Patent: A new mirrorless camera body design with integrated grip with pass-through

[Deleted member 386702]

Patent the idea quickly (a flipping sensor).
At some point a square sensor might be a reality. Circular I suppose it more wasteful.

Round is an ideal "expression". Pixels that are not to be used for any existing shape could be ignored (I bet this would be quite expensive to produce then, though). Anyway, I like the idea of rotating cage. A bit of a Sci-Fi feeling. And for the patent, well, many imaginative children probably should be paid for their ideas...

 

[Australisblue]

Because let’s face it, it is so much easier to make a new format that the current lenses don’t work on just to save turning your camera 90°.

I can’t remember how often this thoughtless thought experiment has come up on this forum over the years but it isn’t going to happen.

I was wondering how long it would take for the fun police to arrive.

 

[privatebydesign]

I was wondering how long it would take for the fun police to arrive.

Yeh I got here. Do you really see a time within the next twenty years that Canon will come out with yet another lens mount?

 

[David - Sydney]

Yeh I got here. Do you really see a time within the next twenty years that Canon will come out with yet another lens mount?

RF-s??

 

[privatebydesign]

RF-s??

Well if they did that they would have an even smaller image circle so your square is going to be even smaller....

 

[Bahrd]

Well... and why not simply integrate a mechanism that turns the sensor (or the whole cage of the mount) in either portrait or landscape mode (with a button to do so) or would be able to determine horizontal/vertical position by itself with a switch... [...] ?

What about an EVF? Should it switch accordingly?
As @privatebydesign said - just rotate the camera by 90° (with a 1D-shaped body I have even found it convenient for left-handed operations).

 

[Australisblue]

Yeh I got here. Do you really see a time within the next twenty years that Canon will come out with yet another lens mount?

I don't recall myself mentioning a new camera mount, only a friendly discussion about something we already know isn't happening.

 

[privatebydesign]

I don't recall myself mentioning a new camera mount, only a friendly discussion about something we already know isn't happening.

The point about the new lens mount is due to the fact that the sensors, as you have hypothesized and drawn them, require a larger image circle than current lenses have.

I fully encourage and enjoy friendly discussions, but also feel actual facts are a sound basis for them even when it is just a thought experiment.

In this diagram of yours the black rectangle represents current 24mm x 36mm sensors, the circle is very close to the image circles projected by RF lenses, ergo, to cover a square sensor the size of your suggested square, you would need new lenses which would require another mount.

You also ignore the fact that the square format has been around for a long time, indeed I own a 6x6 camera back, and it is an incredibly niche and unpopular aspect ratio, especially now record and CD covers are a severely diminished market.

So please, let’s have a friendly discussion, but let’s include history and physics in it.

 

[Australisblue]

The point about the new lens mount is due to the fact that the sensors, as you have hypothesized and drawn them, require a larger image circle than current lenses have.

I fully encourage and enjoy friendly discussions, but also feel actual facts are a sound basis for them even when it is just a thought experiment.

In this diagram of yours the black rectangle represents current 24mm x 36mm sensors, the circle is very close to the image circles projected by RF lenses, ergo, to cover a square sensor the size of your suggested square, you would need new lenses which would require another mount.
View attachment 199554
You also ignore the fact that the square format has been around for a long time, indeed I own a 6x6 camera back, and it is an incredibly niche and unpopular aspect ratio, especially now record and CD covers are a severely diminished market.

So please, let’s have a friendly discussion, but let’s include history and physics in it.

Just trim off the corners, I thought that was obvious.

 

[Deleted member 386702]

What about an EVF? Should it switch accordingly?
As @privatebydesign said - just rotate the camera by 90° (with a 1D-shaped body I have even found it convenient for left-handed operations).

And how about keeping the camera always in the same position ?
Or at the other extreme opposite, being able to rotate it thoughtlessly in any position... ? (endless debate, don't you think ?).

Anyway, you're right, any of that kind of design would probably imply a weak efficiency to cost ratio, considering what can be actually produced with earth ressources at this right time (maybe, nothing more) and many other subjects that humans should prioritize vs "futuristics" camera designs.

