What about a more versatile sensor dimensions?

[LifeAfter]

Hello guys,

I was thinking after Canon announced this high-sensitivity 35 mm full-frame CMOS,
it would be great to have (not new to opinion) maybe a square sensor!

Well, for the video i think it would not be the best choice while it would get a lot of
sensor area out of use, and at the same time the 16:9 format will be a little small.

But i think while it would be The SENSOR for APS-H lovers, it would have some advantages:

Less vignetting, less distortion, less every artifacts, it will use the sweet spot of the lenses, resulting with sharper corner to corner image, maybe more noise but that should get better with the new technology.
That was all about quality, but that's not all. What about the versatility? = Best square Images, not having to turn the camera for portrait format.

But once again, i'ts maybe just a dream, and probably it will never happen mainly because of the video, and of course having another format it's just too much, too small compared to FF...

 

[RLPhoto]

If it was square, It would save my need's for battery grips.

 

[LifeAfter]

Yes, minus the grip.... not e good revenue decision

 

[rs]

What about the mirror?

 

[moreorless]

I'm guessing too many lenses like the 24-105mm have plastic covering the image circle that would be needed for a square sensor, might be interesting for a new system though.

I'v always thought going the other way might be interesting, more panoramic rather than squarer. Some people preffer the wider aspect and having say a sensor the width of FF but the height of ASPC would potentially save money on the sensor/mirror/viewfinder while still allowing EF lenses. Heck if were really getting fantasy make it mirrorless and include a built in shift function so you can use as much image circle as on FF.

 

[qwerty]

A 1.6:1 sensor size is a pretty good choice considering that its expensive to make the sensors. It gives you much more flexibility than a square sensor - specifically it allows you to cover a much wider range of aspect ratios with a given amount of cropping.

As an example, to crop a 35mm 1.6:1 sensor to the size of a 24mmx24mm square sensor, you would give up a third of the area. If you cut a third of the area off of the other dimension, you get a 2.25:1 aspect ratio (getting into cinema and wide landscape formats). If you wanted to take a picture of a skyscraper, you could crop the other way to get a 1:2.25 aspect ratio. To get the same aspect ratio starting with a square sensor, you would have to throw away about 55% of the pixels.

In short, as long as you can be bothered to rotate the camera with a standard sensor, you can get anything from a 1:2.25 to a 2.25:1 aspect ratio (a 5x range) while still keeping two thirds of the pixels. With a square sensor, you could only go from a 1.5:1 to a 1:1.5 ratio, which is a 2.25x range.

In short, rectangular image sensors are a lot more flexible for the type of shooting most people want to do. Not to dismiss above points about having to rotate cameras, and square sensors having a somewhat higher percentage of the area in the middle of the lenses, but until the sensor is the 'cheap' part of the system, I am sticking to rectangular sensors.

 

[Mt Spokane Photography]

As you noted, its video, and there is a standard format for video, both TV screens and Movie screens.

It makes no sense at all to have a square sensor for video and pay big bucks for the sensor area that is not usable.

Its the same story for stills, but even worse for video.

Sensor cost is based on the area, more area is more cost, and its not linear, 20% more area might be twice the cost.

 

[sulla]

NO NO NO NO NO

round sensors rule!

Would be a nightmare to produce, but a dream to use.
The blinds on some lenses (eg 24-105) could be removed, I'm sure.

 

[LewisShermer]

Hasselblad?

 

[wickidwombat]

why not just make the sensor a circle and you can crop as you please