of the 4x5 or square shape.

 

[Mt Spokane Photography]

The G1 X has 4:3 which is closer to being square, and we see people complaining that its not 3:2. No matter what it is, some will have a different preference.

Canon could make a square sensor, but dimensions would be limited by the lens, so a in-body crop is pretty much the same thing.

I use Lightroom to process my images and I can crop to any aspect ratio I want while importing images. Then, if I want to adjust the framing, I can do that later very quickly and easily.

 

[rugrats2001]

Obviously the best solution would be to have a circular sensor with the circumference touching the image circle. No more turning the camera 90 degrees for portrait, and you could set the dimension percentages for anything you like!

 

[Joellll]

Obviously the best solution would be to have a circular sensor with the circumference touching the image circle. No more turning the camera 90 degrees for portrait, and you could set the dimension percentages for anything you like!

By that logic, a rounded sensor would be ideal. xD

 

[Mt Spokane Photography]

Obviously the best solution would be to have a circular sensor with the circumference touching the image circle. No more turning the camera 90 degrees for portrait, and you could set the dimension percentages for anything you like!

Of course, many lens hoods would not work, and some "L" lenses apperar to have a baffle that may limit the vertical part of the circle.

Then, there is the cost to make the sensor. It would have much more area than FF and might cost XXX the price.

 

[AaronCR]

I'd like a 16x9 viewfinder.

 

[nvsravank]

I actually prefer 3:2. I had a canon S2 IS and its aspect ration was 4:3 and it was a pain to integrate those photos into my albums. I normally crop in camera. So when it comes time to print i will have to lose valuable image. It was a struggle to remember to give breathing space for Crop at print time with that camera.
The camera died and i am not buying the compacts because of that aspect ratio issue.

I am waiting for Canon to provide a 3:2 aspect ration compact. I dont if my waiting for it is futile.

 

[7enderbender]

Well, I don't know if i want it to be ditched, but what about a giving us something else? Sure with modern high mp cameras we can just crop whatever, but i still think i'd rather have a different shape. Or maybe a sensor with a 3x2 and maybe a 4x5 option, and i'm not referring to inbody cropping. i haven't done the math to see what the mp would work out to with the pixel density of say the 5dmk3, but wouldn't a 4x4 format offer the most sensor real estate anyway? If you were interested in such things... I don't know if it's even technically possible for this arrangement, but i think it could be advantageous. Or is it just me that finds 3x2 to not usually be the best arrangement?

I like the 3:2 and square ratios. There are for sure other alternatives that might be nice but you can usually get there by cropping in post processing. I wouldn't want that in camera and rather stick with what has worked well for decades. And as others have pointed out there are limits to what lenses will support currently.

Would a 36mm x 36mm sensor be interesting and technically possible? I don't know. Maybe.

As long as it's not another "HD" 16:9 format...

 

[Jim K]

Well, the 3:2 dates back to pre-WWII when the 35mm film still cameras were developed. IIRC it was based on 35mm movie film (about 5:4 horizontally on a vertically moving film stock) that was turned "sideways" (horizontal) in the still cameras and used two of the movie frames and the space between the pair of frames to yield a larger negative than the cine film did.

If you enlarge the sensor you are going to need new lenses that will cover the enlarged sensor. Three lens series? EF, EF-S and EF-? where some "EF" lenses will cover the enlarged sensor and others will not?

I don't think Canon would introduce a third series of EF type lenses for DSLRs. Perhaps for MF or mirrorless.

 

[sprinklestudios]

Just in case anyone is curious I drew out the sizes of the sensors in AutoCAD and got these numbers:

Figuring a 22MP FF sensor:

3:2 (36mm x 24mm) = 864mm2 or 22MP

1:1 (30.5mm x 30.5mm) = 930.25mm2 or 23.96MP

and if you are like me and like the 3:2 ratio and crop from the 1:1 sensor you get this:

cropped 3:2 (30.5mm x 20.333mm) = 620.167mm2 or 15.79MP

I think I will stick with the 3:2 (36mmx24mm) sensor!

 

[AJ]

My wife's Canon SD4000 point-n-shoot produces photos with a 4:3 aspect ratio. I was processing some shots the other day. I don't like the ratio as much as 3:2. I suppose it's easier to crop for 8.5"x11", but I still like 3:2.

 

[Spooky]

The issue is with the 45deg mirror, which would be so long for a square sensor that it would clash with the rear of the lens, I think!

 

[risc32]

Okay, thanks for everyone's input.

 

[J Mack]

No, it's rather a standard for a long time (35mm film). And Walmart prints my pix in 4" x 6" which is 2:3. How would they print a 4 x 5? With white borders on the ends?

 

[Random Orbits]

Obviously the best solution would be to have a circular sensor with the circumference touching the image circle. No more turning the camera 90 degrees for portrait, and you could set the dimension percentages for anything you like!

That would be cool for fisheyes!

 

[3kramd5]

While I'd love a 4X5 sensor format (my most common print aspect ratio), for web viewing I like the added length of 2X3.