On the other hand (OK... ), left-handed needs are not addressed either by the design shown in this article (sadly, as usual, may I say)... but could be.
Cameras should have the ability of assigning buttons and dials symmetrically...
I'm supposed to be right handed, but still, I would like to have the ability to change hand (and eye) from time to time. In fact, I would really like cameras to be indifferent to orientation and even, I bet I would use it all the time if it was to be an actual thing.

And indeed, this could already be quite challenging as a design goal, without even thinking of rotating cages or so, which implies the use of much more - maybe unavailable - components to be realised ...

Umbrella by Pierre-Lagarde on DeviantArt

www.deviantart.com

Tribal Tech by Pierre-Lagarde on DeviantArt

www.deviantart.com

 

[Skyscraperfan]

It would work with an APS-C sensor though. It could be 24x24 mm and there would be enough space for the pins. Of course that could mean that you would need to use a full frame lens on your APS-C body, as APS-C lenses might still have that rectangular cutout.

The 3:2 format wastes quite a lot of area of the image circle. For a given circle that largest rectangle with all corners on the circle is a square. 4:3 for example is closer to q square and therefore uses more of the image circle.

If wish Canon had found a way to place the pins outside the image circle. The could be in the mount for example. Than we could have any screen ratio we want. For Instagram for example I could use a 5:4 ratio that gives you the largest images there. At each ratio the corners would be at different points of the circle. So each ratio would catch some pixels that other ratios would not catch. So it would be better than just using 3:2 and then cropping to the required ratio. 4:3 for example may be less wide that 3:2, but at the same time the height grows a little.

If the technology for producing sensors is already there for years, I wonder if it would really be expensive to make them a little bigger.

 

[Australisblue]

It would work with an APS-C sensor though. It could be 24x24 mm and there would be enough space for the pins. Of course that could mean that you would need to use a full frame lens on your APS-C body, as APS-C lenses might still have that rectangular cutout.

Yeah I was forgetting the pins on the full frame RF get in the way anyway.

 

[dflt]

UnderWater

 

[usern4cr]

I am not expecting something like this to come out anytime in the near future, I like to dream though. Surely at some distant point they'll be scratching their heads for the next innovation? "Ok team, we have our 4 Gigapixel sensor, 8,000 frames per second, 32K video, 35 stops dynamic range that's a few years old now.. hmm ideas?? Hang on, I remember a post on Canon Rumors from earlier this century about an idea.." :-D Yeah, there are other shapes that would allow for full frame landscape/portrait being slightly more efficient with silicon use but none quite as flexible.

It's also not just about size but also speed and convenience not needing to flip the camera around, I find in some action situations I change quite a lot and slows down the flow of things a little, maybe it's just me and everyone's situation/preferences are different.

Anyway, this idea wouldn't work with some of my RF lenses as far as I can see as they have a rectangular cutout at the rear to match the current sensor shape (not all RF lenses are like this though from a quick look at a couple in my collection).

OUCH! I just looked at my RF lenses, and 3 of them (15-35L, 24-70L, 1.4 TC) have the rectangular(or rectangular-ish) mask at the mount! That means (to me) that the whole idea of a square sensor, or an additional 90 degree sensor rotation, to allow 3:2 portrait shots is a non-starter for the RF system for that reason alone. So, we're back to rotating your single grip camera for portraits or to using a dual grip body. I just learned something today! - Thanks for mentioning this, Australiablue.

 

[Loswr]

Because let’s face it, it is so much easier to make a new format that the current lenses don’t work on just to save turning your camera 90°.

It’s not intended to save turning the camera 90° when taking the picture, it’s intended to save not turning the camera 90° when taking the picture.

Because let’s face it, it would be so much easier to buy a new format and several new lenses to save learning how to compose the shot you want, rather than just pressing the shutter button and making all the decisions later.

 

[martin_p_a]

The point about the new lens mount is due to the fact that the sensors, as you have hypothesized and drawn them, require a larger image circle than current lenses have.

I fully encourage and enjoy friendly discussions, but also feel actual facts are a sound basis for them even when it is just a thought experiment.

In this diagram of yours the black rectangle represents current 24mm x 36mm sensors, the circle is very close to the image circles projected by RF lenses, ergo, to cover a square sensor the size of your suggested square, you would need new lenses which would require another mount.
View attachment 199554
You also ignore the fact that the square format has been around for a long time, indeed I own a 6x6 camera back, and it is an incredibly niche and unpopular aspect ratio, especially now record and CD covers are a severely diminished market.

So please, let’s have a friendly discussion, but let’s include history and physics in it.

When looking at the popularity of Instagram, I’d argue it isn’t an unpopular format… most shoot with their phone, but for someone looking to upgrade their camera to up their Instagram game, I can imagine that shooting square could be an interesting option… but it’d need to come in mainstream cameras (probably also with a UI overhaul, internet capabilities to upload and maybe even apps to edit on device, but that’s another discussion and not something I’d want for myself, but maybe something that could bring a new audience to dedicated cameras…)

And then, just because people don’t buy physical records and CDs doesn’t mean the digital version doesn’t need a cover image… I’d say there’s even more music being produced now, cause it’s way easier than before, and it all needs cover art (not always photos but still)

It’s not intended to save turning the camera 90° when taking the picture, it’s intended to save not turning the camera 90° when taking the picture.

Because let’s face it, it would be so much easier to buy a new format and several new lenses to save learning how to compose the shot you want, rather than just pressing the shutter button and making all the decisions later.

Same could – and has been — said for any photography innovation… « learn how to focus rather than letting the AF do it for you », « learn to change your roll of film rather than choosing the appropriate ISO for each shot on your digital camera », « use a tripod rather than relying on IS/IBIS », « learn to time your photos rather than looking for higher FPS bodies », etc. That’s a very trite argument.

 

[unfocused]

When looking at the popularity of Instagram, I’d argue it isn’t an unpopular format… most shoot with their phone, but for someone looking to upgrade their camera to up their Instagram game, I can imagine that shooting square could be an interesting option…

You can select a 1:1 crop with the R series. So while I agree that the popularity of Instagram and other social media make the square format more popular, there is no reason you would need a special camera to shoot in a square format.

 

[unfocused]

What I always enjoy about the square format discussions is that so many people think you can get a larger image out of the lens circle with a square crop. I barely passed geometry but I at least know that the total area won't change if you draw a square or a rectangle within the circle.

 

[privatebydesign]

When looking at the popularity of Instagram, I’d argue it isn’t an unpopular format… most shoot with their phone, but for someone looking to upgrade their camera to up their Instagram game, I can imagine that shooting square could be an interesting option… but it’d need to come in mainstream cameras (probably also with a UI overhaul, internet capabilities to upload and maybe even apps to edit on device, but that’s another discussion and not something I’d want for myself, but maybe something that could bring a new audience to dedicated cameras…)

And then, just because people don’t buy physical records and CDs doesn’t mean the digital version doesn’t need a cover image… I’d say there’s even more music being produced now, cause it’s way easier than before, and it all needs cover art (not always photos but still)

Instagram started with the square format, now not so much, fewer and fewer posts are square. But as you say yourself, most posts are direct from phones so how relevant is the ‘proper‘ camera in that? Even a square cropped 4/3 sensor gives much higher image quality than a phone, so where’s the benefit in forcing the proper camera user into shooting square full time, then they’d need to crop for the other formats Instagram supports!

Most music imagery for releases is tied into the video shoots or is a graphics image , square format is close to extinct in the commercial world.

 

[Loswr]

When looking at the popularity of Instagram, I’d argue it isn’t an unpopular format… most shoot with their phone, but for someone looking to upgrade their camera to up their Instagram game, I can imagine that shooting square could be an interesting option…

That’s just what a new high-end, square ‘fuller frame’ sensor camera needs – a dedicated Instagram button. Great idea!

Of course, Canon tried something like that once, and never again.



But I’m sure it would succeed on a much more expensive model, with an Instagram button instead of a Facebook button.

Same could – and has been — said for any photography innovation… « learn how to focus rather than letting the AF do it for you », « … That’s a very trite argument.

It was a tongue-in-cheek argument, but thanks for playing.